Agenda of Kaipātiki Local Board - Wednesday, 30 April 2025

1 Nau mai | Welcome

The meeting will be opened with a karakia.

Whakataka te hau ki te uru

Whakataka te hau ki te tonga

Kia mākinakina ki uta

Kia mātaratara ki tai

E hī ake ana te atakura

He tio

He huka

He hau hū

Tīhei mauri ora

Cease o winds from the west

Cease o winds from the south

Bring calm breezes over the land

Bring calm breezes over the sea

And let the red-tipped dawn come

With a touch of frost

A sharpened air

And promise of a glorious day.

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.

The Auckland Council Code of Conduct for Elected Members (the Code) requires elected members to fully acquaint themselves with, and strictly adhere to, the provisions of Auckland Council’s Conflicts of Interest Policy. The policy covers two classes of conflict of interest:

i) A financial conflict of interest, which is one where a decision or act of the local board could reasonably give rise to an expectation of financial gain or loss to an elected member; and

ii) A non-financial conflict of interest, which does not have a direct personal financial component. It may arise, for example, from a personal relationship, or involvement with a non-profit organisation, or from conduct that indicates prejudice or predetermination.

The Office of the Auditor General has produced guidelines to help elected members understand the requirements of the Local Authority (Member’s Interest) Act 1968. The guidelines discuss both types of conflicts in more detail, and provide elected members with practical examples and advice around when they may (or may not) have a conflict of interest.

Copies of both the Auckland Council Code of Conduct for Elected Members and the Office of the Auditor General guidelines are available for inspection by members upon request.

Any questions relating to the Code or the guidelines may be directed to the Local Area Manager in the first instance.

4 Te Whakaū i ngā Āmiki | Confirmation of Minutes

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) whakaū / confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 9 April 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

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

8 Ngā Tono Whakaaturanga | Deputations

Standing Order 7.7 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are required to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications are approved by the Chairperson of the Kaipātiki 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.

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

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.”

Kaipātiki Local Board

30 April 2025

Landowner approval application from Northcote Pétanque Club for the establishment of a pétanque terrain at Little Shoal Bay Reserve

File No.: CP2025/06439

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek a decision on the Northcote Pétanque Club’s application for landowner approval for the establishment and use of a pétanque terrain at Little Shoal Bay Reserve, Northcote Point.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. In 2021, the Northcote Pétanque Club (NPC) applied for landowner approval to establish a pétanque terrain within the carpark area at Little Shoal Bay Reserve/Dudding Park Sportsfield, Northcote Point. The applicant sought the creation of a new terrain to increase participation in the sport.

3. Following conversations with the local board, the application was placed on hold while the Kaipātiki Local Parks Management Plan (LPMP) and Mini Shoreline Adaptation Plan: Wai Manawa/Little Shoal Bay (SAP) were developed.

4. The proposal was then assessed by staff who considered that the proposal was contradictory to the recently adopted LPMP and SAP.

5. The design was then altered and resubmitted for staff review in 2024. The current proposal involves the pétanque terrain being established adjacent to the existing cricket pitch, north of Council Terrace, and being maintained by the applicant.

6. Staff are generally supportive of the current proposal as it aligns with the relevant management plans and provides further opportunity for recreational outcomes, while leaving the bulk of the open fields space accessible for cricket and other activities.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) whakaae / approve Northcote Pétanque Club’s application for landowner approval for the establishment and use of a pétanque terrain at Little Shoal Bay Reserve, Northcote Point.

Horopaki

Context

The land

7. Little Shoal Bay Reserve (refer to Figure 1. below) is located on the North Shore of the Waitematā Harbour and is predominantly used for active and passive recreation.

8. The reserve caters for sports including cricket, tennis, and basketball, while also enabling passive activities such as play and picnicking. Aside from sports facilities, the reserve contains assets including a public toilet, children’s playground, exercise equipment and carparking.

9. Little Shoal Bay Reserve is held by Auckland Council as a Recreation and Scenic Reserve and is comprised of various land parcels.

10. The terrain is proposed to be established across three land parcels, legally described as LOT 2 DP 53569, LOT 2 DP 25864 and LOT 2 DP 61241. All three parcels are held as Recreation Reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977.

Figure 1. Extent of Little Shoal Bay Reserve (Blue).

The applicant

11. Northcote Pétanque Club is affiliated with Northcote Bowling Club who own and operate a bowls and pétanque facility neighbouring Little Shoal Bay Reserve.

12. Many of the club patrons and visitors utilise parking within the reserve when visiting the adjoining bowling club located at 24 Church Street, Northcote Point.

13. Northcote Pétanque Club utilises various terrains around the area but are based at the Northcote Bowling Club facility.

14. The club believes providing an additional pétanque terrain at Little Shoal Bay Reserve will increase the public’s uptake and participation in pétanque.

Proposal

15. The Northcote Pétanque Club have requested landowner approval to convert a grassed area of the reserve into a pétanque terrain (refer to Figure 2. below).

16. No structural changes would be needed to facilitate the terrain creation as materials would essentially be laid on top of the existing ground surface.

17. The terrain layout would comprise six (6) playable ‘pistes’, each measuring 3x15 metres. This would result in the total occupied area being 360m² (refer to Figure 2. below).

18. The terrain would be administered by NPC and would be open to the public.

19. The presence of the terrain being in close proximity to the private bowling club would enable greater synergy between public users and the clubs, potentially increasing club membership. The location would also enable the club to maintain the proposed public terrain alongside their private assets.

20. The proposal would see wooden edging (100mm high) established around the perimeter and the area within being covered with gravel or shell to a depth of 50mm.

21. The original intent was to trial the terrain on a temporary basis and enter a more permanent agreement if successful. However, if this approach is not favoured, the applicant is also open to solely using the terrain on a temporary basis.

22. The proposed terrain has been designed with movability in mind, with the border edging and substrate being easily removed.

Figure 2. Approximate area where the six (6) piste terrain would be established (red).

Background

23. An application for landowner approval to establish the pétanque terrain was submitted on 5 November 2021 and was allocated for staff review on 15 December 2021.

24. Following conversations with the local board, the application was placed on hold pending the findings of the Kaipātiki Local Parks Management Plan and Mini Shoreline Adaptation Plan: Wai Manawa/Little Shoal Bay.

25. Upon adoption of both plans, the application was reassessed by staff who indicated to the applicant that the proposal was not supported by staff as it did not align with the management plans.

26. The Kaipātiki Local Board were due to consider the original proposal at a business meeting, however, the applicant requested that the original proposal be disregarded in favour of a new location.

27. Staff then assessed the revised proposal and consider that it more greatly aligns with the management plans.

28. Staff engaged the local board for feedback, who requested that the proposal be considered at a local board business meeting.

Shoreline Adaptation Plan

29. Shoreline Adaption Plans (SAPs) were created as a result of Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan. These plans aim to inform a long-term, sustainable management approach to Auckland Council owned land and assets in response to the impacts of coastal processes, climate change, erosion and flooding.

30. The Wai Manawa/Little Shoal Bay Mini-Shoreline Adaptation Plan details localised hazards and management intentions relating to the Little Shoal Bay Reserve and wider area.

31. These plans are developed in collaboration with mana whenua, the local community, and local boards.

Local Parks Management Plan

32. Local Parks Management Plans are being prepared for all of Auckland's local boards. These plans are developed in consultation with the local community, mana whenua, Auckland Council’s subject matter experts and the local board.

33. The intention of this plan is to reflect the local community’s needs and aspirations for local parks and help inform local board decisions around how parks are used and protected.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

34. The following Auckland Council specialists have reviewed the proposal, and the comments below reflect those received from these specialists:

· Senior Land Use Advisor - Parks and Community Facilities

· Principal Community Lease Advisor - Parks and Community Facilities

· Parks and Places Specialist - Parks and Community Facilities

· Senior Maintenance Delivery Coordinator - Parks and Community Facilities

· Facilities Manager - Parks and Community Facilities

· Manager Area Operations - Parks and Community Facilities

· Coastal Management Practice Lead - Resilient Land & Coasts.

Maintenance and formalisation

35. For proposals where a group intends to install and maintain publicly accessible assets, staff would seek to formalise the use/occupancy via a licence to occupy. This is the preferred management strategy as by entering into such an agreement all parties are aware of requirements and responsibilities.

Kaipātiki Local Parks Management Plan (LPMP)

36. The Kaipātiki Local Parks Management Plan has been developed in close consultation with the local community. Many of the outcomes and directions set within the plan are in response to feedback provided by the local community.

37. The proposal aligns with the ‘Management Focus Area’ of the LPMP, which advocates for the enhancement of organised sport and recreation within this area of the reserve.

38. The LPMP also notes the potential for the cricket pitch to be shifted to accommodate active recreation and planting of the western edge of the reserve.

39. The inclusion of the terrain in the proposed location will not impede the use of the existing cricket pitch or the potential new layout which is being explored via the reserve upgrade works/discussions.

40. The LPMP also sets a management intention to ‘retain a flat open grass field area suitable for informal community recreational activities, summer sports (including cricket pitch) and events to the north of the road’. While the proposal would reduce the field area by 360m², the bulk of the fields would be retained and open for recreational activities.

Kaipātiki Climate Action Plan 2023 and Kaipātiki Local Board Plan 2023

41. The ‘Ngā hapori me te tahatai | Community and coast’ section of the Kaipātiki Climate Action Plan sets a goal of reducing the risk of flooding and hazards to properties and infrastructure.

42. The Kaipātiki Climate Action Plan also advocates to support the implementation of the Wai Manawa/Little Shoal Bay Mini-Shoreline Adaptation Plan.

43. The ‘Te Tāruke ā-Tāwhiri | Climate action’ section of the Kaipātiki Local Board Plan 2023 aims to adapt to climate change and implement ‘Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan’ in Kaipātiki. Shoreline Adaption Plans (SAPs) were created as a result of Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan.

Shoreline adaption plan (SAP) and hydrology

44. The Mini Shoreline Adaptation Plan for Wai Manawa/Little Shoal Bay has recommended a strategy of ‘hold the line’ across all timeframes at the proposed terrain site.

45. The ‘hold the line’ strategy relates to preserving the function and use of a reserve area or asset. It can mean holding the coastal edge in its current position or raising land levels to allow the same functionality as currently exists in flood-prone areas of the reserve land.

46. Implementation of the SAP, including the options to manage and mitigate the longer-term flood risks are currently being worked through. As a result of the directions set in the SAP and LPMP, Parks and Community Facilities operational staff are exploring altering the reserve layout in order to reduce the risk of flooding.

47. The proposed terrain location is within an area subject to coastal storm inundation. The westernmost edge of the proposed terrain would extend into a floodplain, while the bulk of the terrain would be located with a flood sensitive area (refer to Figure 3 below).

48. In the event flooding occurs, the substrate/aggregate used in the terrain may be washed away. This would result in the applicant needing to carryout maintenance and a clean-up of the surrounding area.

49. The timber edging which defines the terrain would need to be anchored to the ground (likely via stakes) to prevent these from being washed away during flood events.

Figure 3. Proposed terrain location and flood plain (solid blue) and flood sensitive area (light blue crosshatched).

50. Staff note that the presence of the terrain is unlikely to exacerbate the environmental risks facing the site. However, as the installation of a new asset here will be subject to flooding and coastal inundation, the terrain may require ongoing maintenance and repairs.

51. Generally, the installation of new public assets within ‘hold the line’ areas is not recommended. However, as this asset would be owned and maintained by the applicant, the risk to Auckland Council is reduced. This is as any clean-up and other maintenance responsibilities would fall to the applicant rather than the council.

52. Staff note it may be prudent to approve the use of the terrain on a temporary basis to assess whether severe weather events render it unsuitable.

Additional staff views

53. Staff visited the reserve in 2020 and assessed carpark usage. At the time, observations suggested the usage of the carpark was low and steady. Usage was highest during bowling club events and while cricket matches were being played.

54. If fixtures were scheduled at the cricket pitch and bowling club at the same time, car parking would be at a premium. However, bowls usually takes place during weekdays, while cricket fixtures are usually scheduled in the summer weekends.

55. Staff believe there is ample parking on site to accommodate an increase in visitors, arising from the new terrain.

Alternative locations

56. The applicant has indicated that they have looked into alternative locations and have been unable to find an appropriate space.

57. Staff acknowledge that the area where the terrain is proposed would likely work best in terms of synergy with the existing bowling club located immediately north of the nearby carpark.

Tenure

58. Staff recommend issuing an approval for a five (5) year period, with renewal at the discretion of the local board.

59. Following the end of the term, approval could then be extended if the terrain is well used and maintained by the applicant.

60. Otherwise, the approval could be discontinued if the presence of the terrain is found to cause significant issues, or if it is not maintained or underutilised.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

61. The creation of the proposed pétanque terrain is not expected to cause a significant climate impact. However, the presence of the terrain may impact Auckland Council’s ability to adapt to changing conditions and respond to the impacts of climate change and climate change related issues. If this proves to be the case, the terrain could be disestablished.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

62. Feedback from Council Controlled Organisations has not been sought for this proposal as there are no wider impacts anticipated.

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

Local impacts and local board views

63. Local boards have the allocated authority relating to local recreation and community facilities, including the use of local parks.

64. The proposal aligns with the management intentions set by the Kaipātiki Local Parks Management Plan (LPMP). However, the Mini Shoreline Adaptation Plan for Wai Manawa/Little Shoal Bay (SAP) advocates for creating no new assets within the general area. However, this generally relates to the creation of council-owned assets rather than those owned and maintained by another party.

65. These plans have been developed in collaboration with mana whenua, the local community, Auckland Council’s subject matter experts and the local board. The intention of these plans is to reflect desires of the aforementioned parties and provide direction on the most appropriate use of the council land and assets.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

66. Engagement with mana whenua has not been undertaken by the council in relation to this proposal.

67. Mana whenua were consulted however during the development of the various plans and policies which have informed the council’s review of this proposal.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

68. The costs associated with the construction and maintenance of the terrain would be borne by the applicant, as would any costs associated with disestablishing the terrain.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

69. Severe weather events pose a risk as the proposed terrain would fall largely within a flood sensitive area and an area subject to coastal storm inundation.

70. The timber edges that define the terrain would be secured to the ground (likely via stakes), to reduce the risk of being washed away. However, the substrate/aggregate comprising the terrain surface may be washed away during flood events.

71. The applicant would be responsible for any maintenance and clean-up required as a result of a severe weather event.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

72. The Kaipātiki Local Board may resolve to approve or decline the application for landowner approval. Staff will inform the applicant of the outcome.

73. If approved, a licence to occupy must also be obtained. Staff will assist the applicant in obtaining a license to occupy (subject to any required statutory requirements being met). Once the licence to occupy has been finalised, physical works could then proceed.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Alex Stansfield - Senior Land Use Advisor

Authorisers

Kim O’Neill - Head of Property & Commercial Business

Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

30 April 2025

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

File No.: CP2025/06734

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To receive consultation feedback from the Kaipātiki Local Board area on:

· proposed priorities, activities and advocacy initiatives for the Kaipātiki 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 Kaipātiki Local Board’s proposed priorities for 2025/2026 to be included in their local board agreement, and key priorities and advocacy initiatives for the Annual Plan 2025/2026.

6. Auckland Council received 13,061 submissions in total across the region and 851 submissions from the Kaipātiki Local Board area. Of those 851, 680 were individuals who reside in the Kaipātiki Local Board area, and 18 from local organisations based in Kaipātiki. A detailed analysis on these submissions is provided in the analysis and advice section of this report.

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/expanded business improvement district, or change to their rating mechanisms

· 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 Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) whiwhi / receive consultation feedback on the proposed Kaipātiki 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 organisations based in the Kaipātiki 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 Kaipātiki 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, and information on the Kaipātiki Local Board’s proposed priorities for 2025/2026 to be included in their local board agreement, and key local board priorities and advocacy initiatives 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 13,061 people in the consultation period. This feedback was received through:

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

· In person – 3001 pieces of feedback through 89 Have Your Say events (three of which were held in the Kaipātiki Local Board area), and four Neurodiverse online audio forms. The tables and graphs below indicate the demographic categories people identified with. This information only relates to those submitters who provided demographic information.

16. 698 submissions were received from residents that said they live in Kaipātiki Local Board area. 680 were from individuals and 18 from organisations.

17. 153 submissions were received from residents that said they live outside the Kaipātiki area but indicated their response relates to Kaipātiki.

18. All feedback will be made available on an Auckland Council webpage called “Feedback on the Annual Plan 2025/2026'” and will be accessible after 22 April 2025 through the following link: https://akhaveyoursay.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/annual-plan-2025-2026/feedback-annual-plan-2025-2026.

19. 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 112 submissions for Kaipātiki Local Board (around 1700 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, 41 submitters responded to the missing question (894 in total). A review was conducted to identify the cause of the error and prevent similar issues in the future.

Information on submitters

20. The graphs below provide an overview of demographic categories people identified with. This information only relates to submitters living in Kaipātiki who provided demographic information:

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

21. The Kaipātiki Local Board consulted on the following local priorities for 2025/2026:

· Priority 1: Community development, including events, community safety, and a greater activation of our community houses, community centres, and libraries.

· Priority 2: Increased funding in the Kaipātiki Community Grants Programme, so we can support and help a wider reach of our community through their activities.

· Priority 3: Māori outcomes, through investment in engagement, events, and fostering authentic relationships with Māori.

· Priority 4: Youth outcomes, through conversations with young people to identify local activities and services that interest them.

· Priority 5: Increased sport and recreation opportunities, through grants to organisations to maintain or improve their assets, or to secure community use of non-council owned facilities.

· Priority 6: Environmental protection and restoration, including working with our local environmental groups to increase their impact.

· Priority 7: Maintenance, including environmentally friendly open space management, building maintenance, refuse collection, bush track maintenance, and removal of aging pine trees.

· Priority 8: Compliance, in the areas of building, illegal dumping, noise, animal control, and overnight stays on reserves.

· Priority 9: Pools and leisure service enhancements and affordability.

· Priority 10: Sport and recreation facility planning to understand the sport and recreation facility needs of Kaipātiki, to guide future investment.

· Priority 11: Business support and engagement across Kaipātiki.

Views on proposals for the Kaipātiki Local Board area in 2025/2026

22. 395 submitters that live in Kaipātiki responded to this question. The below graphs provide an overview of submissions received:

23. 50 per cent of individuals and 73 per cent of organisations supported all or most priorities while 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.

Key themes

24. Key themes of note across the feedback received (through written and in-person channels) included:

· Parks, Walkways and Facilities

o Strong support for parks and recreational facilities

o Requests for better maintenance and upgrades, especially for walking tracks and storm recovery.

· Sports and Recreation

o Calls for artificial turfs and better maintenance of existing facilities

o Advocacy for more sports funding and multi-use spaces.

· Environment and Sustainability

o Support for protecting green spaces and biodiversity

o Requests for increased environmental funding and better maintenance.

· Cultural Inclusion and Māori Outcomes

o Desire for broader cultural inclusion and balanced support across all cultures

o Mixed views on Māori outcomes, with some calls for race-neutral investment approaches.

· Transparency and Accountability

o Calls for clearer communication on fund allocation and project specifics

o Demand for measurable goals and equitable funding.

· Core Services

o Emphasis on maintaining infrastructure like water, sewage, roads, and libraries

o Concerns about wasteful spending on non-core areas.

· Youth and Children

o Support for youth engagement and social investment

o Mixed views on prioritising youth and Māori-specific initiatives.

· Community Development and Social Services

o Support for core social services and community empowerment

o Concerns about the cost-effectiveness of some initiatives.

· Community Engagement, Events and Grants

o Strong support for authentic consultation and accountability in grants

o Mixed views on the necessity of community events in tight financial times.

· Transport, Pedestrian Safety and Roading

o Demand for safer pedestrian infrastructure and better public transport

o Concerns about traffic congestion and poor roading conditions.

25. Attachment B to the agenda report provides a greater overview of the themed feedback as presented at Kaipātiki Local Board workshop.

Requests for local funding

26. Requests for local funding through the Annual Plan 2025/2026 consultation included:

· One request for local funding through the Annual Plan 2025/2026 consultation was received from Te Kawerau ā Maki.

· The submission requests joint local board funding of $200,000 to create two community officer roles (one in West Auckland and one in North Shore) that will support connection with local boards and community within the Te Kawerau ā Maki heartlands.

Feedback on other local topics

27. Chelsea Regional Park Association requested additional funding for the Chelsea Estate Heritage Park and Chelsea Bay to meet the shortfall and bring these areas back to a reasonable standard.

28. Birkenhead United AFC and Northern Rovers Football Clubs requested support via

· Lighting of Field 1 – McFetridge Park

· Development of Two Artificial Turfs – McFetridge Park

· Lighting Improvements – Shepherds Park.

29. Takapuna Cricket Club

· Facility Upgrades – Changing Rooms

· Indoor Training Nets

· Outdoor Training Nets – Safety Repairs

· Basic Clubroom Maintenance

o Kitchen upgrades

o Roofing repairs

o Interior and exterior painting

o Flooring replacement.

30. Consultation feedback on local board priorities will be considered by the local board when approving their local board agreement between 10-12 June 2025.

Overview of feedback received on regional topics in the Annual Plan from the Kaipātiki Local Board area

31. 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.

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

33. The submissions received from the Kaipātiki 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

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

· transport

· water; and

· fairer funding for local communities.

35. 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.

36. 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.

37. The below graph gives an overview of the responses from the Kaipātiki Local Board area.

38. 73 per cent of individuals and 100 per cent of organisations supported all or most of the overall plan. The main themes from submitters that provided comments include:

· General support for the overall proposal

· Concern regarding rates increases and affordability

· Support for investment in infrastructure

· Support for improved public transport services

· Support for fairer funding.

39. 20 per cent of individuals did not support all or most of the overall plan. The main themes from submitters that provided comments include:

· Concerns with proposed rate increases and affordability

· Concerns with the high cost of living

· Concerns regarding wasteful spending and inefficiencies

· General dissatisfaction with Council.

Key Question 2: Destination management and major events

40. 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.

41. 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.

42. The below graph gives an overview of the responses from the Kaipātiki Local Board area.

43. 89 per cent of individuals and 61 per cent of organisations supported the proposal for a bed night visitor levy. The main themes from submitters that provided comments include:

· support for destination management, marketing and major events in Auckland and the benefits of these

· support for the levy to fund destination management, marketing and major events reducing costs to the ratepayer

· recognition this is common practice internationally.

44. Twenty-four per cent of individuals did not support and 38 per cent were unsure of the proposal for a bed night visitor levy. The main themes from submitters that provided comments include:

· Concerns regarding the potential negative impact to tourism

· Concerns regarding burden on providers and impacts to domestic tourism

· Concerns that accommodation in Auckland is already high

· Opposition to publicly funded events.

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

45. 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

46. 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.

47. 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 per cent 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.

Changes to fees and charges

48. 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.

49. The below graph provides an overview of the responses from the Kaipātiki Local Board area which referenced these fees.

A green and red rectangular boxes with white text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

50. Fifty-nine per cent of individuals and 50 per cent of organisations support the proposal for waste management and rate charges while 28 per cent of did not support the proposal.

Other matters for feedback

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

Draft Tūpuna Maunga Authority Operational Plan 2025/2026

52. 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.

53. Kaipātiki Local Board received no feedback related to this question.

Recommendations on local matters

54. 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 board advocacy

55. 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.

56. 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

57. 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.

58. 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

59. 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.

60. 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

61. 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

62. 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.

63. 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

64. 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.

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

66. 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.

67. 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.

68. 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 of submissions

· five information session for mataawaka on submissions and the process for submissions

· one hearing style event for mana whenua and mataawaka groups.

69. 19 mana whenua entities have interests in the Auckland Council rohe. 13 of the 19 (68.42 per cent) provided verbal or written submissions on the Auckland Council’s proposals for the Annual Plan 2025/2026.

70. There were six oral submissions from mana whenua and six oral submissions from mataawaka at the Have your Say event.

71. Māori comprise 10.9 per cent of the population in the Kaipātiki Local Board area. 30 submissions from people who identify as Māori were received from people residing in the Kaipātiki Local Board area. This represents five per cent of total submissions.

72. We received no specific feedback on the Kaipātiki Local Board priorities from mana whenua or mataawaka entities.

73. Key points from the Te Kawerau ā Maki submission in relation to Kaipātiki included:

· financial support for a community officer.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

74. 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

75. 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

76. 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. (refer to Attachment A of the agenda report).

77. 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.

78. 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 ⇩	30 April 2025 - Kaipātiki Local Board additional business meeting - TEMPLATE - Kaipātiki Local Board Annual Plan 2025/2026 input	29
b ⇩	30 April 2025 - Kaipātiki Local Board additional business meeting - Kaipātiki Local Board Community Feedback Summary	31

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author	Lisa Kent - Local Board Engagement Advisor
Authoriser	Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

30 April 2025

Public feedback on proposal to amend dog policy and bylaw

File No.: CP2025/06488

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 of the agenda report. All feedback in Attachment B for the Kaipātiki Local Board area can be found at the following link: https://hdp-au-prod-app-ak-haveyoursay-files.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/3717/4415/4178/Dog_Policy__Bylaw_2025_Kaipatiki_feedback_1.pdf 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 Friday 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 Kaipātiki Local Board:

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

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

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

d) tāpae / delegate authority to the local board chair to appoint a replacement to any appointed member in (c) who is unable to present to the 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 (resolution number GB/2024/181). It also appointed a Dog Policy and Bylaw Panel to consider all public feedback and make recommendations, before a final decision is made by the Governing Body.

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

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

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

Main proposals
Set a limit to the number of dogs a person may ‘walk’ in a council-controlled public place at one time (maximum of six dogs of which no more than three may be under control off a leash at any one time).
Auckland Botanic Gardens · Change the off-leash area to align with the current signposted off-leash boundaries, to provide for temporary changes for events and to transition to on-leash as parts of the off-leash area are developed in accordance with the Gardens Master Plan. · Prohibit dogs from waterways. · Prohibit dogs from the Huakaiwaka Visitor Centre, Café area (except the western café terrace), designated food concession areas and Potter Children’s Garden. · Clarify rules in other areas.
Hunua Ranges Regional Park · Prohibit dogs from tracks and roads that connect to the Kohukohunui track, the Kokako Management Area and Piggott’s Habitat and on single use mountain bike tracks (currently on-leash).
Long Bay Regional Park · Amend the summer daytime rule for the beach south of Vaughan Stream from on-leash to prohibited (off-leash access before 10am and after 5pm in summer and at any time in winter unchanged). · Clarify rules in other areas, including access to beach from southernmost carpark and prohibited tracks and bays.
Mahurangi Regional Park · Prohibit dogs on Cudlip Point Loop Track (currently on-leash). · Allow dogs on-leash at all times at Scott Point (currently on-leash time and season). · Clarify rules in other areas (including dogs prohibited at Mahurangi Regional Park (East) and heritage grounds at Scott Point.
Pākiri Regional Park · Prohibit dogs on the associated beach.
Shakespear Regional Park · Apply an on-leash time and season rule to the open grass areas between Army Bay and Okoramai Bay (currently off-leash). · Clarify rules in other areas (such as boundary of Army Bay and Okoramai Bay beaches, on-leash tracks and prohibited areas).
Tāpapakanga Regional Park · Provide off-leash access on beach and on-leash access on area between beach and car park at any time (currently prohibited during lambing season). · Clarify rules in other areas (such as prohibited at the campgrounds and bach, and during lambing).
Te Ārai Regional Park · Prohibit dogs on Forestry Beach (Te Ārai Beach South to Pakiri Beach) and associated coastal tracks. · Clarify access to off-leash area at disused quarry.
Waitawa Regional Park · Change eastern part of Mataitai Beach from off-leash to on-leash. · Change Waitawa Beach from off-leash to on-leash. · Prohibit dogs on single use mountain bike tracks. · Clarify other areas where dogs are prohibited (such as farm paddock during lambing, campground and bach).
Whakanewha Regional Park · Provide on-leash access on tracks from Omiha (Rocky Bay) to the on-leash area of the Park.
Ambury, Muriwai, Tāwharanui and Wenderholm regional parks · Clarify current rules (no change to dog access).
Reorganise, simplify and clarify Policy and Bylaw content, including: · using a goal, focus area, action and rule structure · clarifying approach to setting dog access rules · clarifying the policy to neuter classified dogs and who can provide behavioural assessments · clarifying Auckland-wide dog access rules such as for council carparks and camping grounds, working dogs, dogs in vehicles and private ways · removing outdated information in Schedule 2 for example outdated landmarks · updating dog access rules on Tūpuna Maunga (ancestral mountains) · removing Bylaw content that is covered in the Policy or is outdated.

Main proposals

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

Auckland Botanic Gardens

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

· Prohibit dogs from waterways.

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

· Clarify rules in other areas.

Hunua Ranges Regional Park

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

Long Bay Regional Park

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

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

Mahurangi Regional Park

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

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

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

Pākiri Regional Park

· Prohibit dogs on the associated beach.

Shakespear Regional Park

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

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

Tāpapakanga Regional Park

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

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

Te Ārai Regional Park

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

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

Waitawa Regional Park

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

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

· Prohibit dogs on single use mountain bike tracks.

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

Whakanewha Regional Park

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

Ambury, Muriwai, Tāwharanui and Wenderholm regional parks

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

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

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

· clarifying approach to setting dog access rules

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

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

· removing outdated information in Schedule 2 for example outdated landmarks

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

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

22. The proposal was publicly notified for feedback from 20 January 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 370 people from the Kaipātiki 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 Tāpapakanga, 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)	25 per cent	74 per cent	33 per cent	66 per cent
P2	Auckland Botanic Gardens	42 per cent	55 per cent	34 per cent	62 per cent
P3	Hunua Ranges Regional Park	27 per cent	68 per cent	33 per cent	56 per cent
P4	Long Bay Regional Park	20 per cent	78 per cent	26 per cent	70 per cent
P5A	Mahurangi Regional Park East	35 per cent	54 per cent	27 per cent	62 per cent
P5B	Mahurangi Regional Park West	32 per cent	58 per cent	28 per cent	60 per cent
P5C	Mahurangi Regional Park Scott Point	42 per cent	50 per cent	29 per cent	61 per cent
P6	Pākiri Regional Park	13 per cent	85 per cent	15 per cent	81 per cent
P7	Shakespear Regional Park	38 per cent	52 per cent	39 per cent	51 per cent
P8	Tāpapakanga Regional Park	41 per cent	48 per cent	34 per cent	55 per cent
P9	Te Ārai Regional Park	34 per cent	52 per cent	18 per cent	76 per cent
P10	Waitawa Regional Park	31 per cent	58 per cent	30 per cent	61 per cent
P11	Whakanewha Regional Park	35 per cent	46 per cent	35 per cent	51 per cent
P12A	Ambury Regional Park	31 per cent	62 per cent	37 per cent	55 per cent
P12B	Muriwai Regional Park	46 per cent	46 per cent	46 per cent	47 per cent
P12C	Tāwharanui Regional Park	40 per cent	46 per cent	43 per cent	45 per cent
P12D	Wenderholm Regional Park	32 per cent	50 per cent	42 per cent	44 per cent
P13A	Restructure the policy to more clearly show its goal, focus areas, council actions, and rules	70 per cent	14 per cent	71 per cent	17 per cent
P13B	Clarify rule that all dogs classified as menacing must be neutered	90 per cent	7 per cent	81 per cent	13 per cent
P13C	Clarify who can provide behavioural assessments in relation to menacing dog classifications	86 per cent	4 per cent	83 per cent	6 per cent
P13D	Clarify what areas in Auckland require a license to keep multiple dogs on a property	72 per cent	21 per cent	74 per cent	17 per cent
P13E	Clarify how dog access rules are set	73 per cent	12 per cent	75 per cent	13 per cent
P13F	Clarify Auckland-wide dog access rules	76 per cent	16 per cent	76 per cent	17 per cent
P13G	Clarify or correct errors in Policy Schedule 2: Dog access rules	68 per cent	10 per cent	67 per cent	12 per cent
P13H	Remove outdated information in Policy Schedule 2: Dog access rules	82 per cent	8 per cent	80 per cent	9 per cent
P13I	Update dog access rules for Tūpuna Maunga (ancestral mountains)	47 per cent	19 per cent	49 per cent	26 per cent
P13J	Remove outdated or duplicate bylaw content	81 per cent	7 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 to the agenda report and a copy of all public feedback related to the local board area to meet council’s statutory requirements is in Attachment B to the agenda report. A more user-friendly view that consolidates the comments from all public feedback related to the local board by proposal can be viewed on council's AKHaveYourSay web page.

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 Friday 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 (refer to 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.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	30 April 2025 - Kaipātiki Local Board additional business meeting - Summary of public feedback to the proposed changes to the dog policy and bylaw	47
b	30 April 2025 - Kaipātiki Local Board additional business meeting - Public feedback from people in the Kaipātiki Local Board area - Click here to view

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Kylie Hill - Principal Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

Louise Mason - General Manager Policy

Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

30 April 2025

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

File No.: CP2025/06349

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 Kaipātiki Local Board:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Horopaki

Context

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

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

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

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

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

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

· the Governing Body will allocate budgets to these programmes.

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

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

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

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

Other amendments to the allocation table

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

49. Existing urban regeneration, property management and economic development activities are coming in house from 1 July. 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 ⇩	30 April 2025 - Kaipātiki Local Board additional business meeting - Proposed changes to the allocation table of decision-making responsibilities of Auckland Council’s Governing Body and local boards	147
b ⇩	30 April 2025 - Kaipātiki Local Board additional business meeting - List of current Eke Panuku projects in the Kaipātiki local board area	165

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

John Nash - Programme Manager

Shirley Coutts - Principal Advisor, Governance Strategy

Authorisers

Lou-Ann Ballantyne - General Manager Governance and Engagement

Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

30 April 2025

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

File No.: CP2025/06386

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 [resolution number 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 of the agenda report.

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

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

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

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

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

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

· making the decision-making responsibilities of local boards clearer

· clarifying the meaning of ‘value for money’

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

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

5. The proposed changes are reflected in the amended strategy (refer to final draft in Attachment B [with track changes] of the agenda report).

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 (refer to Attachment C of the agenda report), noting that much of how the strategy is implemented is at the discretion of each local board.

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

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

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

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

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

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 to Attachment A of the agenda report, pages 3-4).

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

15. On 10 December 2024, the Policy and Planning Committee approved public consultation on the draft strategy [resolution number 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 to the agenda report 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 (refer to Attachment A of the agenda report, pages 38-47).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

30. All proposed changes are included in track changes in the amended strategy (refer to Attachment B of the agenda report).

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

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

Summary of option packages analysis – for more details refer CP2025/06386

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 of the agenda report.

Consultation feedback supports the capacity-based approach

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

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

Figure One: Preference for open space provision standards

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

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

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

Staff will continue work to support implementation of the strategy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

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

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

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

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

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

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

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

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

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

Local impacts and local board views

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

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

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

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

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

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

65. Potential risks and mitigations are outlined below:

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	30 April 2025 - Kaipātiki Local Board additional business meeting - Feedback analysis report	177
b ⇨	30 April 2025 - Kaipātiki Local Board additional business meeting - Manaaki Tāmaki Makaurau: Auckland Open Space, Sport and Recreation Strategy (final draft version with track changes) (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇩	30 April 2025 - Kaipātiki Local Board additional business meeting - Putting things into practice - scenarios, examples of good practices and applications of the two open space provision option packages (with maps)	233
d ⇩	30 April 2025 - Kaipātiki Local Board additional business meeting - Preliminary findings for improving advice to local boards	259

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

Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager

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

Chairperson	John Gillon
Deputy Chairperson	Danielle Grant, JP
Members	Paula Gillon
	Erica Hannam
	Melanie Kenrick
	Tim Spring
	Dr Raymond Tan
	Dr Janet Tupou

Author	Veshanka Chetty - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Trina Thompson - Local Area Manager