Agenda of Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

1 Nau mai | Welcome

2 Ngā Tamōtanga | Apologies

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

3 Te Whakapuaki i te Whai Pānga | Declaration of Interest

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

4 Te Whakaū i ngā Āmiki | Confirmation of Minutes

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a) whakaū / confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 25 March 2025, as true and correct.

5 He Tamōtanga Motuhake | Leave of Absence

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

6 Te Mihi | Acknowledgements

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

7 Ngā Petihana | Petitions

7.1 Petition - Onehunga Business Association business improvement district (BID) area expansion ballot

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To receive a petition from Andrew Body and supporters about the Onehunga Business Association business improvement district (BID) area expansion ballot.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. A petition will be presented from Andrew Body regarding the Onehunga Business Association BID area expansion ballot and the subsequent resolution to increase the targeted rate.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a) whiwhi /receive the petition and thank Andrew Body and supporters for their attendance and presentation.

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 Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

8.1 Deputation: Te Waipuna Puawai - Bill Takerei

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To enable an opportunity for Bill Takerei (Chief Executive, Te Waipuna Puawai) to deliver a presentation during the Deputation segment of the business meeting.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Bill Takerei (Chief Executive, Te Waipuna Puawai) will be attending to present on the work Te Waipuna Puawai is doing in the Glen Innes community, with the support of the Local Board, focusing on enhancing the wellbeing of both the people and the land.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a) whakamihi / thank Bill Takerei for his attendance and presentation.

9 Te Matapaki Tūmatanui | Public Forum

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

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

10 Ngā Pakihi Autaia | Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Councillor Josephine Bartley’s 17 March 2025 – 11 April 2025 report	11

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Chairperson Maria Meredith’s 25 March 2025 to 26 April 2025 report	21

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

29 April 2025

Future of the Panmure Sign: Community Feedback and Options Analysis

File No.: CP2025/07754

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To present community feedback received via the AK Have Your Say process regarding the $250,000 budget allocation and the future of the original Panmure Sign, alongside the final technical feasibility assessment sought by the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board.

2. To seek Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board direction on the recommended option to build a new replica Panmure Sign, select the preferred location, determine the approach for the original sign, and confirm priorities for the design phase, based on the final assessment (Attachment C), community feedback (Attachment A), and the Board's commitment to resolving this issue.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. The original Panmure Sign, a community landmark removed in April 2019 for the Auckland Manukau Eastern Transport Initiative (AMETI) project, has been the subject of significant public interest and uncertainty regarding its future.

4. Initial structural advice provided via Auckland Transport (AT) (Existing Panmure Sign Reinstatement Feasibility Assessment Report, August 2020 - Attachment D) indicated the sign could not be easily or cost-effectively retrofitted, suggesting building a new sign might be more viable. Cost estimates from 2021 placed a new build at approximately $235,000 (Attachment E).

5. Following this, progress stalled, and AT proposed transferring the sign and a $250,000 budget to the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board in June 2023.

6. The Local Board initially declined the transfer on 30 November 2021 (resolution MT/2021/191), requesting AT continue working with the community. However, with the issue remaining unresolved and community advocacy continuing, the Board took ownership of the sign and budget in June 2023 (resolution MT/2023/69) to proactively seek a resolution for the community.

7. Community engagement (Oct-Dec 2024) was undertaken by an independent consultant to ensure impartiality.

8. The consultation question regarding a replica sign mentioned a "smaller version" based on the 2021 cost estimate (Attachment E); however, the intent is to replicate the original scale as closely as possible within the current $250,000 budget.

9. Feedback showed preferences for a new replica sign (28 per cent) as the top choice for budget use (Attachment A). Repurposing the original sign was also a key theme (24 per cent).

10. As part of accepting ownership, the Board requested a new feasibility assessment (resolution MT/2023/69(c)). Following direction at the 4 February 2025 workshop, staff commissioned this assessment.

11. Following direction at the 4 February 2025 workshop, staff commissioned the updated structural assessment. The final report (Structural Assessment Report, 14 April 2025 - Attachment C) confirms significant structural deficiencies in the original sign.

12. The April 2025 assessment (Attachment C) outlines considerable risks and uncertainties associated with attempting to retrofit the aged structure. It also advises that salvaging key original components (specifically the letter discs, referred to as 'fins', and the stainless steel top globe art, referred to as 'tubes') for reuse would be difficult and likely more costly than fabricating new ones.

13. Due to these combined factors, the final technical recommendation in the April 2025 assessment (Attachment C) is to pursue replacement rather than attempting to retrofit the original sign.

14. Through workshop analysis with the board in February 2025, Te Horata cycleway entrance / 525 Ellerslie Panmure Highway is the preferred location identified.

15. Building a new replica sign aligns with the final technical recommendation (Attachment C) and the community consultation preference for budget use (Attachment A). While this means the original fabric cannot be preserved in its entirety, it provides certainty.

16. Efforts will be made to replicate the original scale within budget, and salvaging original components for reuse will be a primary consideration during design and procurement.

17. Based on the final technical advice in the April 2025 structural assessment (Attachment C) and considering community feedback, this report recommends proceeding with building a new replica Panmure Sign at the preferred location, prioritising the salvage and reuse of original components where feasible during design, and separately investigating repurposing options for components that cannot be reused on the replica.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a) whakaae / approve the construction of a new replica Panmure Sign for installation, as the preferred use for the $250,000 budget. This decision is based on the final technical advice in the April 2025 Structural Assessment Report (Attachment C) which recommends replacement over retrofit due to structural risks, uncertainties, and the difficulty/cost associated with salvaging original components for reuse, and alignment with community feedback favouring a replica sign (Attachment A).

b) whakaae / approve Te Horata cycleway entrance / 525 Ellerslie Panmure Highway as the preferred location for the new replica Panmure Sign (as identified through workshop analysis of options), subject to Auckland Transport landowner approval, necessary consents, and further site investigations.

c) tuhi tīpoka / note that the recommendation to build a new replica sign is based on the final technical advice (April 2025 Structural Assessment Report - Attachment C) which identifies significant risks and challenges with retrofitting the original sign, including the difficulty of salvaging key components like the letter discs ('fins') and the top globe art ('tubes').

d) whakaae / agree that salvaging original components (letter discs/'fins', globe art/'tubes') for reuse will be a primary priority considered during the detailed design and procurement process for the new replica sign, balanced against technical feasibility and cost implications identified in Attachment C.

e) direct staff to investigate options for the appropriate reuse, recycling, or disposal of any original Panmure Sign components that cannot be incorporated into the new replica sign, exploring potential heritage interpretation or community art initiatives within the allocated $250,000 project budget.

Horopaki

Context

18. The AMETI - Eastern Busway project required the removal of the Panmure Sign in April 2019 due to the reconfiguration of the Panmure roundabout into a signalised intersection. The original location ceased to exist (see Image 1).

Image 1: Footprint of the Panmure roundabout if it were there today.

19. The sign, commissioned in 1994 and a recognisable local feature, was placed in storage by Auckland Transport (AT). While its removal was part of the AMETI consent process and did not require reinstatement, significant community attachment to the sign quickly became apparent.

20. In August 2020, AT commissioned a feasibility assessment (Attachment D). This report concluded that the sign's post did not meet current structural standards for wind loading and that retrofitting would be "very difficult and expensive," recommending against reinstatement due to public safety risks.

21. Based on this 2020 advice, and supported by 2021 cost estimates indicating a new build would cost approximately $235,000 (excl. GST) (2021 New Build Cost Estimate - Attachment E), AT proposed in November 2021 to transfer ownership of the sign and provide $250,000 funding to the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board to determine its future (Report reference: CP2021/18251).

22. The Local Board considered this offer but, citing community concerns and the perceived limitations based on the 2020 feasibility assessment (Attachment D), declined the transfer via resolution MT/2021/191 on 30 November 2021. The Board requested that AT continue to work with the Local Board and the Panmure community to resolve the issue within AT’s remit.

23. Over the following period, the future of the sign remained uncertain. Community interest persisted, evidenced by ongoing advocacy, deputations to the Local Board, and an online petition launched in early 2022 calling for the sign's reinstatement and preservation.

24. Faced with an unresolved situation and continued community desire for action, AT revisited the matter with the Local Board. Recognising the need for a community-led solution, the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board resolved to take ownership of the Panmure Sign and the associated $250,000 budget (aligned with the 2021 new build estimate) on 20 June 2023 via resolution MT/2023/69.

25. By taking ownership, the Board through clause (c) of resolution MT/2023/69 specifically requested AT undertake another assessment to confirm the structural and geotechnical feasibility of reinstating the sign.

26. While this assessment was not completed by AT following the transfer, the local board's original request highlighted the need for updated information. Following direction given at the 4 February 2025 workshop, Parks & Community Facilities staff commissioned the updated assessment (the March 2025 structural assessment, Attachment C) to obtain this clarity.

27. Public presentations regarding petitions continued, including at the June 2023 and May 2024 local board meetings (acknowledged via resolution MT/2024/51 on 28 May 2024), reinforcing the ongoing community investment in the sign's fate.

28. Following the acceptance of ownership, the project was formally included in the Customer and Community Services Capex Work Programme 2024/2025 via resolution MT/2024/89 on 25 June 2024. This allocated the $250,000 budget to project #46276, tasking staff with undertaking the feasibility work requested by the Board, and exploring options to reinstate, repurpose, or divest the sign, with an estimated completion by June 2025.

29. While awaiting updated technical information, the Local Board directed staff (Parks & Community Facilities - P&CF) to initiate community engagement based on the information available at the time (the 2020 feasibility assessment). Given the history and community sensitivities surrounding the sign, an external, independent consultant was engaged in July 2024 to manage an impartial consultation process, facilitate stakeholder discussions (Attachment B), run the AK Have Your Say survey (Attachment A), and report back on community feedback and potential options.

30. The consultation question regarding a replica sign mentioned a "smaller version" due to the 2021 cost estimate (Attachment E) relative to the budget; however, the intent, should this option proceed, is to replicate the original scale as closely as feasible within the available $250,000.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Consultants engagement approach

31. The independent consultant led community and stakeholder engagement across October-December 2024, using the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) spectrum (see Attachment B for details).

32. The options presented during this consultation were framed by the understanding derived from the August 2020 feasibility assessment (Attachment D), which suggested retrofitting was not technically feasible or cost-effective. Questions, therefore, focused on alternatives like a new replica sign or using the funds for other projects.

Stakeholder and community engagement (October – December 2024)

33. Key community stakeholders and partners were engaged through in-person workshops held at the local board offices in Panmure (Notes in Attachment B).

34. The AK Have Your Say online consultation gathered wider feedback based on the assumption that retrofitting was not viable (Results in Attachment A).

AK Have Your Say results

35. 196 responses were received (64 per cent from the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki area). The full results are in Attachment A.

36. The results for questions one (budget use) and three (original sign future) are detailed in Table 1 below:

Table 1: AK Have Your Say results for questions one and three.

Question	Option	Response percentage
Question one: Budget use	Install a new, smaller replica sign	30 per cent
	Allocate funds elsewhere	22 per cent
	New sign inspired by original	16 per cent
	Other art project	8 per cent
	Other	24 per cent
	Don't know	1 per cent
Question three: Original sign future	Repurpose	24 per cent
	Believe it can be repaired	14 per cent
	Recycle/dispose	11 per cent
	Auction	10 per cent
	Other	10 per cent
	Donate to museum	8 per cent
	Donate to community	3 per cent
	Blank	20 per cent

Note: Some response percentages in Table 1 may differ slightly from raw totals in Attachment A. This is due to analysis where some comments provided under 'Other' were re-categorised to the most relevant specific option.

37. While 'new replica' was the most selected option for budget use (noting the question specified "smaller" based on 2021 costings), the responses to Question three show a significant desire to repurpose (24 per cent) or repair (14 per cent) the original sign, indicating a strong underlying attachment to the existing structure.

Location options analysis

38. Following the consultation, four potential locations for a new or retrofitted sign were presented and discussed with the local board at a workshop on 4 February 2025. These options were:

39. Option 1: Entrance to Te Horata cycleway / 525 Ellerslie Panmure Highway.

· Pros: High visibility near original area, fulfils 'Gateway to Panmure' feedback and close to previously discussed location, potentially restoring trust.

· Cons: Requires AT landowner approval and potential need for encroachment license if over eight metre height limit (standard AT height limit).

40. Option 2: 17 Pilkington Road (Outside Panmure Library/Local Board office).

· Pros: Near community hub and Local Board has landowner authority.

· Cons: Less visible, maximum height 6m (standard AC height limit) and smaller scale sign required.

41. Option 3: Kings Road / Queens Road Junction (traffic island).

· Pros: Visible location.

· Cons: Limited footprint, potential sightline issues (uninvestigated), less prominent than Option 1, requires AT approval and eight metre height limit/encroachment license potential.

42. Option 4: Queens Road to Korma Lane Upgrade Area.

· Pros: Potential integration into future town centre design.

· Cons: Long timeframe (three-five years for installation), risk of not fitting final design brief and maximum height six metres.

43. At the workshop, Option 1 (Te Horata cycleway entrance / 525 Ellerslie Panmure Highway) was identified as the preferred location for further investigation, primarily due to its high visibility and potential to act as a gateway feature, aligning well with community aspirations for the sign's presence.

New structural assessment findings (April 2025)

44. The new assessment (Attachment C), commissioned by P&CF staff following direction from the 4 February 2025 Local Board workshop (and fulfilling the intent of resolution MT/2023/69(c)), provides the definitive technical advice.

45. This assessment identified significant structural issues, noting the lower 3m section is non-compliant with a Demand/Capacity Ratio (DCR) of 1.70, indicating the expected structural load significantly exceeds its capacity. It noted retrofit carries considerable uncertainty and risk due to mandatory testing needs which will be needed to be done heading into the procurement of the sign.

46. The April 2025 assessment also advised that salvaging key original components like the letter discs ('fins') and the stainless steel top globe art ('tubes') for reuse would be difficult, time-consuming, and likely more costly than fabricating new ones.

47. Due to the combined structural risks, testing uncertainties, and the challenges in salvaging original parts, the final technical recommendation in the April 2025 assessment (Attachment C) is to pursue replacement rather than attempting to retrofit the original sign.

Analysis and advice

48. The final technical advice (Attachment C) strongly indicates that replacement is the most prudent option to ensure project success, compliance, and longevity.

49. Building a new replica sign aligns with:

· the final technical recommendation for replacement (Attachment C).

· the most popular option for budget use identified during community consultation (Attachment A).

· provides certainty regarding structural integrity and compliance.

50. While the consultation question mentioned a "smaller" replica based on 2021 costings (Attachment E), every effort will be made during the design phase to deliver a replica that honours the scale and presence of the original within the $250,000 budget.

51. This option means the original sign's fabric cannot be retained in its primary form. This trade-off is necessary based on the technical advice. However, acknowledging community sentiment, salvaging original components (letter discs/'fins', globe art/'tubes') for reuse will be prioritised during the design and procurement process where technically feasible and cost-effective, despite the challenges noted in Attachment C.

52. Recommendation (e) directs staff to investigate options for original components that cannot be incorporated into the replica.

53. The preferred location remains Option 1 (Te Horata cycleway entrance / 525 Ellerslie Panmure Highway).

Image 2 Location 1 - Concept of sign (location and scale not accurate)

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

54. This proposal has been considered in relation to Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan and the council's climate emergency declaration.

55. The recommended option is to build a new replica sign. This option has higher climate impacts compared to retrofitting due to:

· Embodied emissions: Manufacturing new materials (steel, concrete) generates significantly more embodied greenhouse gas emissions than reusing the existing structure.

· Waste generation: Decommissioning/disposing of the original sign and construction of the new sign will generate more waste. This is less aligned with circular economy principles (Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri Action Area E6, B7).

· Adaptation and resilience: A new structure will be designed to current engineering standards, accounting for wind loading under climate change. Foundation design will consider site conditions. The proposed location is not identified as being within an area highly vulnerable to key climate hazards.

· Overall assessment: Building a new replica sign aligns with the final technical advice but represents a less optimal outcome from a climate mitigation perspective (emissions, waste) compared to retrofitting. Mitigation efforts during design and construction (e.g., material selection, waste management, prioritising salvage of original components where feasible) should aim to minimise these impacts.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

56. P&CF will manage the project and take ownership of the retrofitted asset if approved.

57. Eke Panuku and Tāmaki Regeneration Company were consulted as key stakeholders regarding future plans for Panmure and potential interfaces. Their views support finding a resolution for the sign that respects community sentiment.

58. Auckland Transport (AT) owns the preferred location (Te Horata cycleway entrance / 525 Ellerslie Panmure Highway). Early engagement indicates AT requires a formal landowner approval application, and potentially an encroachment license depending on the final design height relative to their eight metre threshold.

59. AT staff have provided guidance on the process. Collaboration with AT will be essential for design, approval, and installation, particularly regarding managing works near the road corridor and cycleway.

60. Watercare and Auckland Council's Healthy Waters (stormwater) require formal approvals ('Works Over' consent) for any construction near their respective underground pipe assets identified at the preferred location. Early engagement has commenced to understand requirements.

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

Local impacts and local board views

61. This report and its recommendations directly respond to the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board's previous direction and commitment to resolving this matter for the community.

62. This includes its decision to take ownership (resolution MT/2023/69), its proactive steps to seek updated technical information (initially via resolution MT/2023/69(c)and subsequently through direction at the 4 February 2025 workshop), and the formal inclusion of the project in the 2024/2025 work programme (resolution MT/2024/89).

63. The recommendation for a new replica sign addresses the final technical advice and the most popular budget use option from consultation. It provides a way forward to reinstate a version of the landmark, supporting local identity and place-making for Panmure.

64. This proposal aligns with outcomes in the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board Plan 2023 ('Our People', 'Our Community') by responding to community interest and providing a visible landmark, although the loss of the original sign's fabric is noted.

65. The project will utilise the allocated budget. While the 2021 estimate suggested challenges replicating the original size within $250,000, efforts will be made in the design phase to achieve this where possible.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

66. Engagement with mana whenua for this project included a meeting with Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust representatives on 23 October 2024. This confirmed earlier views expressed at the AMETI Kaitiaki Forum (July 2020) indicating non-support for reinstating the sign within the AMETI Eastern Busway designation due to prioritisation of mana whenua mahi toi in that specific area. Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust expressed interest in potential future art projects outside the current designation.

67. The recommended proposal at the entrance to Te Horata cycleway / 525 Ellerslie Panmure Highway. This location is outside the AMETI designation area previously discussed with mana whenua, therefore respecting the specific locational feedback received. No specific sites of significance or cultural values relating to this proposed location have been identified through engagement to date.

68. The project aligns with Kia Ora te Hononga (Effective Māori Participation) through the engagement undertaken and by respecting the feedback received regarding location. Staff will continue to engage with mana whenua, particularly Ngāti Paoa, through the implementation phases.

69. Overall, impacts are considered neutral, respecting locational feedback and community identity, but noting the trade-off regarding heritage fabric and environmental impact.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

70. The funding source for this project is the $250,000 contribution from Auckland Transport, formally allocated to project #46276 via the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board's 2024/2025 Customer and Community Services Capex Work Programme (resolution MT/2024/89). This budget is confirmed as available.

71. Building a new replica sign requires detailed design and costing. The 2021 estimate was ~$235,000 (excl. GST, Attachment E). Current costs may differ, but every effort will be made during design to deliver a replica honouring the original scale within the $250,000 budget.

72. The retrofit option discussed in the April 2025 assessment (Attachment C) is not recommended due to technical risks and uncertainties.

73. The budget must cover all project phases (design, including investigation of component reuse, consents, fabrication, installation, management/repurposing of original sign). Staff will report back with detailed costings for the new replica sign.

74. Standard council procurement processes will be followed, incorporating the reuse of salvaged original components (letter discs/'fins', globe art/'tubes') as a primary consideration where feasible.

75. Ongoing operational costs for the maintained asset (e.g., inspections, cleaning) will need future budgeting within Parks & Community Facilities operational budgets.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

76. A preliminary assessment of risks associated with the recommended option (retrofitting the sign) has been undertaken, aligning with council's risk management framework. Significant risks and proposed mitigation strategies are summarised below. Risk management will be ongoing throughout the project lifecycle.

Table 2: Preliminary project risks and mitigations

Risk category	Risk description	Proposed mitigation strategies
Budget	Cost of designing/fabricating/installing a new replica sign (especially aiming for original scale and incorporating salvaged parts), plus managing the original sign, exceeds the $250k budget.	Undertake detailed design and costing early, explicitly including assessment of salvaging/reusing components; Value engineering during design; Confirm scope for managing original sign fits budget; Apply rigorous scope/change management.
Consenting/approvals	Delays or inability to obtain necessary landowner approval from Auckland Transport, or 'Works Over' consents from Watercare/Healthy Waters, impacting project timeline or feasibility at the preferred location.	Maintain early and ongoing engagement with AT, Watercare, and Healthy Waters; Prepare thorough and timely consent applications; Identify critical path dependencies; Maintain awareness of secondary location options (though less preferred) as a contingency.
Technical	Unforeseen site conditions (geotechnical) or issues encountered during the physical retrofit fabrication/installation process leading to delays or increased costs.	Conduct thorough geotechnical investigation prior to final foundation design; Utilise detailed structural design for retrofit work; Select experienced contractors through standard procurement processes; Implement robust site supervision and quality assurance.
Community expectation	Disappointment from community members strongly attached to original sign's fabric, or if replica scale is compromised by budget, or if salvage proves unfeasible.	Maintain transparency about technical advice (April 2025 report); Clearly communicate rationale & budget constraints; Actively promote investigation into repurposing options (Rec e); Clearly communicate outcomes of salvage assessment during design; Prioritise salvage where feasible (Recommendation d).
Asset condition	Further deterioration of the original sign while in storage prior to retrofit commencing, potentially increasing repair complexity or cost.	Continue secure storage of the asset; Commence detailed design and physical works in a timely manner following approvals to minimise storage duration.
Health, Safety & Wellbeing	Potential hazards during construction, installation, or relating to the final installed structure impacting workers or the public.	Adherence to all requirements under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015; Development and implementation of site-specific safety plans by contractors; Ensuring final design meets all relevant safety codes and standards.
Heritage	Loss of the original sign's physical fabric, as replacement is technically recommended. Potential damage to components during attempted salvage.	Acknowledge trade-off; Mitigate through Recommendation (e) to investigate repurposing/reuse options, making salvage assessment a key design priority (Recommendation d)

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

77. If the recommendations are approved, Parks & Community Facilities staff will undertake the following steps:

· send a closing-the-loop communication to participants of the AK Have Your Say consultation, outlining the decision made and the rationale,

· develop a detailed scope of works for the design and construction of a new replica Panmure Sign, specifying the assessment of salvaging original components (letter discs/'fins', globe art/'tubes') for reuse as a primary design priority,

· initiate the formal AT landowner approval / encroachment license application process and the 'Works Over' consent process with Watercare and Healthy Waters for the preferred location (Te Horata cycleway entrance / 525 Ellerslie Panmure Highway),

· undertake a detailed geotechnical investigation at the preferred location to inform foundation design,

· procure detailed design services for the new replica sign and foundation, ensuring the design process includes assessment of component salvage feasibility and cost, and aims to replicate the original scale within budget,

· provide updates to the local board with detailed plans for the new replica sign (including outcomes of salvage assessment), confirmed costings, consent status, and options for residual original components, before physical works commence,

· procure a suitable contractor for the physical works (new sign fabrication, foundation construction and installation), ensuring procurement considers the priority of reusing salvaged components where feasible,

· oversee the delivery of the physical works,

· provide updates to the local board and the community on project progress.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	A - AK Have Your Say Consultation Results Summary	41
b ⇩	B - Stakeholder Workshop Notes	83
c ⇩	C - Structural Assessment Report (April 2025)	89
d ⇩	D - Reinstatement Feasibility Assessment Report (August 2020)	109
e ⇩	E - Cost Assessment - Build New Sign (2021)	113

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Marcel Morgan, Manager Area Operations, Parks & Community Facilities

Authoriser

Julie Pickering, Head of Operations, Parks & Community Facilities

Nina Siers - Local Area Manager

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Grants Programme 2025/2026	119

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

29 April 2025

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Play Plan 2025

File No.: CP2025/05927

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Play Plan 2025 provides Maungakiekie-Tāmaki 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 Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Play Plan 2025 is now offered to the local board for adoption.

4. A Supplementary Information document has also been provided. 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 Maungakiekie-Tāmaki 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 planning each year.

6. The report recommends that Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board adopt the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Play Plan 2025 and use it as a resource for the future development of play.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a) hai / adopt the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki 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 Maungakiekie-Tāmaki 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 2024/2025 financial year a budget of $5,000 was allocated.

10. In the 2024/2025 work programme, staff committed to delivering a ‘play plan’ for Maungakiekie-Tāmaki 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 Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Play Plan 2025 was circulated to the local board in December 2024. Staff attended a local board workshop in February 2025 to receive elected member feedback, which 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 Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Play Plan 2025 (‘the play plan’) is aligned with the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki 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 Maungakiekie-Tāmaki 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 Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, 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, all play plans have been revised as follows:

· a Chair’s Message 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 Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Play Plan 2025, which is action-focused; and the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Play Plan 2025 Supplementary Information document, which includes supporting insights and other reference materials.

19. Elected members asked staff to engage with mana whenua before bringing the play plan to a business meeting for adoption. Staff explained that they had been working within existing council processes to seek iwi engagement on play plans since late 2023, but had been unable to confirm an agenda time at the mana whenua forum coordinated by Māori Outcomes staff. Staff agreed to work with Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board staff to seek direct iwi engagement as per the local board’s request.

20. Local board staff were unable to facilitate direct iwi engagement, and directed staff to try again through the Māori Outcomes processes. Staff have now successfully worked with the Māori Outcomes team and been scheduled to attend the mana whenua forum in April 2025. However, this has occurred too late for staff to be able to engage with iwi on the structure and content of the play plan.

21. At the April iwi engagement, staff will brief iwi representatives about the purpose and underlying values of the play plan, and invite ongoing engagement to shape the potential projects that will be delivered through the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Play Plan 2025 implementation in financial year 2026/2027 and beyond.

22. Staff will use 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

23. 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

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. 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

27. 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.

28. 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 Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board about how to provide play beyond a playground setting. In particular, tamariki voice has identified a widespread appetite for more adventurous play.

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

30. The play plan references the Māori outcomes identified in the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki 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.

31. 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

32. 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

33. The following table identifies risks associated with Maungakiekie-Tāmaki 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

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

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Play Plan 2025	131
b ⇩	Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Play Plan 2025 Supplementary Information	169

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Jacquelyn Collins - Play Portfolio Lead

Authorisers

Pippa Sommerville - Manager Sport & Recreation

Nina Siers - Local Area Manager

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

29 April 2025

Links to Glen Innes

File No.: CP2025/07537

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve Auckland Transport’s continued works on the Links to Glen Innes project.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Auckland Transport has completed a considerable amount of work on the Links to Glen Innes project, with two roads remaining to be completed, which are Line Road and Merton Road.

3. This project enables active modes such as walking and cycling and provides an opportunity for uptake from the community, as well as addressing numerous renewal activities, streetscape upgrades and utility uplift. This work otherwise would have had to go ahead but would have not included the facilities to enable these other modes.

4. As there is a large amount of intensification in the Glen Innes area, increased vehicle use is likely to cause challenges with continued overreliance on roading and parking.

5. Auckland Transport would like to seek approval from the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board for the continued delivery of the project.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a) whakaae / approve Auckland Transport’s continued work on the Links to Glen Innes project.

Horopaki

Context

History

6. The project was identified in the Auckland Cycling Programme Business Case (2017), to improve cycling and pedestrian connections from key residential and commercial areas in the community to the Glen Innes Train Station and was funded through the Urban Cycleways Programme.

7. Auckland Transport consulted with the public on the project in 2015, 2017 and 2022 to ensure the project was in partnership with the community. This feedback helped Auckland Transport identify key routes and ways we could improve outcomes for wider modes of transport.

8. Construction of this project started in October 2022, with Taniwha Street, Apirana Avenue and Morrin Road completed since then.

9. Remaining sections yet to be completed are Line Road, Merton Road and the intersection (roundabout) of Pilkington Road and Tripoli Road.

10. The below map shows this in more detail:

Project

11. Project work has been ongoing as per the above history. Auckland Transport's physical works contractor Downer has been managing the work on the ground using approved designs and traffic management plans.

12. The infrastructure delivered on-site, is what was publicly consulted during the consultation mentioned earlier. However, in regard to the Line Road component of the project, there were some variances which Auckland Transport have since addressed. Auckland Transport spoke to this in detail during a Local Board workshop on 8 April 2025.

Communications

13. Some comments were made by Elected Members and the community around communication from Auckland Transport regarding the ongoing works.

14. This was taken onboard, and Auckland Transport has increased social media posts, frequency of newsletters and added additional signage and noticeboard messages to explain ongoing works. The website has also been updated to be more comprehensive and relevant.

15. Our physical works contractor Downer has also undertaken communication on the ground with directly affected parties, with a mixture of verbal door-knocking interactions and letter drops. There has also been significant engagement by both Auckland Transport and Downer with the Glen Innes Business Association.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

16. Work on the Links to Glen Innes project is ongoing. Auckland Transport, is seeking endorsement to continue the project. This will give certainty to allow continued progress of construction with an indicative completion by late 2025 / early 2026.

17. The project has completed substantial improvements to walking and cycling whilst also addressing many maintenance activities and upgrade works that were also needed.

18. Walking and cycling connections will be enabled throughout the Glen Innes township area and also link into Te Ara Ki Uta Ki Tai (Glen Innes to Tāmaki Drive Shared Path) which is a substantial 7km long connection to the Auckland City Centre where many Glen Innes residents would be working or visiting. The map for this connection to Tāmaki Drive is below:

19. From Tāmaki Drive there is an existing shared path connection to the City Centre which has a loop network connecting to various parts of the City and to the North-western Shared Path.

20. With significant intensification in Glen Innes, enabling other modes of transport will be essential to keep our city moving.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

23. The Links to Glen Innes project specifically will improve walking and cycling uptake by having infrastructure that better caters to these modes of transport. Modal choice has significant positive impacts on climate and health.

24. This project contributes positively to Auckland Council’s Transport Emissions Reduction Pathway (TERP) which aims to reduce Auckland’s transport emissions by 64 percent by 2030. Specifically, by contributing potential modal shift towards walking, cycling and public transport.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

25. Wider Council group have not been consulted at this project is specific to the Road Controlling Authority (RCA).

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

Local impacts and local board views

26. The local board were engaged on this project several times since its conception with the most recent being on 8 April 2025.

27. The Manugakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board were supportive of the project in the most recent 2022 public consultation. The Local Board wanted to see further consideration given to the reduction in loss of car parking and improved safety options.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

28. 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.

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

30. This decision has no financial implications for Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board because Auckland Transport funds all projects and programmes mentioned in this report.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

31. There is no notable risk for the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board. There may be some potential ongoing reputational risk if there is significant disruption to vehicular traffic and other such matters. Whilst communications help with these concerns, there is no method to achieve 100 percent reach and/or consumption of said communications.

32. There is a risk with not proceeding further. The infrastructure at the roundabout has been built assuming the full scheme is delivered. If we do not complete the scheme, then it will require a rework to ensure the delivered facilities can function safely.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

33. Auckland Transport will continue construction, with the reassurance of the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board support.

34. Ongoing communication will be maintained through to completion of the project by late 2025 / early 2026.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Peter Naber - Elected Member Relationship Partner

Authorisers

John Gillespie - Head Stakeholder & Community Engagement

Nina Siers - Local Area Manager

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

29 April 2025

Mays Street and Grey Street intersection improvements

File No.: CP2025/07538

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve Auckland Transport’s planned upgrade of the intersection of May Road and Grey Street.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Auckland Transport had proposed upgrading this intersection in September 2022. A risk to road users, especially pedestrians, was identified as there were 12 crashes between 2016 and 2020 which all related to drivers failing to give way.

3. Due to a change in approach Auckland Transport would like to seek approval from the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board to have confidence to proceed with this project.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a) whakaae / approve Auckland Transport’s upgrade of the Mays Road and Grey Street intersection in Onehunga.

Horopaki

Context

4. At present the intersection at the Mays Road and Grey Street intersection is a give-way controlled T-intersection with a 30-degree angle for the two adjoining roads. Image below:

An aerial view of a road intersection

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

5. The proposed implementation by Auckland Transport will uplift the intersection to a roundabout, allowing more efficient and safer movements across the intersection. Additionally, there is improved uncontrolled crossing points for pedestrians with tactile pavers for accessibility users, and zebra priority on one of the four legs on Grey Street.

6. There will also be significant signage improvements, centre islands, a combination of vertical and horizontal displacement devices, footpath and vehicle crossing improvements. The proposed implementation is show below:

7. As part of our standard approach, the network effect of the implementation was reviewed and there it is not expected that this implementation would move traffic to neighbouring streets.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

8. This is a substantial improvement to the intersection. Implementation is to be at Auckland Transport’s cost.

9. There is some loss of kerbside parking to allow for the roundabout, and to have safe crossing points. The loss is not significant.

10. Public consultation showed that the majority of submitters , 77%, supported the proposal as is, or with minor changes:

11. The full consultation report is also attached if a deeper level of detail is needed.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

14. This project is likely to increase walking mode share by allowing safer connections on foot.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

15. Wider Council group have not been consulted as this project is specific to the Road Controlling Authority (RCA).

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

Local impacts and local board views

16. There were several engagements with Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board since project inception in 2022.

17. More recently, following an update on 16 October 2024 adjusting the design of the roundabout to meet new design standards, a Local Board member noted several points of concern on 12 November 2024, which were responded to on 19 December 2024.

18. Upon request on 9 April 2025 for Local Board support, it was suggested the Local Board were supportive, however it was requested that this item come to the Local Board for resolution on the 29 April 2025 business meeting.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

19. 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.

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

21. This decision has no financial implications for Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board because Auckland Transport funds all projects and programmes mentioned in this report.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

22. There is risk that this project may not proceed if there is no Local Board approval in April 2025 as the contract is set to expire in June.

23. Due to the presence of vertical deflection devices, in this case, speed cushions, there may be a risk of vibration or noise issues for surrounding properties.

24. There may be some negative sentiment during construction as the road may need detours or closures whilst work is being undertaken.

25. Slowing vehicles whilst being an intent of the project, may carry a negative sentiment from some motorists wanting to travel unimpeded.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

26. If there is Local Board support for this project, construction will likely begin in May or June 2025.

27. The Local Board will get further updates throughout construction.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Attachment A - Feedback summary DRP-0200 Mays Road Grey Street Intersection Roundabout	207

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Peter Naber - Elected Member Relationship Partner

Authorisers

John Gillespie - Head Stakeholder & Community Engagement

Nina Siers - Local Area Manager

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

29 April 2025

Asset recycling: 32 Church Crescent, 1/42 and 2/42 Church Crescent, Panmure and 2/10 Waipuna Road, Mount Wellington

File No.: CP2025/06828

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To endorse the disposal of 32 Church Crescent, 1/42 and 2/42 Church Crescent, Panmure and 2/10 Waipuna Road, Mount Wellington as part of council’s asset recycling programme.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. 32 Church Crescent, Panmure and 1/42 and 2/42 Church Crescent, Panmure are residential properties acquired by Auckland Council in 2013 for the AMETI roading project. Approximately 295 m² of 32 Church Crescent is still to be legalised for road.

3. 2/10 Waipuna Road, Mount Wellington is a half share of a 675 m² cross-lease property containing two single-storey brick and tile residential units that was acquired in 2008 for the AMETI – Mount Wellington Highway Improvements project.

4. The Auckland Transport (AT) Board has declared these properties no longer required for transport and infrastructure purposes.

5. Eke Panuku has engaged with council and its council-controlled organisations (CCOs), iwi authorities and the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board regarding these properties. No public work requirement has been identified for these properties through this engagement.

6. A resolution approving the proposed disposal of these properties is required from the Governing Body before the proposed divestments can be progressed. Sales proceeds from the proposed disposals will be allocated towards the asset recycling target contained in council’s Long-Term Plan 2024-2034.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a) endorse the disposal of

i) 32 Church Crescent, Panmure being Lot 6 DP 38895 contained in Record of Title NA1022/281;

ii) 1/41 and 2/41 Church Crescent, Panmure being LOT 4 DP 49462, contained in Records of Title NA35C/943 and NA35C/944 (1/42 Church Crescent: 1/2 SH Lot 4 DP 49462, Garage 1 DP 79443, Laundry 1 DP 79443, Flat 1 DP 79443 and 2/42 Church Crescent: 1/2 SH Lot 4 DP 49462, Garage 2 DP 79443, Laundry 2 DP 79443, Flat 2 DP 79443); and

iii) 2/10 Waipuna Road, Mount Wellington being Flat 2 DP 95966, ½ SH Lot 15 DP 51781, contained in Record of Title NA52A/294.

Horopaki

Context

7. Asset recycling is an important lever for Auckland Council, providing capital to be invested into the most strategically important activities. Auckland Council’s Long-Term Plan 2024-2034 includes a target of $300 million to be realised from asset recycling. This is to be achieved from proceeds of sale of surplus council owned property and alternative commercial arrangements.

8. For all properties that are potentially no longer required for public work purposes, Eke Panuku engages with council departments and its CCOs through an expression of interest process to establish whether the property must be retained for a strategic purpose or is required for a future funded public work. Once a property has been internally cleared of any public work requirements, Eke Panuku then consults with local boards, mana whenua and ward councillors.

9. The Governing Body makes the final decision to approve a property for disposal.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Property information – 32 Church Crescent, Panmure

10. 32 Church Crescent, Panmure, is a 1265 m² property containing a large two-storey dwelling. AT is completing the legalisation of 295 m² as road. This will leave a balance of 970 m².

11. The Auckland Unitary Plan zoning is Residential - Terrace Housing and Apartment Building. The current CV is $2.45 million.

12. The property was acquired by the Auckland Council in 2013 as part of the AMETI roading project.

13. It is subject to offer back obligations to the former owner in accordance with s40 Public Works Act 1981 (PWA). The offer back requirement will only be triggered if the parcels are no longer required for that public work or any other public work or any exchanges under s105 PWA.

Property information – 1/42 and 2/42 Church Crescent, Panmure

14. 1/42 and 2/42 Church Crescent, Panmure is a 678m² property with two residential units held on cross leases.

15. The Auckland Unitary Plan zoning is Residential - Terrace Housing and Apartment Building. The current CVs are $750,000 and $840,000 respectively.

16. The property was acquired by the Auckland Council in 2013 as part of the AMETI roading project.

17. The two cross-leases are subject to offer back obligations to the former owners in accordance with s40 PWA. However, as the former owners signed a Deed of Waiver agreeing not to require the property to be offered back, it may be deemed unreasonable or unfair for the council to have to offer the property back to the former owners if it is no longer required for a public work, pursuant to s40(2)(a) Public Works Act 1981.

Property information – 2/10 Waipuna Road, Mount Wellington

18. 2/10 Waipuna Road, Mount Wellington is a half share of a 675 m² cross-lease property (i.e. 337.5 m²) containing two single-storey brick and tile residential units. Auckland Council holds the half share that fronts onto the street.

19. The Auckland Unitary Plan zoning is Residential - Terrace Housing and Apartment Building. The current CV is $820,000.

20. The property was acquired by the Auckland Council in 2008 as part of the AMETI – Mount Wellington Highway Improvements project.

21. 2/10 Waipuna Road is subject to offer back obligations to the former owners in accordance with s40 PWA. However, as the former owners signed a Deed of Waiver agreeing not to require the property to be offered back, it may be deemed unreasonable or unfair for the council to have to offer the property back to the former owners if it is no longer required for a public work, pursuant to s40(2)(a) PWA.

22. The Auckland Transport Board resolved in December 2021 (for the Church Crescent properties) and in May 2022 (for 2/10 Waipuna Road) that the properties are no longer required for transport and infrastructure purposes, and approved their transfer to Auckland Council.

23. The disposal of the subject properties is not deemed significant under Auckland Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

24. Images of the properties are in Attachment A.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

25. The proposed sale of these properties may lead to land use changes. It is acknowledged that any form of construction and development can increase carbon emissions.

26. Emissions associated with any potential redevelopment can be reduced through development standards agreed through a future development agreement, application of Eke Panuku’s Homestar 6 policy and requirements to reduce carbon emissions in commercial developments.

27. The properties are not in flood prone areas and are not coastal properties likely to be impact by coastal inundation.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

28. Consultation was undertaken with council departments and CCOs for 32 Church Crescent in March 2023, for 1/42 and 2/42 Church Crescent in March 2024, and for 2/10 Waipuna Road in January 2025.

29. No alternative public work requirements were identified.

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

Local impacts and local board views

30. Eke Panuku has provided the board with an information memorandum regarding the properties and has attended a local board workshop on 1 April 2025.

31. This report provides the board with an opportunity to formalise its views regarding these properties.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

32. Nineteen mana whenua iwi authorities were consulted regarding any issues of cultural significance associated with the subject properties.

33. Consultation for 32 Church Crescent took place in December 2022, for 1/42 and 2/42 Church Crescent in March 2023, and for 2/10 Waipuna Road in March 2025.

34. No issues of cultural significance were raised in response.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

35. Capital receipts from the sale of properties not required by Auckland Council contribute to the goals of the Long-Term Plan 2024-2034 by providing the council with an efficient use of capital and prioritisation of funds to achieve its activities and projects.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

36. No significant risks associated with the recommendation contained in this report have been identified.

37. The properties’ market values may be lower than anticipated, or they may fail to sell in the current market. If the properties fail to sell in the first instance, they can be brought to market again when property market conditions improve.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

38. Subject to the local board’s endorsement, a recommendation to dispose of the properties will be reported to the Governing Body for a decision.

39. The terms and conditions of any disposal would be approved under appropriate financial delegation.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Property images	219

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Carl May - Team Leader Portfolio Review

Authorisers

Letitia Edwards - Head of Strategic Property Optimisation - Eke Panuku Development Auckland

Marian Webb - General Manager Assets and Delivery, Eke Panuku

Nina Siers - Local Area Manager

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

29 April 2025

Maungakiekie-Tamaki Strategic Partnership Grants 2024-2025 Report

File No.: CP2025/06299

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve the reallocation of $20,000 LDI opex from work programme line 4381 'Shared Spaces - Making the most of community facilities' to the Strategic Partnership Grant.

2. To approve the Strategic Partnerships Grant 2024/2025 funding allocations.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. The Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board provides Strategic Partnerships Grants to support local community groups and organisations to build governance, strategic and financial capacity and capability, upskill staff and volunteers and become more sustainable. This delivers on initiatives which align to the local board’s priorities and outcomes.

4. The Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board 2024/2025 work programme includes two Strategic Partnerships Grant budget lines that total $227,000 LDI opex. These lines fund four components of the grant programme: the grant round, community group support, a collaborative funding pilot and delivery by the partnerships broker.

5. After the allocation of $127,000 supporting the implementation of the Strategic Partnerships programme, the amount available for allocation to grant recipients is $100,000.

6. The 2024/2025 grant round opened on 17 December 2024 and closed on 29 January 2025.

7. Nine applications were received and discussed by a panel of staff for alignment to the criteria outlined in the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Strategic Partnerships Grant 2024/2025 framework (Attachment A).

8. The applications were presented to the local board at a workshop on 8 April 2025 to discuss their alignment with the local board’s priorities and the outcomes for the grant round.

9. Of the nine applicants, two had low alignment, four had medium alignment and three had high alignment. Staff recommended funding the three applications with the highest alignment, totaling $120,000.

10. Currently there is $20,000 LDI opex in the 2024/2025 work programme line 4381 ‘Shared Spaces – Making the most of community facilities.

11. Staff have explored options on how to best support community run and leased facilities to maximise usage and income and have investigated delivery options. However, no viable options have been identified to achieve this objective.

12. Therefore, staff recommend reallocating the budget to the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Strategic Partnership programme to support a new community partner – Maungarei Community Church.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a) whakaae / approve the reallocation of $20,000 from work programme line 4381 to work programme line 3950.

b) whakaae / approve the following three applicants to receive grants from the Strategic Partnerships Grant 2024/2025:

(i) GI Eagles for $60,000 over 3 years from 2024/2025 to 2026/2027, $20,000 per year.

(ii) Dolphin Theatre for $40,000 over 2 years from 2024/2025 to 2025/2026, $20,000 per year.

(iii) Maungarei Community Church for $20,000 for 1 year, 2024/2025.

Horopaki

Context

13. The purpose of the Strategic Partnerships Grant is to support local community organisations to deliver against one or more of the following priorities identified in the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board Plan 2023 and subsequently the Strategic Partnerships Grant 2024/2025 framework (Attachment A). These are as follows:

· Māori Outcomes: To respond to, progress and support Māori aspirations

· Climate Action: To respond to, progress and support the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Climate Action Plan

· Our people feel a sense of belonging and our diversity is celebrated.

· Our environment: Our arawai / waterways and whenua / land are healthy and thriving

· Our community: Our facilities and open spaces are accessible, cost-effective and fit-for-purpose

· Our places: Growth in our rohe is well-planned and environmentally aware

· Our economy: Our town centres are thriving, and our businesses are resilient.

14. Local community groups and organisations are able to apply for up to $20,000 per year, and up to a total of $60,000 for multi-year funding for up to three years. This includes contributions to wages and salaries, ongoing operational costs and access to organisational capacity and capability building support throughout implementation. The previous grant recipients from 2019-2024 are listed in attachment B to the agenda report.

15. The 2024/2025 Strategic Partnerships Grants programme is split over two budget lines that total $227,000. In addition to the grant round funding of $100,000, the budget funds specialist services building governance, strategic and financial capacity and capability for identified organisations and the development of a collaborative funding pilot.

16. Expressions of Interest for the 2024/2025 grant round opened on 17 December 2024 and closed on 29 January 2025.

17. Nine applications were received (Attachment C) and the applications were assessed by a panel of staff for alignment to the criteria outlined in the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Strategic Partnerships Grant 2024/2025 framework.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

18. Of the nine applicants, two had low alignment, four had medium alignment and three had high alignment to the priorities in the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board Plan 2023 and the Strategic Partnerships Grant 2024/2025 framework funding criteria.

19. Funding these organisations will enable the local board to:

· strengthen its strategic partnerships with more local community groups and organisations

· invest in capacity and capability building so that the organisations are better able to deliver their services effectively, demonstrate impact, become more sustainable and strengthen their funding position to attract diverse funding opportunities

· improve people’s connectedness and wellbeing so that they are engaged in the community and have access to a wide range of support

· strengthen support to the voluntary and community sector.

20. Staff recommend allocating a total of $120,000 to three applicants, outlined in Table 1.

Table 1: Applications recommended for funding from the 2024/2025 work programme

Applicant name	Proposal	Requested funding	Recommended funding
GI Eagles	· Back office support and streamlining administration systems. · Strengthening and broadening communications strategy.	$60,000 (over three years)	$60,000 Year 1: $20,000 Year 2: $20,000 Year 3: $20,000
Dolphin Theatre	· To strengthen organisational structure and internal communication, particularly around change management. · To increase the hours of part-time office administrators to help cover the increased workload.	$60,000 (over three years)	$40,000 Year 1: $20,000 Year 2: $20,000
Maungarei Community Church	· To explore and support growing their organisational funding while they progress their development plans. · Strengthening and broaden their communication reach.	$60,000 (over three years)	$20,000 Year 1: $20,000
Total		$180,000	$120,000

21. GI Eagles were included in the Strategic Partnership cohort during 2023/2024, with no funding attached. This was an opportunity for them to understand the programme and approach and to explore if this would benefit the organisation.

22. Dolphin Theatre received a grant of $10,000 from the 2023/2024 Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Strategic Partnerships Grant, which gave them an opportunity to focus on capacity building work in preparation for potential entry in the 2024/2025 programme.

23. As a new organisation applying for funding, Maungarei Community Church will use the funding to progress their organisational and asset development.

24. Staff recommend declining six applicants, outlined in Table 2.

Table 2: Applications not recommended for funding from the 2024/2025 work programme

Applicant name	Proposal	Comments
Connectors NZ	· Delivering workshops to assist with employment and youth training.	Low alignment - North Shore based group that does not align with the intent of this programme.
Te Waipuna Puawai	· To strengthen and grow organisational ability to attract further funding to grow their services and sustain current delivery.	Medium alignment - Staff will work with the organisation to better understand its needs and explore opportunities to provide effective support.
Greenlane Chinese Methodist Church	· To strengthen and grow organisational ability to attract further funding to benefit members of the church.	Low alignment - Benefits is to church members only.
Warriors Foundation	· To strengthen this organisation capacity and capability. Enabling more effective back-office operations.	Medium alignment - Staff will work with the organisation to understand its needs and explore future support options.
Mt Wellington Swim Club	· To be able to provide more scholarships and training courses.	Medium alignment – Staff will work with the organisation to better understand its needs and explore opportunities to provide effective support.
Eastskate	· To enable Eastskate to explore and develop a sustainable operating structure going forward.	Medium alignment – Staff will work with the organisation to explore the potential for it to apply to the 2025/2026 grant round for this programme.

25. The 2024/2025 work programme line 4381 ‘Shared Spaces – Making the most of community facilities’ has not been able to progress and will not be spent in this financial year.

26. For 2025/2026, staff recommend a multi board approach including a centrally funded coordinator and seed funding to promote networking and inter facility connection, sharing and collaboration.

27. Therefore, staff recommend reallocating the $20,000 available budget from this line to the 2024/2025 Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Strategic Partnerships Grants Out to be distributed to applicants.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

28. Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Action Plan sets out two core goals:

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

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

29. Building the capacity and capability of local community organisation will have a positive impact on climate change as it reduces the need for people to travel to reach the services they offer.

30. The three applications recommended for funding are helping to develop community. This will broadly contribute toward preparing the region through community readiness for changes in the future such as those caused by climate change.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

31. The Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Strategic Partnership Grant programme is delivered in line with the Community Grants Policy 2014. This policy guides the allocation of local and regional grants to groups and organisations delivering projects, activities and services that benefit Aucklanders.

32. The Community Impact Team at Auckland Council was engaged in the development of this advice to ensure alignment with current processes, and best practice.

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

Local impacts and local board views

33. The local board is the decision maker for the allocation of the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Strategic Partnerships Grant 2024/2025. The local board is required to fund, part-fund or decline these grant applications against the local board priorities identified in the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Strategic Partnership Grant Framework 2024/2025 (Attachment A).

34. The aim of the strategic partnerships grant is to support local community groups and organisations to build capacity and capability, upskill staff and volunteers so that the entity becomes more sustainable, can leverage the investment and attract diverse funding opportunities to achieve priorities identified in the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board Plan 2023.

35. The recommended applications were presented to the local board at a workshop on 8 April 2025 to discuss their alignment with the local board’s priorities and outcomes for the grant round.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

36. Auckland Council is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its broader statutory obligations to Māori. These commitments are articulated in the council’s key strategic planning documents, the Auckland Plan, the Long-term Plan 2021-2031, the Unitary Plan (operative in part), Whiria Te Muka Tangata Māori Responsiveness Framework and Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau - Māori Outcomes Performance Measurement Framework.

37. Māori make up 13 per cent of the local board population, which is higher than the Auckland average by two per cent.

38. The Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Strategic Partnerships Grant 2024/2025 aims to respond to council’s commitment to improving Māori wellbeing by providing grants to local community groups and organisations who deliver positive outcomes for Māori.

39. All three of the applications recommended for funding demonstrate an understanding of the importance of the Treaty of Waitangi and Te Ao Māori for inclusivity, connectedness and decision making and have identified outcomes for Māori. Their mahi is underpinned by values of aroha, manākitanga, rangatiratanga, kotahitanga, whanaungatanga and kaitiakitanga.

· GI Eagles is based in Maungakiekie-Tāmaki and has strong focus on working with Māori and Pasifika whānau. Tikanga, Mātauranga and Reo are embedded in their programmes as a tool for wellness and transformation.

· Dolphin Theatre Incorporated is run almost entirely by volunteers - this includes producers, directors, designers, and performers, of which there is strong Māori involvement in the design and concept of performances.

· Maungerei Community Church supports their local community many are of Māori decent. They are also looking to grow this through more opportunities of participation and broader communications.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

40. The Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Strategic Partnerships Grants work programme 2024/2025 budget lines 3949 and 3950 total $227,000 LDI Opex. After the allocation of $127,000 supporting the implementation of the Strategic Partnerships programme, the residual amount available for allocation to the strategic partnerships grant round is $100,000.

41. Staff recommend transferring $20,000 LDI Opex from work programme line 4381 ‘Shared Spaces – Making the most of community facilities’ to the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Strategic Partnerships Grants work programme 2024/2025, increasing the available budget to $120,000.

42. Staff recommend allocating the full balance of $120,000 across three applications for the grant round.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

43. The allocation of grants occurs within the guidelines and criteria of the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Strategic Partnerships Grant 2024/2025 framework.

44. The assessment process has identified a low risk associated with funding the three applications in this round.

45. The assessment process took into consideration the organisations’ history, length of relationship with council staff, structure, Kaupapa, capability and capacity to deliver. This is evidenced by a relevant track record of successful delivery, planning and evaluation measures in place, along with demonstration of partnering and collaboration.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

46. Staff will notify all applicants of the outcome, and create funding agreements for the successful applicants.

47. Staff will provide the local board with half-yearly progress reports on the funded local community groups and organisations. Grant recipients will be invited to present their mahi at a local board community forum or local board workshop annually during the term of the agreement.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Strategic Partnership Grant Framework 2024-2025	231
b ⇩	Previous grant recipients 2019-2024	233
c ⇩	2024-2025 Applicants	237

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author	Sarah Houston - Advisory Lead
Authorisers	Kevin Marriott - Head of Community Delivery

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

29 April 2025

Proposed land exchange at Boundary Reserve, Point England and Johnson Reserve, Panmure

File No.: CP2025/06311

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To update the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board on the outcome of public notification of a proposed land exchange under the Reserves Act 1977 of approximately 385m² of land at Johnson Reserve with approximately 5636m² of the land held by Tāmaki Regeneration Limited, and to seek approval from the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board for the proposed land exchange under the Reserves Act 1977.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Following the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board resolution at the 23 July 2024 business meeting (MT/2024/109) supporting public notification of the proposed land exchange in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977 (RA), staff publicly notified the proposed land exchange.

3. The public notification sought feedback on the proposal to exchange approximately 385m² of the land forming part of Johnson Reserve located at 47A Dunkirk Road, Panmure with approximately 5636m² of the land held by Tāmaki Regeneration Limited (TRL) within Tamaki area.

4. No iwi groups objected to the proposed land exchange, but Auckland Council did receive a total of one submission against the proposed land exchange.

5. While the concerns raised in the submission were not in favour of the proposed land exchange, they were out of the scope for decision making on the proposed exchange. However, all concerns raised in the submission were addressed by staff and communicated to the submitter. No further feedback has been received from the submitter.

6. Given that the proposed land exchange forms part of a larger list of planned future land exchanges between council and TRL which will ultimately balance out in terms of area exchanged, the proposed land exchange is considered to be of equal value. Therefore, the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board has delegation to make the decision to approve this land exchange.

7. Staff recommend that the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board approves the proposed land exchange. The proposed land exchange is deemed to be a high priority when assessed against council’s Parks and Open Space Acquisition Policy (June 2013) and the Open Space Provision Policy (2016).

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local BoardLocal Board:

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a. whakaae / approve the proposed land exchange under section 15 of the Reserves Act 1977 of 385m² being part of Johnson Reserve located at 47A Dunkirk Road, Panmure, legally described as part Lot 330 Deposited Plan 44686 comprised in Record of Title NA2B/621 for the following lands held by Tāmaki Regeneration Limited located at:

i. 3 Sanda Road, Panmure

Legally described as Lot 1 DP 194730 comprised in record of title NA124A/227

Area of land exchange: 534m²

ii. 4 Sanda Road, Panmure

Legally described as Lot 2 DP194730 comprised in record of title NA124A/228

Area of land exchange: 543m²

iii. 5-6 Sanda Road, Panmure,

Legally described as Lot 10 Deposited Plan 38232 comprised in Record of Title NA46C/106.

Area of land exchange: 1166 m²

iv. 33 Torino Street, Point England

Legally described as Lot 489 Deposited Plan 39861 comprised in record of title NA105D/899

Area of land exchange: 749m²

v. 42-44 Tripoli Road, Panmure

Legally described as Lot 684 Deposited Plan 39835 comprised in record of title NA21D/689

Area of land exchange: 1012m²

vi. 46 Tripoli Road, Panmure

Legally described as Lot 685 Deposited Plan 39835 comprised in record of title NA21D/690

Area of land exchange:782m²

vii. 48 Tripoli Road, Panmure

Legally described as Lot 686 Deposited Plan 47209 comprised in record of title NA21D/691

Area of land exchange: 617m²

viii. Part of 14 Larsen Road, Panmure

Legally described as Lot 698 Deposited Plan 38231 comprised in Record of Title NA44C/956

Area of land exchange: 235m²

Horopaki

Context

8. TRL owns the majority of residential land in the Tāmaki area on which it is undertaking a major residential housing development. This development intensifies housing and population density but also creates opportunity for TRL and council to optimise both housing and open space outcomes through land exchange.

9. The development requires part of Johnson Reserve, located within the development area, to be exchanged for TRL land adjoining Boundary Reserve and Johnson Reserve.

10. Subject to the local board passing a resolution to approve the proposed land exchange, the land exchange will be carried out under section 15 of the RA.

11. Section 15 of the RA prescribes that no resolution approving reserve land exchange shall be passed before a notice of intention to pass such resolution and calling for objections is published in the newspaper circulating in the district of the administering body.

12. On 23 July 2024 the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board resolved at their 23 July 2024 business meeting (MT/2024/109) to approve public notification of the proposed land exchange under section 15(2) of the RA.

13. Staff publicly notified the proposed land exchange in accordance with the RA.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Public consultation

14. Following public notification under section 15(2) of RA, only one submission was received
during the public notification period between 28 August to 27 September 2024.

15. The sole objector raised the following concerns (in summary):

i) That approximately 1200m² of the current land in housing is flood prone land and therefore presents major issues from a construction cost perspective and getting property insurance cover or a mortgage against titles shown linked to the flood prone areas.

ii) The ratepayers and community are being asked to accept land which would be deemed a poor value proposition to any purchaser. The area is topographically deemed to be in the high impact or red zone, due to housing intensification, and global warming.

iii) The notice covers a small part of the TRC land exchange program.

iv) That the Tamaki Open Spaces Network Plan (TOSNP) consultation report presented in 2018 was statistically incorrect, as the public consultation meeting feedback was not included in the statistical graphs shown. However, that document is used as the basis for the notice.

16. Staff responded to the objector via email. No further communication has been received from
the objector.

17. Staff consider that the concerns raised in the objection are out of the scope of the proposed land exchange because they do not directly address the intent and purpose of the proposed exchange.

Assessment of proposed land exchange against the council’s policy / policies

18. Land exchanges are assessed against the Parks and Open Space Acquisition Policy (June 2013) and the Open Space Provision Policy (2016). More specifically they are assessed against four main acquisition criteria (meeting community needs now and in the future, connecting parks and open spaces, protecting and restoring Auckland’s unique features and meanings and improving the existing parks and open spaces).

19. The proposed land exchange at Boundary and Johnson Reserve is expected to have positive benefits for the community including:

· meeting community needs, now and in the future by increasing accessibility and capacity of reserves that serve an area of high growth and redevelopment

· improving access to and functionality of Boundary Reserve and Johnson Reserve

· providing new areas to Boundary Reserve and Johnson Reserve that will allow for the new provision of playgrounds that previously were not easy to provide for due to the topography of the parks

· improving crime prevention by increasing road frontage, sightlines and visibility into the parks from the surrounding roads

· connecting parks and open spaces.

20. The land exchange will result in a loss of 385m² and a gain of 5636m² of open space for Council. It is important to note that the exchange details in this report form part of a larger list of planned future land exchanges between council and TRL which will ultimately balance out in terms of area exchanged.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

21. Parks and open spaces can serve as ecological corridors. They can promote and protect native plants and animals, enhance biodiversity and increase resilience to environmental change. Vegetation captures carbon from the air, helping slow the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

22. Vegetated areas, including grass, help reduce maximum temperature ranges in urbanised areas. Parks and open spaces can also help reduce flood risk during rainstorms by buffering peak flows and reducing the volume and velocity of stormwater runoff.

23. The proposed land exchange will not negatively impact climate change.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

24. Staff have engaged with specialist staff within the Parks and Places, Area Operations and Community Investment departments who were supportive of the proposed land exchange.

25. The proposed land exchange has no identified impacts on other parts of the council group. The views of other council-controlled organisations were not required for the preparation of this report.

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

Local impacts and local board views

26. The proposed land exchange aligns with the following objectives of the Maungakiekie- Tāmaki Local Board Plan 2023:

· community facilities and open spaces are interconnected, cost efficient and fit for purpose

· community places are accessible and welcoming to diverse communities.

27. At its meeting on 23 July 2024 the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board resolved (MT/2024/109) to support public notification of the proposed land exchange of approximately 390m² being part of Johnson Reserve located at 143 Tripoli Road, Point England and legally described as part Lot 330 Deposited Plan 44686 comprised in Record of Title NA2B/621 at the following locations:

· 3 Sanda Road, Panmure

· 5-6 Sanda Road, Panmure,

· 42-44 Tripoli Road, Panmure

· 46 Tripoli Road, Panmure

· 48 Tripoli Road, Panmure

· 14 Larsen Road, Panmure.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

28. Auckland Council is committed to meeting its responsibility under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its broader legal obligations to Māori. The council recognises these responsibilities are distinct from the Crown’s Treaty obligation and fall within a local government Tāmaki Makaurau context. These commitments are articulated in the council’s key strategic planning documents the Auckland Plan, the Long-Term Plan 2018-2028, the Unitary Plan and individual local board plans.

29. Iwi engagement was undertaken from August 2024 through to 25 October 2024 with the iwi groups identified as having an interest in land in Maungakiekie- Tāmaki Local Board area.

30. None of the iwi groups objected to the proposed land exchange.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

31. The consideration passing from one party to the other under the proposed land exchange is treated as being equivalent in all respects.

32. The estimated ongoing maintenance consequential costs (OPEX costs) for the additional reserves per annum based on the proposed open space plans are as following:

Figure 1: Breakdown of OPEX costs for Boundary reserve.

Figure 2: Breakdown of OPEX costs for Johnson reserve.

Disclaimer on both above tables:

· this is a high level estimate of the consequential opex costs per annum, based on the concept plan provided

· the costs may change if changes are made to the concept design and levels of service, in which case costs would have to be reworked

· all the above costs are based on the Full Facility Contract. The range has been provided to give an indication of the maintenance costs for the particular service.

· the levels of Service are outcome based and the costs mentioned for the service categories are an indication only. If you require specific information for a particular level of service/category please let us know

· all the above costs are GST exclusive

· inflation is not accounted for in this calculation

· the rate does not include any response over $1000.

Table 1: Estimated ongoing maintenance consequential costs (OPEX costs).

Location	Opex Cost
Boundary Reserve	$39,814
Johnston Reserve	$34,907
Estimated total additional Opex costs	$74,721 per annum

Please note:

· the table does not consider 385m² of Council’s reserve land that will be transferred to TRL and therefore reducing the overall costs to Parks & Community Facilities (PCF) department.

· this land exchange is part of a major residential housing development in the Tāmaki area and further land exchanges between Council and TRL may well reduce the maintenance cost to PCF.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

33. If the land exchange does not proceed, there is a risk of a lost opportunity to acquire land for future public open space to meet the recreation demands of the population in an intensified urban area.

34. TRL will manage any risks associated with their development projects in Point England and Panmure.

35. There is low risk of a judicial review of council decision-making processes if the council proceeds with the land exchange. This will be mitigated by clear communication by council about the reasons for the land exchange.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

36. Subject to approval of the proposed land exchange by the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board, staff will work with TRL to complete the tasks necessary to give effect to the exchange of the land.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Tamara Zunic - Specialist Technical Statutory Advisor

Authorisers

Kim O’Neill - Head of Property & Commercial Business

Nina Siers - Local Area Manager

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

29 April 2025

Annual Plan 2025-2026: local board consultation feedback and input

File No.: CP2025/07750

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To receive consultation feedback from the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board area on:

· proposed priorities and activities for the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board Agreement 2025/2026

· regional topics for the Annual Plan 2025/2026.

2. To recommend any local matters or advocacy initiatives to the Governing Body for consideration or decision-making as part of the Annual Plan 2025/2026 process.

3. To provide input on the proposed regional topics in the Annual Plan 2025/2026.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

4. Local board agreements outline annual funding priorities, activities, budgets, levels of service, performance measures and initiatives for each local board area. The 2025/2026 local board agreements will be included in the Auckland Council’s Annual Plan 2025/2026.

5. Auckland Council publicly consulted from 28 February to 28 March 2025 to gather community feedback on the proposed Annual Plan 2025/2026. This included consultation on the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board’s proposed priorities for 2025/2026 to be included in their local board agreement, and key priorities for the Annual Plan 2025/2026.

6. Auckland Council received13,016 submissions in total across the region and 565 submissions from the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board area. A clear majority supported most or all of the proposed Annual Plan 2025/2026 and most of the local board priorities.

7. As part of the Annual Plan process, local boards provide recommendations to the Governing Body for consideration or decision-making. This includes any local board advocacy initiatives. The Governing Body will consider these matters during the Annual Plan decision-making process in May and June 2025, including:

· any new/amended business improvement district targeted rates

· any new/amended local targeted rate proposals

· the release of local board specific reserve funds

· any other local board advocacy initiatives.

8. Local boards have a statutory responsibility to provide input into regional strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws. This report provides an opportunity for the local board to provide input on council’s Annual Plan 2025/2026.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a) whiwhi / receive consultation feedback on the proposed Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board priorities and activities for 2025/2026.

b) whiwhi / receive consultation feedback on regional topics in the Annual Plan 2025/2026 from people and organizations based in the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board area.

c) tuku / provide input on regional topics in the proposed Annual Plan 2025/2026 and key advocacy initiatives to the Governing Body.

Horopaki

Context

9. Each financial year Auckland Council must have a local board agreement (as agreed between the Governing Body and the relevant local board) for each local board area. The local board agreement outlines how the Council will reflect priorities of the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board Plan 2023 in respect of the local activities to be provided in the local board area, and includes information on budgets, levels of service, and performance measures.

10. The Local Board Agreements 2025/2026 will form part of the Auckland Council’s Annual Plan 2025/2026.

11. Auckland Council publicly consulted from 28 February to 28 March 2025 to seek community feedback on the proposed Annual Plan 2025/2026. The consultation content included information on regional proposals to be decided by the Governing Body, information on the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board’s proposed priorities for 2025/2026 to be included in their local board agreement, and key local board priorities for 2025/2026.

12. Local boards have a statutory responsibility to identify and communicate the interests and preferences of people in their local board area in relation to the Annual Plan 2025/2026.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

13. This report includes analysis of consultation feedback, any local matters to be recommended to the Governing Body and seeks input on regional topics in the proposed Annual Plan 2025/2026.

Consultation feedback overview

14. As part of the public consultation for the Annual Plan 2025/2026 Auckland Council used a variety of methods and channels to reach and engage a broad cross section of Aucklanders to gain their feedback and input into regional and local topics.

15. In total, Auckland Council received feedback from 13,016 people in the consultation period. This feedback was received through:

· written feedback – 10,011 hard copy and online forms, emails and letters.

· in person – 3,001 pieces of feedback through 89 Have Your Say events.

16. The tables and graphs below indicate the demographic categories people identified with. This information only relates to those submitters who provided demographic information.

17. All feedback is available on an Auckland Council webpage called “Feedback on the Annual Plan 2025/2026'” and is through the following link: https://akhaveyoursay.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/annual-plan-2025-2026/feedback-annual-plan-2025-2026.

18. During the consultation period, the question “What do you think of our proposals for our local board area in 2025/2026?” was discovered to be missing from the online feedback form, affecting 128 submissions for Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board (around 1,700 submissions in total). The issue was later corrected, and affected submitters were contacted with a link to provide feedback on this question before the consultation closed on 28 March. Of the affected submissions, 51 submitters responded to the missing question. A review was conducted to identify the cause of the error and prevent similar issues in the future.

Feedback received on the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board’s priorities for 2025/2026 and the Annual Plan 2025/2026

19. The Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board consulted on the following local priorities for 2025/2026:

· Priority1: Continuing to support community groups and community- led activities by through our local community

· Priority 2: Continuing to build the capacity and capability of local community and sporting groups through our strategic partnerships programme

· Priority 3: Activate our local open spaces and facilities, through council-led activities and assessing what amenities our spaces need, such as toilets and power outlets

· Priority4: Empowering community groups and organisations to deliver community events through sustainable funding model

· Priority 5: Consider funding activities that increase our community’s sense of safety, working with community groups and business associations already delivering safety initiatives

· Priority 6: Continuing to support initiatives that deliver outcomes with and for youth, such as our Youth Empowerment programme, and Tiakina te taiao and Ope programmes (biodiversity and climate action education programme in schools)

· Priority 7: Collaborate with mana whenua and neighbouring local boards to protect and restore our waterways, particularly the Tāmaki Estuary and Manukau Harbour

· Priority 8: Consider a review of Te Oro Music and Arts Centre, to ensure it remains welcoming and responsive to the community’s changing need

20. There were 867 submissions received on Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board’s priorities. The majority of local respondents show support for the Board’s priorities, though 42% indicated that Priority 8 – review of Te Oro – was less important.

21. The review of Te Oro Music and Arts Centre did show a higher level of somewhat support. Having analysed the comments provided in this section, we believe that this may be due to a lack of clear information in the consultation, leading to a misunderstanding by the community of what is being proposed.

22. Consultation feedback on local board priorities will be considered by the local board when approving their local board agreement between 10-12 June 2025. Local board key advocacy initiatives will be considered in the current report.

23. The table below indicates the level of support for how important the local priorities are to the community.

Information on submitters

24. Consultation feedback on the local board priorities were received through:

· written feedback – 721 hard copy and online forms, emails and letters.

· in person – 146 pieces of feedback through 1 Have Your Say event, and 3 additional engagement events.

25. The tables and graphs below indicate the demographic categories people identified with. This information only relates to those submitters who provided demographic information.

Key themes

26. Submitters were invited to provide additional commentary as part of the consultation process. Key themes that emerged from the feedback include:

· Of the 79 comments related to the Speedway/Waikaraka Park, 61 were proforma submissions.

· 51 submissions expressed clear support for the local board’s priorities

· 19 submissions indicated a lack of support, with concerns raised about the absence of visible outcomes.

· 18 submitters required further information, noting that the consultation material was unclear or confusing.

Overview of feedback received on regional topics in the Annual Plan from the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board area

27. The proposed Annual Plan 2025/2026 builds on the Long-term Plan 2024-2034 (LTP), setting out Auckland Council’s priorities and how services and investments are proposed to be funded. Consultation on the proposed Annual Plan 2025/2026 asked submitters to respond to key questions related to:

· The overall plan

· Destination management and major events

· Changes to other rates, fees and charges

· Local board priorities.

28. Submitters were also encouraged to provide feedback on any of other matters included in the Annual Plan 2025/2026 consultation document.

29. The submissions received from the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board area on these key issues are summarised below, along with an overview of any other areas of feedback on regional proposals with a local impact.

Key Question 1: Overall Plan

30. Aucklanders were asked whether they support the overall plan including prioritising investment in:

· transport

· water; and

· fairer funding for local communities.

31. The consultation document for the Annual Plan 2025/2026 also outlined the proposed funding approach which includes a 5.8 per cent rates increase for the average value residential property, consistent with the LTP, and additional debt financing to fund $4 billion in capital expenditure.

32. The proposed 5.8 per cent rates increase for the average value residential property for 2025/2026 includes the following proposed rates changes:

· an average general rates increase of 6.40 per cent for existing ratepayers

· an average increase of 3.5 per cent to the Natural Environment Targeted Rate (NETR) and Climate Action Transport Targeted Rate (CATTR) for existing ratepayers, as set out in the LTP

· an average increase of $2.12 in the Water Quality Targeted Rate (WQTR) to cover the operating and interest costs for the programme, as set out in the LTP

· a 3.3 per cent increase to the overall Waste Management Targeted Rate (WMTR) for the typical household.

33. This graph gives an overview of the responses from the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board area. In summary there is clear support for the overall plan from the community, but less so from organisations.

34. A total of 164 comments were received. The key themes identified from the feedback are as follows:

· 20 submissions from the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board area requested for Council to stop what they perceived as wasteful spending.

· 16 submissions expressed general dissatisfaction with Council

· A further 16 submissions called for the reduction of council costs

· Equally, 16 submissions indicated support for the proposal

· 16 submissions highlighted the need for improvements to public transport services

35. Mana whenua iwi with interests in the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board area gave feedback as follows:

· Ngāti Pāoa: submission focuses particularly on the development of Omaru Reserve. As Ngāti Pāoa approaches final settlement of their Treaty claims—expected by late 2025 or early 2026—they are preparing to develop a master plan for a 40.6-hectare site at Omaru Reserve, which includes housing, papakāinga, and community facilities. The iwi seeks political support, co-governance structures, a refreshed reserve management plan, and coordinated investment from across the Auckland Council group. Despite earlier setbacks, Ngāti Pāoa is committed to transforming the area into a living tribal community. They emphasize the need for planning support, road access, and funding to move forward with resource consent and development, calling this a significant opportunity for Auckland and for strengthening Crown-iwi partnership.

· Ngāti Whātua: highlighted key priorities including the need for greater Māori representation and strategic advocacy, particularly as Kaipara lacks mandated representation. The Runanga supports the proposed bed levy on major events but seeks clarity on whether Māori and Pacific events are included, noting inequities in cultural event funding. There is support for increased local board decision-making and Māori voice, while taking a neutral stance on CCO changes due to limited information. The Runanga supports the proposed urupā development and stresses the importance of genuine consultation. They also expressed appreciation for Māori outcomes capacity funding and emphasized the need for sustainable infrastructure planning and future alignment with Auckland.

· Te Kawerau ā Maki: Expresses general support for Auckland Council’s proposed Annual Plan and acknowledges the significant challenges facing the city. They emphasize the importance of a true Treaty partnership and seek a more integrated, decision-making role in matters affecting their wellbeing and rights. The iwi proposes three key steps to strengthen this partnership: a formal agreement (e.g. Mana Whakahono ā Rohe), CPI-adjusted capacity funding, and a shared annual work programme.

· Te Ākitai Waiohua: Urges Council to ensure genuine Māori involvement in funding and planning decisions, particularly around Local Board funding, the Māori Outcomes Fund, and infrastructure projects. They call for transparent, equitable processes, long-term investment in Māori development, and formalised co-governance.

· Ngāti Whanaunga: Expresses partial support, emphasising the need for a genuine Te Tiriti-based partnership that includes co-governance, equitable resourcing, and iwi leadership in decision-making. While supporting some aspects such as the Tuupuna Maunga Authority Operational Plan, local board priorities, and sustainable waste management, they do not support most of the overall budget, citing a lack of transparency, inadequate investment in iwi-led initiatives, and disproportionate impacts on rural and low-income whānau.

· Ngāti Maru: Supports the Council’s goals of fiscal responsibility, sustainable infrastructure, and economic growth, while emphasising the need to uphold mana motuhake and tino rangatiratanga. They advocate for a genuine Te Tiriti o Waitangi partnership through consistent mana whenua engagement and culturally respectful planning. Ngāti Maru endorses the visitor bed levy as a fair revenue tool and encourages reinvestment into Māori tourism and rangatahi development.

· Ngāti Tamaterā: Outlines a clear commitment to advancing iwi aspirations across six key wellbeing areas: economic, housing, environmental, whānau, rangatahi, and education. The submission raises concerns about governance reforms, budget cuts, and centralised decision-making limiting iwi influence, especially around urban development and cultural preservation. It advocates for strengthened co-governance, equitable funding for Māori initiatives, and the protection of culturally significant sites. Ngāti Tamaterā supports the visitor levy and environmental sustainability initiatives, provided iwi are partners in planning and delivery.

· Te Patukirikiri: Emphasizes the need for more genuine partnership between the Council and mana whenua, grounded in the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The iwi calls for strengthened iwi-Council collaboration, especially through formal representation in decision-making and expanded co-governance models. Key priorities include increased investment in environmental restoration led by iwi, greater recognition of mātauranga Māori in environmental strategies, protection and promotion of Māori culture and identity through language, arts, and festivals, and targeted economic empowerment for Māori enterprises and tourism.

Key Question 2: Destination management and major events

36. Aucklanders were asked for feedback on a bed night visitor levy paid by those in short-stay commercial accommodation, to fund destination management, marketing and major events. Without such a levy, a $7 million budget shortfall for the 2025/2026 financial year could impact the funding for major events that are expected to attract visitor expenditure, such as the ASB Classic, Auckland Marathon, and Auckland Writers Festival.

37. A bed night visitor levy of 2.5 to 3 per cent paid by those in short-stay accommodation would raise around $27 million annually to fund even more destination management, marketing and major events activities in Auckland. However, this requires central government legislative change. Auckland Council continues to work with central government on this, with public feedback helping to inform this work.

38. The graph below gives an overview of the responses from the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board area. There is a clear majority that supports the proposal. Majority of support by the community and organisations.

Key Question 3: changes to other rates, fees and charges

39. Aucklanders were asked to provide feedback on proposed changes to certain targeted rates and some fees and charges as outlined below.

Waste management rates changes

40. Aucklanders were asked whether they support applying the Refuse Targeted Rate to residential and lifestyle properties in Franklin and Rodney to fund the council’s rubbish collection service, replacing the current system of purchasing rubbish bags.

41. Starting in 2025/2026, residential and lifestyle properties in Franklin and Rodney will be charged a refuse targeted rate for the first time. Franklin's rate will cover a full year of service, while Rodney's will be about 83% of the full charge due to its scheduled September 2025 start date. Additionally, from July 2025, waste management services and targeted rates will be introduced in Manukau's commercial areas where the service isn’t presently available.

42. There were 445 submissions from the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board area which referenced these fees. There is a high percentage (21%), of participants that didn’t know or understand what was being proposed, and 57% support it.

43. Other proposed changes to fees and charges included in the consultation document for the Annual Plan 2025/2026 include:

· changes to some animal management fees including an increase in the dog adoption fee from $350 to $450 and an increase vet fee from $75 to $150

· fees for some cemetery and cremation services

· realigning bach fees into pricing tiers based on occupancy levels, capacity, and location

· aligning staff charge-out rates with staff pay bands for services in regional parks

44. There were very few submissions from the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board area which referenced these fees. Commentary received referred to keeping rates down.

Other matters for feedback

45. The following matters were also included in the consultation in the Long-term Plan:

Draft Tūpuna Maunga Authority Operational Plan 2025/2026

46. Aucklanders were asked for feedback on the draft Tūpuna Maunga Authority (TMA) Operational Plan 2025/2026 which sets out a framework in which the council must carry out the routine management of 14 Tūpuna Maunga, under the direction of the Tūpuna Maunga Authority.

47. There were nine submissions from the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board area which referenced the TMA plan.

Any other feedback

48. Aucklanders were asked if they had any other comments. Key themes of note across other areas of feedback received included:

· Call for Council to focus on core services

· Need for infrastructure improvements

· Reduce Council costs

Recommendations on local matters

49. This report provides for the local board to recommend local matters to the Governing Body for consideration as part of the Annual Plan process, in May 2025. This includes:

· any new/amended local targeted rate proposals

· any new/amended business improvement district targeted rates

· release of local board specific reserve funds

· local advocacy initiatives.

Local targeted rate and business improvement district (BID) targeted rate proposals

50. Local boards are required to endorse any new or amended local targeted rate proposals or business improvement district (BID) targeted rate proposals in their local board area. These proposals must have been consulted on before they can be implemented. The local boards then recommend these proposals to the Governing Body for approval of the targeted rate.

51. This does not apply to the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board for the 2025/2026 financial year

Local board specific reserve funds

52. Local boards are allocated funding for the delivery of local services, projects and programmes that are important to their communities. Local boards have decision making over the allocation of these funds, but need approval from the Governing Body where the release of local board specific reserve funds is requested, which are being held by the council for a specific purpose

53. This does not apply to the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board for the 2025/2026 financial year.

Local board advocacy

54. Local boards can also agree advocacy initiatives which considers the consultation feedback above. This allows the Governing Body to consider these advocacy items when making decisions on the Annual Plan 2025/2026 in May.

55. The advocacy initiatives approved by the local board will then be included as an appendix to the 2025/2026 Local Board Agreement.

Local board input on regional topics in the Annual Plan 2025/2026

56. Local boards have a statutory responsibility for identifying and communicating the interests and preferences of the people in its local board area in relation to Auckland Council’s strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws, and any proposed changes to be made to them. This report provides an opportunity for the local board to provide input on council’s proposed Annual Plan 2025/2026.

57. Local board plans reflect community priorities and preferences and are key documents that guide the development of local board agreements, local board annual work programmes, and local board input into regional plans such as the long-term plan and annual plan.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

58. The decisions recommended in this report are part of the Annual Plan 2025/2026 and local board agreement process to approve funding and expenditure over the next year.

59. Projects allocated funding through this Annual Plan process will all have varying levels of potential climate impact associated with them. The climate impacts of projects Auckland Council chooses to progress, are all assessed carefully as part of council’s rigorous reporting requirements.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

60. The Annual Plan 2025/2026 is an Auckland Council Group document and will include budgets at a consolidated group level. Consultation items and updates to budgets to reflect decisions and new information may include items from across the group.

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

Local impacts and local board views

61. The local board’s decisions and feedback are being sought in this report. The local board has a statutory role in providing its feedback on regional plans.

62. Local boards play an important role in the development of the council’s Annual Plan 2025/2026. Local board agreements form part of the Annual Plan. Local board chairs have been invited to attend Budget Committee workshops. Local board members were provided recordings or briefings of the Budget Committee workshops for the Annual Plan 2025/2026.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

63. Many local board decisions are of importance to and impact Māori. Local board agreements and the Annual Plan are important tools that enable and can demonstrate the council’s responsiveness to Māori Outcomes.

64. Local board plans, developed in 2023 through engagement with the community including Māori, form the basis of local board area priorities.

65. Some projects approved for funding could have discernible impacts on Māori. For any project or programme progressed by Auckland Council, the potential impacts on Māori, will be assessed as part of relevant reporting requirements.

66. Analysis of consultation feedback received on the proposed Annual Plan includes submissions made by mana whenua, matawaaka organisations and the wider Māori community who have interests in the rohe / local board area.

67. The Governance team led the council-wide approach with support from Ngā Mātārae on engagement with Māori entities. This included:

· three information sessions for mana whenua on submissions and the process for submissions

· five information sessions for mātaawaka on submissions and the process for submissions

· one hearing style event for mana whenua and mātaawaka groups

68. Nineteen mana whenua entities have interests in the Auckland Council rohe. Thirteen of the Nineteen (68.42%) provided verbal or written submissions on the Auckland Council’s proposals for the Annual Plan 2025/2026.

69. There were six oral submissions from mana whenua and six oral submissions from mātaawaka at the Have Your Say Event.

70. Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board for the 2025/2026 financial year engaged locally with Māori through direct communication.

71. Māori comprise 14% of the population in the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board area. 59 submissions from people who identify as Māori were received from people residing in the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board area. This represents 9% of total submissions.

72. Refer to paragraph 35 which summarises feedback received by iwi with interests in the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board area, that provided feedback on the annual plan.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

73. The local board provides input to regional plans and proposals. There is information in the council’s consultation material for each plan or proposal with the financial implications of each option outlined for consideration.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

74. The council must adopt its Annual Plan, which includes local board agreements, by 30 June 2025. The local board is required to make recommendations on these local matters for the Annual Plan by mid-May 2025, to enable and support the Governing Body to make decisions on key items to be included in the Annual Plan on 28 May 2025.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

75. Recommendations and feedback from the local board will be provided to the Budget Committee for consideration as part of decision-making for the Annual Plan 2025/2026.

76. The local board will approve its local content for inclusion in the final Annual Plan 2025/2026 (including its local board agreement) and corresponding work programmes in June 2025.

77. The final Annual Plan 2025/2026 (including local board agreements) will be adopted by the Governing Body on 25 June 2025.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board feedback on Annual Plan 2025-2026 regional topics	261

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author	Brenda Poleta - Local Board Advisor
Authoriser	Nina Siers - Local Area Manager

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

29 April 2025

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

File No.: CP2025/06289

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

2. To identify any additional matters requiring review.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

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

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

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

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

b) 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) 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) provide feedback on any other matters requiring review.

Horopaki

Context

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

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

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

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

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

· the Governing Body will allocate budgets to these programmes.

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

Proposed additions to the allocation table

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

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

Proposed Governing Body decision-making

Proposed local board decision-making

· Auckland-wide urban regeneration programme outcomes and objectives

· Urban regeneration in city centre and waterfront

· Overall funding plan for priority locations

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

· Identification of priority locations for urban regeneration programme

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Governing Body (or Committee)

Local Boards

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

· Approves Auckland Plan, land use and infrastructure policy

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

o Urban regeneration budget

o Revenue target from asset recycling (property sales)

o City Centre Targeted Rate programme

· Approves new priority locations or regional urban regeneration programmes

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

· Decision-maker for city centre and waterfront programmes

· Approves acquisition of property

· Approves disposal of non-service property

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allocation of decision-making responsibilities for property and asset management

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

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

Table Three – Property and marina management statutory decision-making

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

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

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

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

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

· Commercial property and marina management

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

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

Governing Body decision-making over property and asset management

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

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

Local board decision-making over property and asset management

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allocation of decision-making for economic development activities

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

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

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

Governing Body decision-making

Local board decision-making

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

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

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

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

Business improvement district (BID) programmes

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local economic development plans and initiatives

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

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

Clarifications around economic development in the allocation table

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

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

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

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

Other amendments to the allocation table

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

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

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

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

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

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

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

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

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

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Proposed changes to the allocation table of decision-making responsibilities of Auckland Council’s Governing Body and local boards	277
b ⇩	Eke Panuku projects overview – as outlined in agreed local board engagement plan 2024-2025	295

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

John Nash - Programme Manager

Shirley Coutts - Principal Advisor - Governance Strategy

Authorisers

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

Nina Siers, Local Area Manager

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

29 April 2025

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

File No.: CP2025/06371

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· making the decision-making responsibilities of local boards clearer

· clarifying the meaning of ‘value for money’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

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

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

Horopaki

Context

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· Where we are heading (strategic directions)

· Our approach to investment (investment principles)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

The consultation feedback shows we are on the right track

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

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

24. There is strong support for:

· the draft strategy overall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· open spaces must serve a wide range of functions

· our resources should be used efficiently.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary of option packages analysis – for more details refer CP2025/06371

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

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

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

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

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

Both packages involve trade-offs, as shown below.

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


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

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

Consultation feedback supports the capacity-based approach

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

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

Figure One: Preference for open space provision standards

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

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

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

Staff will continue work to support implementation of the strategy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

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

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

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

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

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

65. Potential risks and mitigations are outlined below:

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Feedback analysis report	309
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)	365
d ⇩	Preliminary findings for improving advice to local boards	391

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Aubrey Bloomfield - Senior Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

Louise Mason - General Manager Policy

Carole Canler - Senior Policy Manager

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

29 April 2025

Public feedback on proposal to amend dog policy and bylaw

File No.: CP2025/06572

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

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

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

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

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

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

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

7. All feedback is summarised by the following topics:

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

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

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

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

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

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

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

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

Horopaki

Context

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

11. The local board in accordance with council’s collaborative governance model^{^[1]} now has an opportunity to provide its views on how the Governing Body Dog Policy and Bylaw Panel should address public feedback from people in the local board area to the proposal.

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

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

ü could indicate support for matters raised in public feedback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· protecting dogs from harm and ensuring their welfare.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Main proposals

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

Auckland Botanic Gardens

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

· Prohibit dogs from waterways.

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

· Clarify rules in other areas.

Hunua Ranges Regional Park

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

Long Bay Regional Park

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

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

Mahurangi Regional Park

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

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

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

Pākiri Regional Park

· Prohibit dogs on the associated beach.

Shakespear Regional Park

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

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

Tāpapakanga Regional Park

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

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

Te Ārai Regional Park

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

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

Waitawa Regional Park

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

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

· Prohibit dogs on single use mountain bike tracks.

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

Whakanewha Regional Park

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

Ambury, Muriwai, Tāwharanui and Wenderholm regional parks

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

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

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

· clarifying approach to setting dog access rules

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

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

· removing outdated information in Schedule 2 for example outdated landmarks

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

24. A total of 308 people from the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board area provided feedback to the proposal.

25. There was majority support for proposals to reorganise, simplify and clarify Policy and Bylaw content, split support for proposals to change or clarify dog access rules at Whakanewha, Muriwai, and Tāwharanui 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)	31 per cent	68 per cent	33 per cent	66 per cent
P2	Auckland Botanic Gardens	26 per cent	70 per cent	34 per cent	62 per cent
P3	Hunua Ranges Regional Park	30 per cent	57 per cent	33 per cent	56 per cent
P4	Long Bay Regional Park	22 per cent	75 per cent	26 per cent	70 per cent
P5A	Mahurangi Regional Park East	22 per cent	67 per cent	27 per cent	62 per cent
P5B	Mahurangi Regional Park West	26 per cent	63 per cent	28 per cent	60 per cent
P5C	Mahurangi Regional Park Scott Point	28 per cent	61 per cent	29 per cent	61 per cent
P6	Pākiri Regional Park	19 per cent	76 per cent	15 per cent	81 per cent
P7	Shakespear Regional Park	24 per cent	59 per cent	39 per cent	51 per cent
P8	Tāpapakanga Regional Park	40 per cent	55 per cent	34 per cent	55 per cent
P9	Te Ārai Regional Park	23 per cent	69 per cent	18 per cent	76 per cent
P10	Waitawa Regional Park	26 per cent	53 per cent	30 per cent	61 per cent
P11	Whakanewha Regional Park	44 per cent	38 per cent	35 per cent	51 per cent
P12A	Ambury Regional Park	43 per cent	53 per cent	37 per cent	55 per cent
P12B	Muriwai Regional Park	46 per cent	49 per cent	46 per cent	47 per cent
P12C	Tāwharanui Regional Park	47 per cent	37 per cent	43 per cent	45 per cent
P12D	Wenderholm Regional Park	29 per cent	57 per cent	42 per cent	44 per cent
P13A	Restructure the policy to more clearly show its goal, focus areas, council actions, and rules	75 per cent	11 per cent	71 per cent	17 per cent
P13B	Clarify rule that all dogs classified as menacing must be neutered	84 per cent	8 per cent	81 per cent	13 per cent
P13C	Clarify who can provide behavioural assessments in relation to menacing dog classifications	81 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	81 per cent	12 per cent	74 per cent	17 per cent
P13E	Clarify how dog access rules are set	78 per cent	14 per cent	75 per cent	13 per cent
P13F	Clarify Auckland-wide dog access rules	75 per cent	13 per cent	76 per cent	17 per cent
P13G	Clarify or correct errors in Policy Schedule 2: Dog access rules	71 per cent	12 per cent	67 per cent	12 per cent
P13H	Remove outdated information in Policy Schedule 2: Dog access rules	85 per cent	10 per cent	80 per cent	9 per cent
P13I	Update dog access rules for Tūpuna Maunga (ancestral mountains)	52 per cent	29 per cent	49 per cent	26 per cent
P13J	Remove outdated or duplicate bylaw content	86 per cent	8 per cent	81 per cent	7 per cent

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

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

Staff recommend the local board provide its views on public feedback

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

25. 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

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

28. 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).

29. 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

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

31. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

35. 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

36. 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.

Note to DAs: Update ‘Signatories’ section with the highlighted names (incl. LAM).

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Summary of public feedback to the proposed changes to the dog policy and bylaw	403
b ⇩	Public feedback from people in Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board area	491

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Kylie Hill – Principal Advisor Advisor Regulatory Practice

Authorisers

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

Louise Mason - General Manager Policy

Nina Siers - Local Area Manager

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

29 April 2025

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

Chairperson	Maria Meredith
Deputy Chairperson	Debbie Burrows
Members	Don Allan
	Nerissa Henry
	Chris Makoare
	Peter McGlashan
	Tony Woodcock

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Workshop record - 4 March	1803
b ⇩	Workshop record - 11 March	1805
c ⇩	Workshop record - 18 March	1807
d ⇩	Workshop record - 25 March	1809

Author	Jessica Prasad - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Nina Siers - Local Area Manager