Agenda of Policy and Planning Committee

Policy and Planning Committee

15 May 2025

Adoption of Manaaki Tāmaki Makaurau: Auckland Open Space, Sport and Recreation Strategy

File No.: CP2025/07817

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek adoption of the final draft Manaaki Tāmaki Makaurau: Auckland Open Space, Sport and Recreation Strategy following public consultation.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Manaaki Tāmaki Makaurau: Auckland Open Space, Sport and Recreation Strategy is the unifying roadmap that sets strategic directions so that all Aucklanders can access open spaces and sport and recreation opportunities. It outlines principles for prioritising investment to deliver on those strategic directions. It also contains three more technical policies, which set Auckland Council’s expectations for delivering good outcomes for Auckland and Aucklanders. Of high interest to Aucklanders and elected members is the update of the open space provision standards in Policy two.

3. The final draft Manaaki Tāmaki Makaurau reflect public feedback as well as local board resolutions and direction from the Open Space, Sport and Recreation Joint Political Working Group. The proposed changes are shown in track changes in the final draft strategy (see Attachment B).

4. Feedback can be summarised as follows:

a) Our communities, partners and stakeholders provided 402 pieces of feedback through Have Your Say and a People’s Panel survey. There is strong support overall for the draft strategy but suggestions for possible refinements. A detailed feedback report is provided in Attachment A.

b) Local boards feedback at their business meetings in April 2025 (see Attachment C) show general support of the final draft strategy with sixteen local boards supporting all or most aspects of the final draft strategy.

c) Local boards had mixed views on Policy two: open space provision and acquisition and the quantity of open space provision the standards enable. Eleven local boards endorsed the inclusion of the capacity-focused approach (Option package two) in the open space provision standards. Others were concerned that the proposed provision standards would not deliver enough open space, especially in high-density areas, and could be too restrictive. The need for adequate budget for acquisition early in the development process was another strong piece of feedback from local boards.

d) This was echoed by the Open Space, Sport and Recreation Joint Political Working Group. While it generally supports the final draft strategy (with the exception of one member), some members expressed concerns with aspects of Policy two: open space provision and acquisition (see Attachment D).

5. Having considered all feedback, staff propose the following key changes:

a) more explicitly emphasising the importance of equity and accessibility

b) greater emphasis on the importance of environment and biodiversity outcomes

c) amending the approach to regional parks acquisition to be more enabling and better reflect their role and the benefits they deliver

d) refining the strategic directions

e) making the role of local boards and the importance of quality advice clearer

f) clarifying the meaning of ‘value for money’

g) clarifying that the council attempts to acquire land early in the development process as budget enables

h) update of the open space provision standards to adopt a capacity-focused approach (Option package two).

6. Staff recommend the committee adopt the strategy. The strategy will provide a refreshed and consolidated approach for providing open spaces and sport and recreation opportunities. Consultation feedback has been incorporated, and its adoption will allow for strategic allocation of resources and effective implementation.

7. Staff do not recommend making the open space provision standards less prescriptive. The standards are designed to ensure the right mix of fit for purpose open spaces is equitably distributed across the network and community benefit is maximised; a certain degree of prescription is required to frame provision conversations and acquisition negotiations.

8. Similarly, staff do not recommend further increasing the quantity of open space provision or setting a capacity target. The open space provision standards proposed in the strategy consider and balance multiple factors, including quantity and quality of open space, equity, affordability and achievability.

9. An open space land acquisition prioritisation programme providing a 10-year and 30-year view of the open space acquisition pipeline will support budgeting and work planning processes.

10. If the Policy and Planning Committee adopt the final draft strategy, staff will focus on implementation to support delivery by local boards and the Governing Body. Staff would also continue scoping how advice to local boards can be improved within existing resources.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Policy and Planning Committee:

a) whai / adopt the final draft Manaaki Tāmaki Makaurau: Auckland Open Space, Sport and Recreation Strategy in Attachment B, including updating the open space provision standards 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.

b) whakaae / agree to delegate any additional minor changes to the final draft strategy to the General Manager, Policy.

c) whakaae / agree to rescind the following five existing strategies, policies and plans that form Auckland Council’s open space, sport and recreation policy framework:

i) Parks and Open Spaces Strategic Action Plan (2013)

ii) Parks and Open Space Acquisition Policy (2013)

iii) Open Space Provision Policy (2016)

iv) Auckland Sport and Recreation Strategic Action Plan 2014-2024 (2014, refreshed in 2017)

v) Increasing Aucklanders’ Participation in Sport: Investment Plan 2019-39 (2019).

d) whakamihi / thank the chair and members of the Open Space, Sport and Recreation Joint Political Working Group and the members of the Māori and advisory rōpū for their commitment and leadership in the development of Manaaki Tāmaki Makaurau.

Horopaki

Context

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

11. Manaaki Tāmaki Makaurau 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.

12. As a regional public policy, the strategy forms a unifying roadmap for the council group to deliver and for other non-council organisations and community groups to contribute.

a) It sets the strategic directions we seek to achieve for open space, sport and recreation in Auckland and against which we will monitor progress.

b) It outlines principles for prioritising investment to deliver on the strategic directions.

c) It also contains three more technical policies, which set Auckland Council’s expectations for delivering good outcomes for Auckland and Aucklanders. They are designed to be used by elected members, developers, planners and implementers to inform planning, development and management decisions and approaches.

Figure 1: Manaaki Tāmaki Makaurau: Auckland Open Space, Sport and Recreation Strategy

The development of the strategy was supported by an advisory structure

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

14. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

a) Where we are heading (strategic directions)

b) Our approach to investment (investment principles)

c) Making the most of our open spaces (Policy one)

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

e) 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:

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

b) 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 in the following section (from paragraph 33).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

The consultation feedback shows we are on the right track, but refinements can be made

22. We received 402 pieces of feedback: 149 through Have Your Say and 253 via the People’s Panel survey. Attachment A provides a detailed summary of the feedback.

23. Submitters to Have Your Say included members of the public, a range of partners and stakeholders (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:

a) the draft strategy overall

b) the five draft strategic directions, with the highest support for Strategic direction five: ‘support Aucklanders to live healthy, active lives’

c) 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’

d) all three policies, with the highest support for Policy one: ‘making the most of our open spaces’.

25. Overall, submitters highlighted 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.

26. 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) to a high-density-focused approach (Option package one: delivering more open space in high-density areas) for open space provision standards.

27. Analysis of the qualitative feedback outlined a range of key themes and suggestions for improvement:

a) open and green spaces are essential for mental and physical health

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

c) open space planning needs to be an integral part of urban planning

d) open spaces must serve a wide range of functions

e) our resources should be used efficiently.

The joint political working group had oversight of the changes proposed

28. Staff considered the consultation feedback and local board resolutions received in November and December 2024 prior to public consultation. As a result, amendments to the strategy are proposed (see Attachment A, pages 38-49).

29. The Open Space, Sport and Recreation Joint Political Working Group provided oversight of the strategy’s development over 10 meetings. They directed staff to make further amendments at their meetings in April and May 2025 (see Attachment D).

30. The most significant changes are summarised in Table One below. In addition, staff have made minor changes to address specific feedback, clarify intent and meaning or update technical information.

31. All proposed changes are shown in track changes in the final draft strategy (Attachment B).

32. Open Space, Sport and Recreation Joint Political Working Group members Sandra Coney and Margi Watson expressed disagreement with aspects of Policy two: open space provision and acquisition (see Attachment D). They were concerned that the policy would not deliver enough open space and could be too restrictive. Because of concerns about Policy two being too restrictive and setting expectations through policies rather than guidelines, member Coney also expressed opposition to adopting the final draft strategy.

Changes include adopting a capacity-based approach to open space provision standards

33. As part of the strategy’s 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. Staff consulted on two option packages to update the standards.

Summary of option packages analysis – for more details see report

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.

34. Although package one and package two can both deliver improved open space outcomes for Aucklanders, package two is the recommended option as it targets provision where it is needed the most, therefore best delivering for Auckland's current and future needs and the council's obligation to deliver value for money for rate payers.

35. By taking a capacity-focused approach across both high- and medium-density areas, option package two will enable the council to achieve better open space outcomes for Aucklanders as the city grows.

Consultation feedback supports the capacity-based approach

36. Based on previous analysis, consultation feedback and local board feedback, staff recommend that the final draft strategy includes Option package two.

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

Table Two: Preference for open space provision standards

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

39. 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 the implementation stage.

Staff have identified and assessed three options for next steps following consultation

40. Following consultation and amendments to the draft strategy, the committee has now three options when considering this report:

Option one: Do not adopt the final draft strategy and retain the status quo

- No further work on the strategy

- The five existing strategies, policies and plans are retained

- Decisions could be made to refresh individual strategies, policies and plans

Option two: Adopt the strategy, except Policy two, and request staff to undertake more work on the open space provision standards

- Undertake further work on the approach to open space provision and acquisition to further test options to vary provision levels and develop local impact assessments for each local board area to test various provision options,

- Report local impact assessments to local boards for feedback on a preferred option for consideration by the Governing Body

- Further amend the strategy and seek the views of local boards and adoption by the relevant committee of the Governing Body

Option three: Adopt the final draft strategy – recommended option

- No further work on the strategy

- The final draft strategy is adopted

- The five existing strategies, policies and plans that it replaces are rescinded

- Focus shifts to implementation

41. To assess these options, staff used the five unweighted success factors agreed by the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee in 2022 for the refresh and consolidation programme of work [PAC/2022/68].

Criteria	Description
Leadership	The extent to which the option retains Auckland Council leadership of the open space, sport and recreation policy framework.
Collaboration	The extent to which the option enables collaboration with open space, sport and recreation interests and sectors.
Te ao Māori	The extent to which the option enables integration using a te ao Māori framework.
Up to date	The extent to which the option reflects changes in Auckland Council’s legislative, strategic and fiscal environment.
Integration	The extent to which the option aligns the components of the framework to achieve better coordination of long-term decision-making and forward planning.

Staff recommend that the final draft strategy be adopted (Option three)

42. Option three is recommended because it:

· best meets the assessment criteria and delivers on the approved programme of work

· aligns with work to simplify and consolidate the council’s strategic framework

· reflects the support for the draft strategy in the consultation feedback and among local boards.

43. Option three would mean resourcing could be focused on implementation. If adopted, tools and guidelines would be developed to support its implementation and address local board concerns about how the strategy will work in practice.

44. Option two provides the opportunity to undertake further work on open space provision standards and test how different options would impact the development of each local board’s open space network. This option will involve significantly more time and resources as 21 local impact assessments as well significant political reporting would be required.

45. Option two is not recommended as it would significantly delay implementation and potentially make the strategy less up to date. It would delay using an up-to-date provision and acquisition policy, leaving the existing provision policy in place, providing insufficient open space in high-density and greenfield areas. It would also risk creating uncertainty about the final product and its alignment to the assessment criteria, particularly regarding consolidation.

46. Staff do not recommend making the open space provision standards less prescriptive: the standards are designed to ensure the right mix of fit for purpose open spaces is equitably distributed across the network and community benefit is maximised; a certain degree of prescription is required to frame provision conversations and acquisition negotiations. Similarly, staff do not recommend further increasing the quantity of open space provision or setting a capacity target: the open space provision standards proposed in the strategy consider and balance multiple factors, including quantity and quality of open space, equity, affordability and achievability. Expectations for a higher level of provision would also need significantly more budget allocated in the long-term plan for open space acquisition.

47. Option one is not recommended. While this option would retain the familiarity of the existing strategies, policies and plans, it does not deliver a consolidated and refreshed policy, meaning it lacks integration and risks not adequately responding to key challenges and opportunities for Auckland.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

48. The final draft strategy considers how to adapt to the challenges posed by climate change and work to mitigate it, including by reducing emissions. Strategic direction five is about enhancing 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.

49. It 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.

50. While we already contribute to this strategic direction, the final 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.

51. The investment approach in the final 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

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

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

54. If the final draft strategy is adopted, kaimahi from across the council group will continue to work together on implementation.

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

Local impacts and local board views

55. Local boards were engaged throughout the strategy’s development (see Attachment A, pages 3-4). Two local board members were on 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.

56. Local boards provided their views prior to the draft strategy going for consultation at their November / December 2024 business meetings. These views have informed the proposed changes to the final draft strategy.

57. Staff responded to their call for a better understanding of local impacts by providing examples of potential local applications of the strategy as part of their April 2025 agenda reports. Local boards also called for better advice. Staff are continuing to scope how to improve advice to local boards.

58. Local boards considered the final draft strategy at their April 2025 business meetings. The agenda report included consultation results by geographic area (north, west, central, south), noting there was little variation across the region. Local board resolutions can be found in full in Attachment C.

59. There is general support for the final draft strategy with sixteen local boards supporting all or most aspects.

60. Views were more mixed on Policy two: the provision and acquisition of open space, and more specifically the open space provision standards. Eleven local boards endorsed the inclusion of the capacity-focused approach (Option package two) in the open space provision standards. Views expressed can be summarised as follows:

· Many local boards highlighted the importance of open space to Aucklanders and the need for adequate provision in both medium- and high-density areas.

· Some local boards were concerned that the proposed provision standards would not deliver enough open space to respond to Auckland’s growth and intensification and that they could be too restrictive.

· Some local boards called for adequate funding to enable open space acquisition early in the development process.

· Some local boards would like staff to develop a new approach to open space provision and acquisition that sets a higher minimum level of provision, for example a minimum of 20m² open space per person.

61. 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

62. The views of mana whenua and mataawaka have been sought throughout the development of the 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.

63. Guided by the Māori rōpū, the 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.

64. Consultation feedback 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.

65. 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

66. 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.

67. The final 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.

68. Staff will develop an open space land acquisition prioritisation programme providing a 10-year and 30-year view of the open space acquisition pipeline to support budgeting and work planning processes.

69. When there is insufficient budget to support planned acquisitions, staff will seek a decision from the relevant committee of council as to how to prioritise acquisitions, based on the four investment principles in the strategy.

70. Investment advice for open spaces, sport and recreation will be based on a better articulation of costs and benefits, including in relation to local board plan and long-term plan priorities. This will be supported by a new tool to enable better identification, description and quantification of benefits to help local boards and Governing Body prioritise investment.

71. 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

72. Potential risks and mitigations are outlined below:

If…	Then…	Possible mitigations…
The final draft 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 draft strategy. · The implementation context, including financial constraints, has also informed the final draft 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 draft strategy is perceived as unfunded	Decision-makers may be less likely to adopt it. Medium financial, reputational and strategic risk.	· The final draft strategy sets strategic directions and investment principles to guide prioritisation and enable better informed discussions on future budget allocation.
The committee recommends Option two (further work) for next steps	The existing provision and acquisition policies still apply and there will be uncertainty regarding the final strategy. Medium financial, reputational and strategic risk.	· More resource could be allocated to developing advice and bringing back a revised policy as early as possible in the new term of council.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

73. If the final draft strategy is adopted, implementation will be guided by the new strategic directions, investment principles and policies. New provision standards in Policy two: open space provision and acquisition will apply to all areas, regardless of whether a plan change has been adopted.

74. Staff will identify key actions aligned with the council’s 23 investment activities and key performance indicators. This 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 and support implementation.

75. Staff will continue to scope how advice to local boards can be improved. Preliminary improvements include 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.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Consultation feedback analysis report (Under Separate Cover)
b ⇨	Manaaki Tāmaki Makaurau: Auckland Open Space, Sport and Recreation Strategy (final draft version with track changes) (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	Local board resolutions (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	Open Space, Sport and Recreation Joint Political Working Group meeting 10 summary memo – 2 May 2025 (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Aubrey Bloomfield - Senior Policy Advisor

Authorisers

Carole Canler - Senior Policy Manager

Louise Mason - General Manager Policy

Megan Tyler - Director Policy, Planning and Governance

Policy and Planning Committee

15 May 2025

Auckland Unitary Plan - proposed plan change to add to the Notable Trees Schedule

File No.: CP2025/07392

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval to publicly notify a change to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part). The proposed plan change adds or amends 161 new entries to Schedule 10 – Notable Trees Schedule and the corresponding mapped overlay.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report considers the notification of a plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (AUP) that seeks to add or amend 161 new entries to Schedule 10 - Notable Trees Schedule (the Schedule). The 161 proposed entries comprise 174 individual trees and 29 groups of trees located across the Auckland region.

3. The plan change continues the assessment and evaluation of nominations held in council’s database since 2014. Plan Change 83 (PC83) which was made operative in February 2024, began the process of addressing the initial batch of nominations and added 19 new entries to the Schedule as part of that process.

4. The current plan change has assessed and evaluated all remaining nominations up to and including June 2024. The 174 trees and 29 groups included in this plan change have been found to meet one or more of the criteria as set out in the AUP Regional Policy Statement (RPS) Chapter B4.5.2(1)(a-e).

5. The scope of the plan change is limited only to the addition of the identified trees and groups. The effect of scheduling them ensures their management is specific to their values. The rules framework for notable trees is set out in Chapter D13 – Notable Trees Overlay of the AUP.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Policy and Planning Committee:

a) whakaae / approve the notification of the plan change to add or amend 161 new entries to Schedule 10 – Notable Trees Schedule of the Auckland Unitary Plan, included as Attachment C to the agenda report.

b) ohia / endorse the draft section 32 evaluation report included as Attachment A to the agenda report.

c) tāpae / delegate to the General Manager Planning and Resource Consents the authority to approve minor amendments to the proposed plan change, if required, in advance of public notification.

Horopaki

Context

Background

6. The (former) Planning Committee resolved at its November 2020 meeting (PLA 2020/96) to defer the work necessary to promulgate a plan change to address the nominations for new notable trees held in council’s database. It was not considered financially viable to review or make changes to the notable tree schedules in the AUP at that point in time.

7. Following this resolution, the council was challenged through a judicial review by The Tree Council on 3 November 2021. The basis of the review was that the resolutions made by the former Planning Committee were an error of law and a breach of natural justice. In response, ‘without prejudice’ discussions were held between council and The Tree Council between 8 April 2022 and 13 May 2022. Parties were able to reach agreement, and an out of court terms of settlement was reached (the details of which remain confidential), and the judicial review proceedings were discontinued on 14 July 2022.

8. Since that time, progress has been made to evaluate the nominations for new notable trees. On 4 August 2022 the former Planning Committee resolved to approve the notification of a plan change (PC83) to the AUP that included the addition of, deletion of, and amendments to entries in Schedule 10 (PLA/2022/93). PC83 also introduced an automatic update clause to ensure the continued protection of notable trees where a site is subdivided and where the addresses of notable trees may change as a result.

9. PC83 also formed part of the bundle of complementary “non-intensification planning instrument” plan changes that the council was required to notify by August 2022.

10. PC83 was made operative in February 2024 and its outcomes are now embedded into the AUP. PC83 added 19 line-items (individual trees and groups), deleted 20 line-items, and amended errors in 35 line items in the Schedule. It also added the automatic update clause and deleted redundant diagrams from the Schedule.

11. PC83 is of limited relevance to the current plan change as it is now operative. However, PC83 began the process of evaluating all of the approximately 580 nominations held in the council database, and also developed the processes and technology that carried over to the methodology used by the current plan change. PC83 had evaluated approximately 20 per cent of the original nominations by the time it was notified.

Current plan change

12. The current proposed plan change has now assessed all of the nominations held in the database between 2014 and June 2024. This constitutes the remaining nominations in the original database (received between 2014 and November 2020), and all subsequent nominations received between December 2020 and June 2024.

13. A total of 161 entries are now proposed to be added or amended to the Schedule and the corresponding GIS mapped overlay. These entries comprise a total of 174 individual trees and 29 groups of trees across the region. These trees and groups have been evaluated and found to meet one or more of the criteria as set out in the AUP RPS Chapter B4.5.2(1)(a-e). A summary of the full list of the proposed entries is included as Attachment B.

14. The scope of the plan change is limited only to the identification and addition of trees and groups with a view to adding them to the Schedule. It does not propose to amend the policy or rule framework relating to the Notable Trees provisions, nor make any other amendments to any other line items contained in the Schedule.

15. The purpose of the plan change (to manage and protect trees according to their values evaluated against regional policy statement notable tree scheduling criteria) is achieved by the following:

a) the addition of 174 individual trees and 29 groups of trees to Chapter L - Schedule 10 Notable Trees Schedule, derived from nominations received by the council from 2014 until June 2024

b) the corresponding amendment to the Notable Trees Overlay which shows the location/s of the proposed trees and groups

c) limited corrections to the operative Schedule where these are related only to the introduction of new entries

d) application of the AUP’s settled tree management regime without amendment to that policy and rules framework.

16. It is intended that the amended schedule text and maps will be notified with the changes indicated by strike-through and underline. The draft marked-up Schedule is included as Attachment C.

17. Due to the number of proposed changes, the mapped amendments to the Notable Trees Overlay will be provided via a public geospatial viewer. A link to the viewer will be provided as part of the notification documents, and submitters and the public will be able to access the mapped changes via this electronic portal.

Additional Nominations

18. While this plan change addresses only those nominations held in council’s database up to and including June 2024, the ability still exists for members of the public to nominate trees for inclusion to the Schedule through a future process. Since June 2024, council has received a total of 10 new nominations.

19. It is also anticipated that any plan change proposing additions to the Schedule may attract submissions seeking further additions. If these are determined by independent hearing commissioners to be out of scope of the plan change, these will also need to be addressed through a separate future plan change, and this approach would be subject to further political decision-making.

Effect of Scheduling

20. The Notable Trees Overlay is based on a management approach where activities anticipated to have a greater effect on the values of a notable tree in Schedule 10 are subject to more rigorous management. The identification of a notable tree is the basis of this management approach, ensuring the management of a notable tree is specific to its values. The rules framework for notable trees are set out in Chapter D13 of the AUP.

21. The intent of the AUP is to ensure that notable trees are protected from inappropriate subdivision, use and development, while still recognising the need for ‘reasonable use.’ The ability exists for applications for resource consents for significant alteration or removal of notable trees, including those sought to be added to the Schedule by this plan change.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

22. To recognise the values of the 174 trees and 29 groups, a plan change process must be followed to add them to the Schedule. Each of the proposed additions has been evaluated against the current notable tree criteria accordance with the RPS and council’s methodology and guidance for evaluating for Notable Trees. The analysis is set out in the section 32 report included as Attachment A.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

23. The council's climate goals as set out in Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan are:

a) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to reach net zero emissions by 2050

b) to prepare the region for the adverse impacts of climate change.

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

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

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

25. Notable trees are part of the overall canopy cover of Auckland. They make a positive contribution to Auckland’s climate by assisting with carbon sequestration and reducing net greenhouse gas emissions. CO² is stored in the trees’ wood, leaves, roots, and the soil around the trees. They also release oxygen during photosynthesis, which is essential for human and animal life.

26. While not all the proposed additions to the Schedule are located in the urban environment, most are, and large trees in built-up areas are known to have a cooling effect through evapotranspiration and shade, reducing temperatures and energy consumption. Shade from trees also reduces the amount of direct sunlight reaching surfaces and buildings, further lowering temperatures.

27. An increase in notable trees would have further positive effects on Auckland’s climate by providing them with specific protection against removal, so that their ongoing contribution to positive climate effects can continue.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

28. Council-controlled organisations (CCOs), statutory bodies and relevant internal departments will be sent memoranda in May to advise them of the plan change. No direct consultation was undertaken with these bodies given the scale of the plan change and the fact that the plan change proposes no changes to the policy or rules framework relating to notable trees. Those CCOs who have proposed trees on properties in their ownership were subject to pre-notification and will also be directly notified as part of the overall public notification process later in May.

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

Local impacts and local board views

29. Given the distribution of nominated eligible trees proposed for scheduling in the proposed plan change, it is considered that 19 boards would have an interest in this proposed plan change. A report was taken to all nineteen local boards for consideration at their March business meetings. A workshop was also held with Howick Local Board on 13 March 2025. Staff also attended the business meetings of Howick, Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Rodney, Upper Harbour, and Waitākere Ranges local boards.

30. Local boards were also provided with the details of trees and groups of trees that are proposed to be added within their respective board areas.

31. As a result of the consultation, all boards generally supported the plan change, and most supported adequate consultation/engagement with property owners and stakeholders as part of the process. A wide range of additional views were also received, including the following:

a) request that the addition of nominated notable trees are addressed in a timely manner and that adequate resource is provided for the process:

· Howick

· Kaipātiki

· Ōrākei

· Upper Harbour

· Whau

b) note that the actual street addresses of all proposed new trees and groups within the respective board area were not supplied as part of the consultation:

· Devonport-Takapuna

· Māngere-Ōtāhuhu

· Ōrākei

· Puketāpapa

· Rodney

· Upper Harbour

c) a number of boards (Albert-Eden, Franklin and Waitematā) wished to add additional specific trees for consideration as part of the current plan change.

32. All local boards will have a further opportunity to provide views on the proposed plan change once it is notified and submissions have been received. Local boards will be given a copy of the summary of decisions requested in submissions. Any views provided by local boards will be considered alongside submissions as part of the hearing and decisions process.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

33. A letter (via email) was provided on 4 March 2025 to all iwi authorities recorded by council as being associated with the Auckland region. The letter provided an explanation of the proposed plan change and a draft list of all proposed trees and groups of trees to be added were also made available.

34. To date, kōrero has been held with a representative from Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki specifically in relation to a pōhutukawa in Cockle Bay which is already scheduled, and some additional pōhutukawa in Maraetai. A second request for information has been recently received from Ngāti Paoa in relation to the location of proposed notable trees (which staff are currently in the process of providing).

35. Any feedback received from iwi authorities will be incorporated into the evaluation report for the proposed plan change.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

36. The plan change is funded through the existing Planning and Resource Consent Department budget.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

37. A key risk associated with notifying the proposed plan change is that affected landowners may have concerns about the impact of the proposed plan change on their ability to enjoy and/or develop their property. This risk is significantly mitigated by the consultation that has occurred to date, and the opportunity that exists for landowners to submit on the proposed plan change and present their submission at a hearing.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

38. If approved for notification, the plan change will be publicly notified on 22 May 2025. The process set out in Schedule 1 of the RMA in terms of preparation, change and review of plans will be followed. A period of 30 working days will be provided for submissions to be lodged on the plan change.

39. Once submissions and further submissions have been received on the plan change, council staff will prepare a section 42A report for a hearing. The report will outline a summary of all submissions, an analysis of all submissions received, including local board views, and officer recommendations on whether to accept, accept in part, or reject submissions.

40. A panel will be appointed, and the council will hold a hearing on the plan change, with a decision on the plan change released thereafter.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	PC113 Additions to Schedule 10 section 32 Report
b ⇨	Summary of Additions to Chapter L - Schedule 10 Notable Trees Schedule
c ⇨	PC 113 Chapter L - Schedule 10 Notable Trees Schedule Amendments

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Ruth Andrews - Senior Policy Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager Planning and Resource Consents

Megan Tyler - Director Policy, Planning and Governance

Policy and Planning Committee

15 May 2025

Adoption of the Southern Rural Strategy

File No.: CP2025/07998

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek adoption of Auckland Council’s Southern Rural Strategy.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Auckland’s southern rural area stretches from the Tasman Sea and Manukau Harbour in the west to the Hauraki Gulf and the Firth of Thames in the east. The area is undergoing significant change and is expected to account for approximately 15 per cent of Auckland’s population growth over the next 30 years. This growth will drive continued demand for development across the rural south, increasing pressure on rural industries, highly productive land, the environment, local communities, and already constrained infrastructure.

3. On 2 November 2023, the Auckland Council (the council) Planning, Environment and Parks Committee adopted the Future Development Strategy 2023–2053 (resolution number PEPCC/2023/144), a requirement under the National Policy Statement on Urban Development.

4. The council’s adopted Future Development Strategy outlines that a rural strategy, starting with the south, will be prepared that considers, in more detail, the appropriateness of growth in existing rural settlements.

5. The Southern Rural Strategy (the strategy), see Attachment A, was developed in response to this direction, with its preparation endorsed by the Policy and Planning Committee in April 2024 (resolution number PEPCC/2024/27).

6. The purpose of the strategy is to provide a long-term vision and framework for guiding growth in Auckland’s rural south over the next 30 years. It seeks to balance development pressures to ensure that growth supports liveable communities, rural production, and resilience.

7. The strategy is intended for use by rural communities, developers, the council, and council-controlled organisations, providing direction on how future growth will be managed in the region.

8. Public consultation of the draft strategy took place between 29 October and 1 December 2024, under the Special Consultative Procedure. A total of 65 submissions were received. The draft strategy was amended as a result and is now presented for adoption.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Policy and Planning Committee:

a) whai / adopt the Southern Rural Strategy (Attachment A od the agenda report)

b) tāpae / delegate authority to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Policy and Planning Committee, a member of Houkura – Independent Māori Statutory Board and the General Manager, Policy to make any final changes to the strategy before publication.

c) tuku / provide this report to the Franklin Local Board, thanking them for their input into the development of the strategy and the formal feedback they provided to inform the finalisation of the strategy.

Horopaki

Context

The southern rural area

9. The southern rural area extends from the Tasman Sea and the Manukau Harbour in the west to the Hauraki Gulf and the Firth of Thames in the east. It includes the entire Franklin Local Board area, as well as adjacent rural land within the Howick, Manurewa, and Papakura Local Boards.

10. The rural south is characterised by a diverse natural environment and abundant resources, including some of New Zealand’s most productive land. This makes the area one of the country’s primary food-producing regions. The horticultural and farming sectors in the area play a vital role in both Auckland’s and New Zealand’s economy, contributing significantly to the national supply of fruit and vegetables.

11. Growth in the southern rural area is expected to account for approximately 15 per cent of Auckland’s overall population growth over the next 30 years. The council’s Auckland Growth Scenario anticipates an increase of 89,900 people, 37,500 households, and 16,500 jobs in the region by 2052.

12. This anticipated growth suggests that the area will continue to change, and some locations will grow over the next 30 years. This growth will create ongoing demand for development across all areas of the south. Most growth is anticipated to occur in the future urban areas of Drury, Pukekohe and Paerātā, and there will also be ongoing growth pressure in other settlements across the rural south.

Development of the draft strategy

13. The need for a rural strategy was identified by the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee as part of the resolution to adopt the Future Development Strategy in November 2023 (resolution number PEPCC/2023/144).

14. In April 2024, the Policy and Planning Committee endorsed the preparation of the draft Southern Rural Strategy (draft strategy), along with delegating authority to a Southern Rural Strategy Working Group to provide direction to staff in the development of the strategy (resolution number PEPCC/2024/27).

15. The draft strategy was developed with support from the Franklin Local Board, ongoing engagement with mana whenua entities with customary interests in the rural south, and engagement with a range of interest groups, including:

· local community organisations

· business associations

· representatives from rural and other industry sectors

· government agencies

· council-controlled organisations

· developers.

16. Key themes from this engagement included transport, growth and housing, and natural hazards.

17. The Policy and Planning Committee endorsed the draft strategy for consultation under the Special Consultative Procedure on 10 October 2024 (resolution number PEPCC/2024/102). Public consultation was held from 29 October to 1 December 2024. A total of 65 submissions were received.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Consultation overview

18. Public consultation, under the Special Consultative Procedure, took place from 29 October to 1 December 2024.

19. In total, 65 submissions were received during the consultation period. Of these:

· 46 responses were from individuals

· 19 responses were from organisations.

20. The draft strategy was available on the AK Have Your Say webpage and in the libraries in Pukekohe, Papakura, and Waiuku. The consultation included three ‘drop-in’ Have Your Say events at the Pukekohe, Papakura, and Waiuku libraries and three meetings with local residents’ groups.

21. The AK Have Your Say consultation web page asked for feedback on four key aspects of the strategy: proposed growth approach, strengthening the resilience of rural areas and communities, infrastructure to support growth, and other aspects of our approach to growth in the rural south. The consultation questions also included the opportunity to add freeform feedback and attach more detail.

22. All comments were analysed and grouped into common themes.

23. Some respondents chose to provide feedback in different formats that did not directly respond to the questions asked on AK Have Your Say. These responses were analysed and included into the common themes where relevant. Where respondents provided feedback on topics not directly related to the consultation questions, their feedback was not themed but was considered separately.

24. In total 65 submissions were received, 61 per cent of which were from submitters permanently living and/or working in the Franklin Local Board area. Of those who responded to the overarching consultation question “what do you think of our approach to focus most growth in existing towns and villages”, 65.5 per cent of individuals and 60 per cent of organisations supported the approach.

25. Submissions were also received from the following central government agencies:

· Waka Kotahi | New Zealand Transport Agency

· Te Whatu Ora | Health New Zealand

· Ahumāra Kai Aotearoa | Horticulture New Zealand

· Toka Tū Ake | Natural Hazards Commission.

26. Following consultation, a report was prepared outlining the key themes from the feedback (Attachment B).

Mana whenua engagement

27. Engagement with mana whenua has continued throughout development of this strategy. Engagement was initiated through an invitation to each of the eleven mana whenua organisations whose rohe include any part of the southern rural area. Initial individual hui were held with ten iwi in 2024:

· Ngāti Tamaterā	· Ngāti Pāoa
· Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki	· Ngāti Tamaoho
· Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua	· Te Ākitai Waiohua
· Ngāti Maru	· Te Patukirikiri
· Ngaati Whanaunga	· Te Ahiwaru Waiohua

28. After initial hui, progress updates and invitations to discuss challenges, opportunities and development opportunities were sent. Further feedback was received through engagement with three mana whenua organisations.

29. Feedback themes that emerged from all engagement hui included:

· the cultural and environmental context of the rural south

· the impacts of development on te taiao (natural environment)

· the ability of the southern rural area to cater for growth, both from an environmental and an infrastructure perspective

· partnership approach between the council and mana whenua.

30. The feedback has helped staff understand some of the Māori issues, challenges and opportunities for the southern rural area over the next 30 years.

31. These themes were reinforced by Iwi Management Plans, ratified iwi environmental documents, and past Māori engagement and iwi input into previous council engagements including Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri, Auckland’s Water Strategy and Thriving Communities Strategy.

32. No submissions from mana whenua groups were received during the public consultation period.

Changes to the Southern Rural Strategy consultation draft

33. All feedback has been considered, and the strategy has been reviewed and amended.

34. The key changes to the consultation draft include:

a) The five themes within the strategic framework (Part 4) remained unchanged from the consultation draft, however, the structure and content under each theme has been reworked to ensure a clear focus and direction for each theme.

b) The spatial response section and map (Part 5) has been refined. It demonstrates the future role and function of settlements, as well as the high-level land uses of rural areas beyond these settlements. This is a shift away from solely looking at the level of growth anticipated in each settlement.

c) A new section, Part 6, sets out the anticipated next steps, including implementation, monitoring and review needed to contribute to the outcomes and directions detailed within Part 4 – Strategic framework.

d) Since the consultation draft version of the strategy, Plan Change 88 (Beachlands South) was adopted by the Policy and Planning Committee at their 12 December 2024 meeting (Resolution Number PEPCC/2024/137). Anticipated growth at Beachlands over the long-term is now reflected in the strategy, along with acknowledgement of the developer infrastructure funding and delivery commitments.

35. In addition, there are smaller changes throughout the final strategy. These include:

a) changes to the document structure to make the strategy easier to read and understand

b) refined maps to focus on key aspects

c) reworked capacity and anticipated growth figures using a consistent dataset

d) improved and simplified appendices including the settlement profiles in Appendix B of the strategy.

Overview of the strategy’s structure and direction

36. The strategy provides a vision and direction for where and how Auckland’s southern rural area can grow and change over the next 30 years in a way that promotes liveable communities, rural production and resilience.

37. As the first subregional strategy, the strategy is part of the Future Development Strategy, providing a more detailed assessment of the appropriateness of growth within existing rural settlements.

38. As there is enough plan-enabled capacity to cater for the expected population growth within the rural south, the strategy does not identify additional future urban areas, nor does it change the timing of future urban areas, as detailed within the Future Development Strategy.

39. Additionally, while the area located inside the Rural Urban Boundary at Drury, Ōpaheke, Pukekohe and Paerātā is within the southern rural area, the strategy does not provide direction for their future growth and development as this is addressed through other planning processes including structure plans and plan changes.

40. The structure of the strategy has two key components: the strategic framework (Part 4) and the spatial response (Part 5).

41. The strategic framework outlines a long-term vision and direction to guide future growth and development in the southern rural area. It contains five interconnected themes, each anchored by a desired outcome that defines the future state of the area. To support these outcomes, the framework provides clear directions, along with practical examples to illustrate how they can be achieved. The five themes are:

i) rural form and growth

ii) resilient rural areas and communities

iii) infrastructure servicing

iv) healthy ecosystems

v) Māori outcomes.

42. The spatial response demonstrates the future role and function of settlements, as well as the high-level land uses of rural areas beyond these settlements.

a) Most future growth is anticipated to occur in the future urban areas of Drury, Ōpaheke, Pukekohe and Paerātā and through intensification of Pukekohe’s existing urban area.

b) In 30 years, Waiuku and Beachlands are anticipated to be important rural and coastal towns serving the wider western and eastern areas respectively. Waiuku fulfils this role and function today, whereas Beachlands – in light of Plan Change 88 developer infrastructure funding and delivery commitments – is likely to continue to grow and change over the long-term, evolving into a coastal town for the eastern area.

c) Clevedon and Kingseat will be rural villages, smaller than towns but still providing essential services to local communities. Over time, Kingseat will grow into this role, while Clevedon will continue to serve its existing function.

d) Some rural, coastal and dispersed settlements will continue to have little or no growth and limited services. These communities will rely on the broader rural network of settlements to meet their needs.

e) The rural area outside the settlements will continue to play an important role over the long-term, particularly for rural production.

43. The strategic framework and the spatial response work together to provide the long-term spatial, and non-spatial, direction for the area.

Next steps and review

44. The implementation of the strategy is primarily the responsibility of the council; however, its success will depend on coordinated action across a broad range of stakeholders.

45. Following adoption, the strategy outlines several key next steps, including progressing the Future Development Strategy review process, community adaptation planning, reviewing the Auckland Unitary Plan and Auckland Design Manual, and investigating rural road design standards.

46. Monitoring this strategy will be incorporated into the current annual process for reporting on the Future Development Strategy.

47. This strategy will be considered as part of the Future Development Strategy three-yearly review to determine if an update is needed, as required under the National Policy Statement on Urban Development.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

48. Land use and planning decisions are central to climate action, shaping emissions pathways and resilience to risks like flooding, sea-level rise, and extreme weather. In Auckland, effective planning is crucial to achieving climate goals and managing long-term environmental challenges.

49. Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan (2020) sets targets to cut emissions and adapt to climate impacts, including net-zero by 2050, sustainable urban development, and a resilient low-carbon economy.

50. Auckland’s southern rural area is especially vulnerable to the impacts of climate change due to its low-lying coastal land, flood risks, soil erosion, drought, and dependence on agriculture. Limited infrastructure heightens exposure to climate-related disruptions.

51. Public feedback on the draft strategy emphasised the need for greater climate resilience, better preparation for natural hazards, and stronger support for rural communities.

52. The strategy aligns with Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri’s climate goals, focusing on the built and natural environment. Its strategic framework, outlined in Part 4, is organised around five themes that guide housing, employment, and infrastructure development while protecting rural production land and supporting low-emissions solutions.

53. Theme 2 of the strategic framework focuses on building resilient rural areas and communities. Direction 2(c) emphasises the need to support communities in adapting to climate disruption.

54. The spatial response prioritises growth within already identified areas, aligning with the Future Development Strategy to limit sprawl and avoid high-risk locations. While public transport options are limited in many parts of the rural south, concentrating development in existing settlements enables more effective investment in low-emissions transport and supports the uptake of active transport modes.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

55. The strategy will inform ongoing council work, including other plans and strategies that may have an impact on the southern rural area. The strategy provides direction and integration of the council’s approach to growth and development in the southern rural area. It guides subsequent land use plans, operational plans, programmes of work and investment decisions.

56. Preparation of the strategy has included information, expertise and involvement of staff from across the council and its council-controlled organisations, including Watercare, Auckland Transport and Tātaki Auckland Unlimited.

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

Local impacts and local board views

57. The southern rural area includes the entire Franklin Local Board area with the addition of small areas of adjacent rural land within the Howick, Manurewa, and Papakura Local Boards.

58. In February 2024 an initial workshop was held with Franklin Local Board where the scope of the strategy and intention to establish a Southern Rural Strategy Political Working Group was discussed. This was followed by a business meeting and resolutions confirming the interest of local board delegates on the Southern Rural Strategy Political Working Group [Resolution Number FR/2024/14].

59. Papakura and Manurewa local boards deferred to being represented by Franklin Local Board in the preparation of the draft strategy (28 February Local Board Resolutions [Resolution Number PPK/2024/15] and 10 March 2025 Local Board meeting resolutions [Resolution Number MR/2025/34]).

60. Howick Local Board did not wish to be included in the process of preparing the draft strategy but wished to be kept informed.

61. Staff from Franklin Local Board helped with local interest group engagement. The engagement meetings took place during May and June 2024.

62. A second workshop with Franklin Local Board was held in September 2024. This workshop focused on local interest group feedback and the key challenges identified in the draft strategy. Following the September workshop Franklin Local Board provided input into the content of the draft strategy in their 24 September 2024 Local Board meeting resolutions [Resolution Number FR/2024/147].

63. The revised draft strategy was presented to the Franklin Local Board at an April 2025 workshop. Feedback on the final draft from the Franklin Local Board was provided in their 22 April 2025 meeting resolutions [Resolution Number FR/2025/61] and in Attachment C. This feedback has been considered in developing the final strategy.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

64. The southern rural area has a rich cultural landscape and history, with many sites of cultural, spiritual and historical significance to Māori. Growth and development within the southern rural area affects Māori wellbeing and socio-economic outcomes.

65. The council has committed to achieving Māori outcomes through Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau, influenced by the Māori Plan and Issues of Significance, and Auckland Plan 2050. These documents provide guidance in understanding the priority areas for Tāmaki Makaurau Māori and a number of these priority areas are relevant to the strategy, for example:

· Māori housing aspirations

· protection of existing natural resources

· allowing for kaitiakitanga

· benefits to Māori, for example, housing, economic opportunities, and improved access

· impacts of climate change, for example, on marae, whānau, and sites of significance

· opportunities to showcase Māori identity.

66. The priority areas, along with a review of past Māori engagement and feedback, was compiled as a starting point for engagement.

67. Engagement was initiated through an invitation to each of the eleven mana whenua organisations whose rohe include any part of the southern rural area. Initial individual hui were held with ten iwi in 2024 and further feedback was received through engagement with three mana whenua entities.

68. The engagement has helped the council understand some of the Māori issues, challenges and opportunities for the southern rural area over the next 30 years.

69. Feedback themes heard through engagement were reinforced by Iwi Management Plans, ratified iwi environmental documents, and past Māori engagement and iwi input into previous council engagements including Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri, Auckland’s Water Strategy and Thriving Communities Strategy.

70. No submissions from mana whenua groups were received during the public consultation period.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

71. Adoption of the strategy will not introduce new financial implications, as it aligns with the Future Development Strategy, that prioritises locations for investment. This prioritisation informed both capital and operational spending in the Long-term Plan 2024–2034.

72. The strategy outlines the strategic directions needed to achieve its vision, which are consistent with the Future Development Strategy and the Long-term Plan. It aims to maximise the use of current infrastructure and services by focusing growth within existing rural settlements.

73. Four of the five next steps outlined in the strategy relate to existing council work programmes and will be delivered using existing resources. No additional resources beyond those already anticipated are required. The next step relating to investigation of the rural road design standards is subject to funding availability within Auckland Transport.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

74. There are risks associated with the adoption of the strategy; however these must be weighed against the opportunity costs of not having an appropriate framework in place to manage growth and development in Auckland’s southern rural area. These include:

Risk	Assessment	Mitigation/Control measures
The strategy does not align with future changes to central government policy or legislation frameworks	Ongoing central government reforms, including Going for Housing Growth and proposed changes to the resource management system, may shift requirements around planning for growth and development. Misalignment with these evolving frameworks could reduce the strategy’s effectiveness or necessitate its early review and update.	The strategy has been developed under current legislation but with an outcomes-based focus which could support adapting to changing policy settings. Following adoption, future legislative changes will be considered as part of the ongoing review process.
The strategy does not identify new growth areas	Some feedback proposed the identification of new areas for development, however these are not reflected in the final strategy.	This strategy, along with the Future Development Strategy, considered the need for new growth areas and confirmed that there is enough plan-enabled capacity to accommodate anticipated population growth across the rural south. As such, the strategy does not identify additional future urban areas, nor does it change the timing of future urban areas, as detailed within the Future Development Strategy. Any future changes to identified growth areas will be considered through Future Development Strategy updates.
Perception that the strategy falls short on responding to critical issues such as climate change, infrastructure delivery and protection of rural production areas	Achieving significant shifts in urban development and growth patterns requires a long-term approach. While the strategy addresses key issues such as climate change and infrastructure provision, stakeholders may perceive it as insufficient in fully addressing these concerns. This perception could result in diminished support for the strategy.	The strategy’s outcome and direction-based structure, along with its commitment to regular reviews (as part of the Future Development Strategy updates), ensures it remains responsive to evolving challenges such as climate change and infrastructure needs. The strategic framework clearly outlines key responses through outcomes and directions aimed at addressing critical issues like infrastructure, resilience, and rural form and growth. Realising these outcomes will require integration across all relevant sectors.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

75. If the strategy is adopted, any final changes will be made with approval of the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Policy and Planning Committee, a member of Houkura – Independent Māori Statutory Board General Manager, Policy.

76. Staff will complete final formatting of the strategy and will then make the strategy and supporting documentation publicly available on the council’s website. Internal and external communications are planned. All submitters to the process will be informed of the adoption (or otherwise) following this committee meeting.

77. If adopted, staff will continue progressing the key high-level next steps outlined within the strategy, including:

· the Future Development Strategy review process

· community adaptation planning as part of the council’s Resilient Tāmaki Makaurau programme

· reviewing relevant parts of the Auckland Unitary Plan, the Auckland Design Manual, and investigating the rural road design standards (subject to funding availability).

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Southern Rural Strategy
b ⇨	Summary of feedback report
c ⇨	Franklin Local Board Resolutions

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Eva Zombori - Senior Advisor, Growth and Spatial Strategy

Claire Gray - Manager, Growth & Spatial Strategy

Authorisers

Louise Mason - General Manager Policy

Megan Tyler - Director Policy, Planning and Governance

Policy and Planning Committee

15 May 2025

Delegate approval of Auckland Council’s submission to proposed waste legislation changes

File No.: CP2025/07681

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To delegate approval of Auckland Council’s submission on the Ministry for the Environment’s proposed amendments to the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 and Litter Act 1979.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Ministry for the Environment - Manatū Mō Te Taiao (the ministry) released a consultation document, Have your say on proposed amendments to waste legislation - Tukuna ō whakaaro mō ngā menemana marohi ki te ture para, on 22 April 2025 detailing the government’s proposed amendments to the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA 2008) and Litter Act 1979. Submissions on the proposed amendments close on 1 June 2025.

3. The proposed amendments for consultation relate to the following aspects:

a) creating a framework for extended producer responsibility (EPR)

b) improving the allocation, distribution and use of waste disposal levy funding

c) clarifying roles and responsibilities for central government, local government and the waste sector

d) creating a modern, effective compliance regime

e) enabling controls to address impacts of ‘mismanaged waste’ (e.g. illegal dumping, litter and or ‘escaped’ waste carried by wind or water from one site to another)

f) to consolidate the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 and Litter Act 1979 into one.

4. A preliminary assessment of potential implications for Auckland Council of the proposed legislative amendments highlights the following key aspects (refer also to Attachment B):

a) Funding impact: a change to the method to distribute waste disposal levy funds across all territorial authorities would result in Auckland Council receiving a reduced annual amount from the ministry compared to the current population-based method. Instead, funds would be redistributed to smaller councils to provide a more equitable share. This reduction is partly offset by total levy funding increases over the next three years (2025–2027) due to higher waste disposal levy rates that the Government confirmed in 2024. Maintaining certainty for the existing 50:50 share of levy revenue between central government and local government remains important to the council to ensure long-term planning.

b) Implementation of extended producer responsibility: creating an EPR regulatory framework for end-of-life products would provide better support for waste minimisation and management outcomes for households and others, and its implementation would potentially provide positive impacts on resource recovery systems across the region, including opportunities through Auckland’s Resource Recovery Network.

c) Service delivery and costs: creating the ability to use levy funding to support a wider range of environmental activities provides opportunities for the council and its partners to address local and regional issues (including managing waste generated from climate-related and natural disasters, remediation of vulnerable closed landfills, and activities that reduce environmental harm). However, this would also introduce competing demands for limited waste disposal levy funding. There may also be the potential for increased operating costs to the council should a levy be applied to existing (or future) waste-to-energy facilities which are yet to be defined.

d) Monitoring and enforcement of ‘mismanaged’ waste: a new compliance regime with potential impacts on effectiveness and resourcing.

5. Staff will develop a submission based on policy positions articulated in relevant council strategic policy and plans, including the council’s recently adopted Te Mahere Whakahaere me te Whakaiti Tukunga Para 2024 - Ki te Para Kore / Waste Minimisation and Management Plan 2024 – Towards Zero Waste (waste plan 2024), and will draw on previous feedback the council has provided on other relevant government consultations (including, for example, a 2021 submission to the Ministry for the Environment on proposed changes to waste legislation).

6. Local boards and mana whenua will be invited to provide input on the council’s submission. Given the short timeframes involved in developing and submitting a submission, relevant, recently documented views from local boards and mana whenua on the waste plan 2024 may also be referred to.

7. Further evidence and supporting positions will be obtained from subject matter experts across the Council Group.

8. Staff seek delegated authority from the Policy and Planning Committee to approve the council’s submission given the closing date for submission is before the next Policy and Planning Committee meeting on the 12 June 2025.

9. Staff recommend that the committee delegate authority to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Policy and Planning Committee and a member of Houkura / Independent Māori Statutory Board to approve the submission.

10. The council’s draft submission will be circulated to the delegated members for input and approval.

11. A copy of the final submission will be provided to all elected members, local board members, Houkura and mana whenua once submitted.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Policy and Planning Committee:

a) tāpae / delegate authority to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Policy and Planning Committee and a member of Houkura / Independent Māori Statutory Board to review and approve Auckland Council’s submission on the Government’s proposed amendments to the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 and Litter Act 1979.

Horopaki

Context

Government’s consultation on amendments to waste legislation

12. On 22 April 2025, the Ministry for the Environment - Manatū Mō Te Taiao (the ministry) released its consultation document, Have your say on proposed amendments to waste legislation - Tukuna ō whakaaro mō ngā menemana marohi ki te ture para (consultation document). A summary of the proposals and consultation questions is provided in Attachment A. Consultation closes 1 June 2025.

13. The consultation document states that the proposed amendments are to “create fit-for-purpose, modern waste legislation that gives us more options and flexibility to reduce and manage waste effectively and efficiently”.

14. Feedback is sought on 37 consultation questions across the following five proposals:

a) creating a framework for ‘extended producer responsibility’

b) improving the waste disposal levy system through changes to allocation, distribution, and use

c) clarifying roles and responsibilities in the waste legislation

d) creating a modern, effective compliance regime

e) enabling efficient and effective controls for littering and other types of ‘mismanaged waste’.

15. The term ‘extended producer responsibility’ is described in the consultation material as a suite of policy instruments that shift financial and/or operational responsibility for material recovery and waste management towards producers, importers and retailers, instead of falling by default on councils, communities, future generations and nature. Extended producer responsibility can include tools such as product stewardship schemes and deposit return models, such as a container return scheme for beverage containers.

16. The term ‘mismanaged waste’ is referred to in the consultation document as meaning litter, illegal dumping, or ‘escaped’ waste carried by wind or water from one site to another due to inappropriate management/storage.

17. The proposals include consolidating the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA 2008) and Litter Act 1979 into one bill.

18. The ministry states it will analyse all submissions received by 1 June 2025 to help inform policy and government decisions. If cabinet agrees, an amendment bill will then be introduced to parliament.

19. A delegated authority is sought to approve the council’s submission, given the next Policy and Planning Committee meeting is scheduled for after the 1 June 2025 submission deadline.

Previous government’s consultation on waste policy and legislation reform

20. The Waste Minimisation Act 2008 requires that all territorial authorities “must have regard to the New Zealand Waste Strategy” when developing waste management and minimisation plans. In late 2021, under the previous government, the ministry undertook a public consultation to update the New Zealand Waste Strategy (which had not been updated since 2010) and to reform the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 and Litter Act 1979.

21. At that time, delegated approval for the council’s submission on the ministry’s consultation document was provided by the Planning Committee on 4 November 2021, resolution PLA/2021/127.

22. In March 2023, the previous government adopted Te Rautaki Para - Waste Strategy to replace the previous version of the NZ Waste Strategy. Around the same time, cabinet papers were also released outlining the previous government’s proposed new legislative provisions.

23. In March 2023, the Policy and Environmental Planning Committee approved that any proposed replacement legislation for the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 and Litter Act 1979 would be a priority submission for council (PEPCC/2023/33).

Recent updates to NZ Waste Strategy and waste legislation

24. On 5 March 2025, the government released its Waste and Resource Efficiency Strategy to replace the Te Rautaki Para strategy document adopted by the previous government in 2023.

25. In March 2025, the ministry also released its two-year work programme, indicating waste legislation reform would take place during the first half of 2025.

26. Prior to the release of the new strategy and work-programme, the Government made targeted amendments to the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 in 2024 which included enabling central government to spend its portion of waste disposal levy funds on a broader range of waste and environmental activities. The waste disposal levy is applied to every tonne of waste disposed at approved disposal facilities across the country, and the funds are administered by the Ministry for the Environment for purposes of waste minimisation activities (and other broader central government activities as set out in recent amendments to the Waste Minimisation Act 2008).

27. These recent amendments to the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 also allowed for waste disposal levy rates to continue to increase incrementally up to July 2027. In 2009, the waste disposal levy rate was originally set at $10 per tonne for a Class 1 landfill (a disposal facility that accepts waste materials from household, commercial, industrial or institutional sources), and remained at that rate until 2021. Since then, waste disposal levy rates have increased incrementally, with lower levy rates also getting applied to other classes of landfills (Class 2 construction and demolition landfills, and Class 3 and 4 managed or controlled fill facilities). For a Class 1 landfill the rate is now $60 per tonne and will increase to $75 per tonne on 1 July 2027.

28. Table 1 below shows the increase in waste disposal levy rates that the government has confirmed to be introduced over the next three years. The ministry acknowledges New Zealand’s waste disposal levy rates will remain comparatively lower than similar waste disposal rates in Australia and the United Kingdom.

Table 1. Confirmed increase in waste disposal levy rates for 2025-2027

Facility Class	1 July 2025	1 July 2026	1 July 2027
Facility Class	($ per tonne)	($ per tonne)	($ per tonne)
Class 1 (municipal landfill)	$65	$70	$75
Class 2 (construction and demolition fill)	$35	$40	$45
Class 3 & 4 (Managed or controlled fill facility)	$15	$15	$20

29. Under the WMA 2008, central government and territorial authorities equally share revenue generated by the waste disposal levy (after administration costs). The share of levy funding that goes to territorial authorities is distributed according to population within councils and districts.

30. In FY 2023/2024, Auckland Council received $26.6 million in waste levy funding, compared to $5.6 million received in FY 2020/2021, before levy rates increased. Under the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 territorial authorities must spend levy funding on activities set out in the council’s Waste Minimisation and Management Plan, with some exceptions.

31. For central government, the focus to date has been on investing in waste minimisation projects largely through the ministry’s contestable Waste Minimisation Fund.

Council’s strategic framework relating to waste minimisation

32. Auckland Council’s strategic direction relating to waste is set by the Te Mahere Whakahaere me te Whakaiti Tukunga Para 2024 - Ki te Para Kore / Waste Minimisation and Management Plan 2024 – Towards Zero Waste (waste plan 2024) and complemented by Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan 2020.

33. Other policy, planning, and regulatory documents of relevance to waste activities include the council’s Long-term Plan 2024–2034, Infrastructure Strategy 2024, Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau, local board plans, Sustainable Procurement Framework, the Auckland Unitary Plan, and the Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw 2019.

34. The waste plan 2024 continues a Zero Waste by 2040 vision originally set out in Auckland Council’s first Waste Minimisation and Management Plan in 2012. The waste plan 2024 has over 100 actions across 12 priority focus areas.

35. Waste disposal levy funds are used by Auckland Council to deliver a range of council’s waste minimisation activities and actions set out in its waste plan 2024, including the provision of a Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund, community engagement programmes managed by council’s Wastewise team, and various projects to reduce waste.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Process to develop Auckland Council’s submission

36. Staff are in the process of reviewing the consultation document and coordinating a response. Thorough consideration of the scope and implications of the proposed amendments is required before well-defined advice and detailed feedback can be provided to elected members.

37. The council’s submission will be developed based on current policy positions articulated in council’s adopted plans and policies. Evidence and data gathered through the recent development of the waste plan 2024 will be used, along with reference to the council’s submission provided to the ministry in 2021 as part of the previous government’s consultation on waste legislation.

38. Staff are also looking at options to seek local board and mana whenua views. This will involve drawing on relevant input received through the pre-engagement and consultation process to develop the waste plan 2024.

39. Further evidence and supporting positions will be obtained from subject matter experts across the Council Group.

40. Once developed, the council’s draft submission will be circulated to the delegated members for input, review and approval.

41. Staff will submit an approved submission through the Ministry’s Citizen Space portal before 11.59pm, 1 June 2025.

Preliminary advice on proposals

42. To support the process to gather feedback from elected members and the Council Group, a preliminary review of the proposals in the consultation document and consideration of potential implications for Auckland Council and the region is provided in a table in Attachment B. This preliminary analysis is expected to inform the general direction of the council’s submission.

43. A summary of the main implications for Auckland Council from an initial review of the proposed legislative amendments is provided below.

Funding impact

a) A new method is proposed to distribute levy funding to territorial authorities, to provide for a more equitable approach for the provision of levy funds to smaller councils. Instead of using only a population-based method, the proposed new method is to provide all authorities with a flat amount (based on distributing 20 per cent of the 50 per cent share allocated to all councils), and an amount that distributes the remaining 80 per cent of funds to councils based on a city or district’s population.

b) This proposed calculation method would reduce the amount Auckland Council receives annually, compared to the current distribution method. Table 2 below shows the comparison between the actual funding amount Auckland Council received in FY 2023/2024 compared to the proposed funding model. The FY 2027/2028 projection illustrates the increase due to increased waste disposal levy rates under the current funding model, and the difference under the proposed new funding model. This shows that while the council will receive an additional $26.8 million over the four-year period from FY 2023/2024 (due to waste disposal levy rates increasing), the proposed new method would reduce the annual amounts the council would receive by $5 million and $10 million each year, depending on when such a proposal would be implemented.

Table 2. Estimated waste disposal levy funding under the proposed funding model

Auckland Council’s waste disposal levy funding	Actual FY 23/24 funding (annual)	Estimated 27/28 funding (annual)*	Funding difference from 23/24–27/28
Current method	$26.6m	$52.8m	$26.8m
Proposed method	$21.4m	$42.7m	$21.7m
Reduction	($5.2m)	($10.1m)	($5.1m)

*based on the total levy revenue that is generated from the total tonnages of waste disposed to landfills across the country, as well as population data within each territorial authority. Figures provided to council staff by Ministry for the Environment staff in late 2024.

c) Increased levy rates between 2025 and 2027 will result in more revenue generated for central and local government. In the longer term, the proposed change in the method to distribute levy funds would continue to require close strategic and financial planning, especially if combined with the proposed broadening uses of the levy funds (refer Attachment B for details).

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) framework and implementation

d) As EPR schemes develop under a proposed new regulatory framework, Auckland Council would benefit from shifting responsibilities for end-of-life waste to producers/consumers of products. However, the council would likely need to adapt its waste planning functions, waste collection and resource recovery systems, and associated community engagement programmes, to complement EPR schemes as they are designed and implemented.

Service delivery

e) The proposed broadening of the range of environmental activities that the council could use waste levy funding for may result in changes to the current range of waste minimisation service provision and outcomes, especially if not offset by other waste initiatives being funded through other means (e.g. private sector resource recovery initiatives or implemented ERP schemes) and in the absence of having a clear decision-making framework to help assess competing priorities.

f) The proposals to have minimum obligations for territorial authorities to enable household waste and recycling services and making it a discretionary requirement to provide litter bins in public places, may require the council to review the various delivery models used across the region.

g) There are also potential future cost implications for the council and its CCOs services (in particular, Watercare) in relation to a proposed amendment that could require all waste-to-energy plants to be subject to a waste disposal levy including the Ecogas facility processing Auckland’s kerbside food scraps. For Watercare, a levy on waste-to-energy facilities would be a significant factor to consider as it explores future options to manage biosolids generated at its Māngere Wastewater Treatment Plan. Further clarifications of the proposals, and implications, are required.

Compliance, monitoring and enforcement framework for mismanaged waste

h) The proposed compliance framework and integration of provisions into legislation to address issues with ‘mismanaged waste’ (including litter, dumping, and waste that has the potential to escape a site) would support key issues and actions contained within the council’s waste plan 2024. It may also require assessment of the council’s enforcement capacity, and the potential for additional resourcing to implement such changes.

Access to and management of waste data

i) Proposed amendments to enhance data on mismanaged waste and ERP schemes would help inform the council’s planning and decision-making processes but may also necessitate potential investment in systems to collect, manage, and share with regulators specific data on waste issues and activities.

Strategic alignment

j) The council’s waste plan 2024 largely aligns with the proposed legislative amendments. However, as the proposed amendments, decision-making frameworks, and regulatory changes are further clarified and developed, the implementation of the waste plan 2024 may require further review.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

44. The disposal and treatment of waste comprises around four per cent of Auckland’s gross greenhouse gas emissions.

45. The main source of greenhouse gas emissions associated with the disposal and treatment of waste is the release of bio-genic methane from landfills (generated from organic waste, such as garden waste, timber, food scraps, biosolids, paper or cardboard). Lesser contributions to New Zealand’s waste-sector emissions arise from wastewater treatment, incineration and open burning, and biological waste treatment (composting).

46. Emissions associated with the transportation of waste materials are not categorised within waste-sector emissions. Rather, these contribute to emissions from the transport sector. Embodied emissions contained within wasted products (i.e. emissions generated across the lifecycle of a product) are also not included within the four per cent of gross emissions associated with waste treatment or disposal.

47. The consultation document is not explicit in how the proposed amendments intend to respond to impacts from climate change. However, there are implicit connections made between reducing emissions by achieving waste minimisation outcomes (e.g. through proposals to strengthen EPR outcomes), and by adapting to the impacts of climate change through broadening the scope of activities that waste levy funds can be used for (e.g. for costs associated with managing emergency waste, remediating closed landfill sites which may be vulnerable to extreme weather events, or investing in “activities that reduce environmental harm or increase environmental benefits” which is broad in nature and could be interpreted as including climate change mitigation or adaptation activities).

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

48. Feedback on the consultation document will be sought from subject matter experts across relevant council departments and CCOs, including Waste Solutions, Finance, Parks and Community Facilities, Auckland Transport and Watercare.

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

Local impacts and local board views

Local impacts

49. The potential local impacts from the proposed amendments will be considered as part of the council’s submission, however it is expected that the proposed legislative changes will impact local communities in various ways, including the following key points.

a) Introducing extended producer responsibility schemes would have an impact on people’s purchasing choices and waste minimisation behaviours. The implementation of schemes could lead to changes in product design to minimise waste, or the provision of new collection systems and differing financing arrangements, that could result in new resource recovery, reuse, or recycling infrastructure within the Auckland region.

b) Stronger controls to monitor and enforce ‘mismanaged waste’ would mean local ‘Litter Control Officers’ would gain enhanced powers to address litter and illegal dumping, and this would potentially improve Auckland’s ability to reduce negative issues associated with litter and illegal dumping

c) Broadening the use of waste levy funding for activities that ‘reduce environmental harms or increase environmental benefits’ may present an opportunity for local boards to respond to local environmental issues. This would need to be supported by a clear decision-making framework on how the use of waste levy funding gets accessed across the Council Group without compromising the strategic objectives and goals of the council’s waste plan 2024.

Local boards

50. Local boards provided strong direction through the development of the waste plan 2024 and the council’s 2021 submission on government waste policy and legislation. These views will help to inform the submission.

51. Local board views will be sought on the draft submission and either incorporated within the report or appended to the submission, depending on when they are able to provide views.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

52. Staff have contacted Houkura and are seeking to engage with iwi through the Mana Whenua Resilience and Infrastructure forum to alert them to this public consultation and the opportunity to input on council’s submission. Staff will do the same for the Tāmaki Makaurau mana whenua entities.

53. Feedback expressed to the council on previous related submissions, and through the engagement process to develop the draft waste plan 2024 will be incorporated into the development of this submission where relevant.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

54. The submission will be developed as part of the council’s business-as-usual central government advocacy activity.

55. As the consultation is on proposed legislation changes, it is not yet possible to quantify the budgetary consequences for the council. However, as highlighted the consultation document proposes changes to the amount of waste disposal levy funding Auckland Council currently receives and on what activities the funding can be used for.

56. The potential financial implications for the council will be further considered as part of the council’s submission.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

57. There is a minimal risk in making a submission to the Ministry for the Environment consultation document.

58. Potential risks to the council arising from strategy and legislation changes will be considered as part of the council’s submission.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

59. Waste Solutions staff will lead the preparation of the council’s submission with support from the Strategic Advice and Local Board Engagement team.

60. Approved delegated elected members will review and approve council’s submission to meet a 1 June 2025 deadline.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Have your say on proposed amendments to waste legislation
b ⇨	Preliminary assessment of proposed amendments and implications for Auckland Council

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Hana Perry - Relationship Advisor

Authorisers

Parul Sood - Deputy Director Resilience and Infrastructure

Megan Tyler - Director Policy, Planning and Governance

Policy and Planning Committee

15 May 2025

Auckland Unitary Plan - plan change to make amendments to the Historic Heritage Schedule

File No.: CP2025/05352

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek approval for public notification of a plan change to amend the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) Chapter L, Schedule 14 Historic Heritage Schedule, Statements and Maps, by deleting three existing historic heritage places, and amending one existing historic heritage place.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. This report recommends the notification of a plan change to amend Schedule 14 Historic Heritage Schedule, Statements and Maps of the AUP (historic heritage schedule).

3. The plan change proposes to delete three historic heritage places and amend one historic heritage place to ensure the identification of these places in the AUP matches their values.

4. The plan change is required to address inaccurate and incomplete information in the AUP scheduling of the four historic heritage places. Inaccurate and incomplete information in the AUP relating to the values of scheduled historic heritage places has the potential to impose unnecessary costs on landowners and on Auckland Council (council).

5. The four historic heritage places subject to the proposed plan change are recorded as archaeological sites of Māori origin. Engagement and consultation have been undertaken with iwi authorities to understand the mana whenua values of the four historic heritage places. There was no opposition to the removal of three of the sites, and support for retaining (with amendments) one of the sites.

6. The views of the relevant local boards, Devonport-Takapuna and Upper Harbour have been sought and provided. The Upper Harbour Local Board expressed the view that the plan change should be amended before it is notified.

7. It is recommended the proposed plan change is notified for submissions.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Policy and Planning Committee:

a) whakaae / approve the notification of the plan change to delete three historic heritage places and amend one historic heritage place in Schedule 14 of the Auckland Unitary Plan, included as Attachment A and Attachment B to the agenda report.

b) ohia / endorse the draft section 32 evaluation report included as Attachment C to the agenda report.

c) tāpae / delegate to the General Manager Planning and Resource Consents the authority to approve minor amendments to the proposed plan change and draft section 32 evaluation report, if required, in advance of public notification.

Horopaki

Context

Historic heritage scheduling in the AUP

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

9. There are approximately 2,300 historic heritage places in the AUP, and many of these were rolled over from the legacy planning documents of the former councils in the Auckland region. For any new historic heritage places, the place is identified and evaluated against eight criteria identified in the Regional Policy Statement (RPS) section B5.2.2 of the AUP: historical, social, Mana Whenua, knowledge, technology, physical attributes, aesthetic and context. RPS Policy B5.2.2(3) provides that a historic heritage place may be included in Schedule 14.1 of the AUP if:

· the place has considerable or outstanding value in relation to one or more of the RPS evaluation criteria B5.2.2(1); and

· the place has considerable or outstanding overall significance to the locality or greater geographic area.

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

11. The Historic Heritage Overlay is a management approach where activities anticipated to have a greater effect on the values of a historic heritage place are subject to more rigorous management. The overlay rules manage and require resource consent for activities including demolition and destruction, subdivision and new buildings. The rules permit activities such as the maintenance and repair of buildings, structures, gardens and driveways without a resource consent.

12. The provisions of the AUP rely on the information in Schedule 14.1 and the planning maps for each place being accurate and up to date. Inaccurate and incomplete information may result in a lack of protection for significant historic heritage or unnecessary costs being imposed on landowners and the council.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Background to the plan change

13. The historic heritage places that are the subject of the proposed plan change were first identified in the cultural heritage schedule in the North Shore City Council District Plan 2002. They were “rolled over” into the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) in 2013. The rollover process was undertaken by qualified heritage experts. The historic heritage places that are the subject of this plan change were not visited during the preparation of the PAUP.

14. The PAUP was made operative in part in 2016. In 2017, the Planning Committee agreed a process to correct administrative errors in the AUP and noted that future plan changes may be required to address matters that were outside the scope of the first administrative plan change to the AUP, to enable the AUP to be effective (Resolution PLA/2017/40).

15. The four historic heritage places addressed through the proposed plan change have been the subject of inquiries from the landowners of the properties where these historic heritage places are located. The inquiries have been about the accuracy of the scheduling and/or the integrity of the heritage values. Council staff investigated these inquiries, reviewed the historic heritage values of the places, undertook consultation with iwi authorities and a draft plan change was initiated by council staff in response. In investigating the inquiries, council staff considered that there were issues with how the four historic heritage places are identified and/or mapped in the AUP.

16. Each of the four historic heritage places has been reviewed by a historic heritage specialist against the criteria and thresholds for the identification and evaluation of historic heritage places set out in the RPS. Site visits were undertaken as part of the reviews.

17. The four historic heritage places are recorded as archaeological sites of Māori origin. Engagement and consultation (under clause 3 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA)) with iwi authorities has been undertaken in the preparation of this plan change, to understand the Mana Whenua historic heritage values of the places. Further information about this is outlined in the Māori Impact Statement section.

18. The reviews have determined:

· for three of the historic heritage places, they do not meet the RPS criteria and thresholds for scheduling (they are not of overall considerable historic heritage significance to their locality or beyond).

· the fourth place is of overall considerable historic heritage value to its locality, having considerable historical, Mana Whenua and context values.

19. The table below summarises the review for each place.

Schedule 14.1 ID & name	Address	Historic heritage review recommendation
ID 00713 Pā site R10_3	159 and 161 Attwood Road, Paremoremo	· No physical evidence of a pā site in this locality. · Site subject to extensive residential development.
ID 00720 Settlement site R11_50	Tauhinui Historical Reserve, 11 Te Kawau Pass, Greenhithe	· No physical evidence of a settlement site in this locality. · Site subject to extensive residential development. · No archaeological evidence has been located during recent site visits. · Consultation with iwi authorities identified this place has historic heritage value as a lookout during Māori occupation of the area. · Place has overall considerable historic heritage value. · The review report for this place is included as Attachment D.
ID 00739 Midden/ findspot/ cultivation R11_203	181 Vauxhall Road, Narrow Neck	· This archaeological site was recorded and excavated in 1974, resulting in the physical destruction of the site. · No archaeological evidence was located on the site during a visit in 2016.
ID 00800 Midden R11_970	31A Norwood Road, Bayswater	· The recorded location of this midden is in a cliff edge subject to coastal erosion. · No evidence of the site has been found during recent site visits.

Plan change overview

20. The purpose of the plan change is to propose the removal of three historic heritage places and to modify one historic heritage place in Schedule 14.1 of the AUP.

21. The plan change proposes to:

· Delete ID 00713, ID 00739 and ID 00800 from the AUP historic heritage schedule and maps, and

· Amend the AUP historic heritage schedule to correctly identify the name, address, legal description and heritage values of ID 00720, identify the primary feature and exclusions relating to this place, and to amend the AUP maps to identify the spatial extent of the historic heritage place (this reduces the area of land subject to the AUP Historic Heritage Overlay).

22. The amendments proposed in the plan change are included as Attachment A and Attachment B. The evaluation report prepared under section 32 of the RMA is included as Attachment C.

23. The deletion of three historic heritage places means the AUP Historic Heritage Overlay will no longer apply to these places. The amendment to ID 00720 will ensure the management of this historic heritage place will match its historic heritage values.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

24. The council's climate goals as set out in Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland's Climate Plan are:

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

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

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

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

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

26. The proposed plan change relates to four historic heritage places that are already scheduled in the AUP. The removal of the Historic Heritage Overlay from the three properties where the historic heritage place is proposed to be deleted and the amendment of one historic heritage place will not have a climate impact. The deletion or amendment of these historic heritage places does not result in a change of intensity of development as it does not change the underlying zoning.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

27. There has been no input into the proposed plan change from other parts of council. The three historic heritage places that are proposed to be deleted are all located on land that is privately owned. The historic heritage place that is proposed to be amended is currently on land that is privately owned and is proposed to be applied to part of that land and a small area of the adjacent council-owned reserve.

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

Local impacts and local board views

28. The plan change affects two historic heritage places in the Upper Harbour Local Board and two in the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board.

29. Decision makers on a plan change to the AUP must consider local board’s views on the plan change if relevant local boards choose to provide their views. A report outlining a draft plan change was reported to the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board business meeting on 18 March 2025 and the Upper Harbour Local Board business meeting on 27 March and 24 April 2025.

30. The Devonport-Takapuna Local Board resolved to support the notification to seek public consultation on the draft plan change (Resolution DT/2025/35).

31. The Upper Harbour Local Board sought further information at its March meeting and provided the following views on the draft plan change at its April meeting (Resolution UH/2025/41):

i) acknowledge the feedback from Te Kawerau ā Maki in relation to the Te Kawau Pass proposal on the mana whenua value as a historic lookout and communication point.

ii) acknowledge the concerns raised by the private property owner at 11 Te Kawau Pass in relation to the Te Kawau Pass proposal.

iii) acknowledge that over time there has been errors in the historic heritage schedule and associated mapping including mapping moving from the Taihinui Historical Reserve onto the adjacent property at Te Kawau Pass noting there is no record to indicate why there was a change in location.

iv) request the following amendment to the proposed plan change to Amendment to Schedule 14 Historic Heritage Schedule:

(a) delete the Historic Heritage Overlay Place (dot) from 11 Te Kawau Pass, and

(b) apply the Historic Heritage Overlay Extent of Place onto the Taihinui Historical Reserve, not on the private landowners property at 11 Te Kawau Pass.

v) request staff include material provided to the local board at the 24 April 2025 business meeting by the private property owner at Te Kawau Pass as part of the Policy and Planning Committee report on this matter.

vi) support the proposal at 159 and 161 Attwood Road, Paremoremo to delete place from schedule 14 and planning maps.

32. The owner of 11 Te Kawau Pass, Mr Terry Randell, presented his views to the March and April 2025 Upper Harbour Local Board meetings. As requested by the Upper Harbour Local Board, the information presented by Mr Randell at these meetings is included as Attachment E to this report.

33. Taking the Upper Harbour Local Board views into account, two options for notifying a plan change are outlined in the table below.

Options	Pros and cons
Notify a plan change as proposed by the Upper Harbour Local Board	· Addresses the existing issues in the AUP historic heritage schedule and maps for this place but will not fully identify the historic heritage values of the place, as outlined in Attachment D. · Addresses the private property concerns raised by the landowner. · Is not supported by council’s historic heritage expert.
Notify the plan change as proposed by Auckland Council staff – recommended option	· Addresses the existing issues in the AUP historic heritage schedule and maps for this place and will fully identify the historic heritage values of the place, as outlined in Attachment D. · Does not address concerns raised by the landowner. · Is supported by council’s historic heritage expert.

Options

Pros and cons

Notify a plan change as proposed by the Upper Harbour Local Board

· Addresses the existing issues in the AUP historic heritage schedule and maps for this place but will not fully identify the historic heritage values of the place, as outlined in Attachment D.

· Addresses the private property concerns raised by the landowner.

· Is not supported by council’s historic heritage expert.

Notify the plan change as proposed by Auckland Council staff – recommended option

· Addresses the existing issues in the AUP historic heritage schedule and maps for this place and will fully identify the historic heritage values of the place, as outlined in Attachment D.

· Does not address concerns raised by the landowner.

· Is supported by council’s historic heritage expert.

34. Both options provide the opportunity to address the inaccuracies and incomplete information in the AUP for ID 00720 at 11 Te Kawau Pass, through notification of the plan change and the seeking of submissions. Neither option will address the concerns of the Upper Harbour Local Board and the landowner while fully recognising the identified historic heritage values of the place (as articulated in Attachment D). The option proposed by the Upper Harbour Local Board is not supported by a historic heritage specialist.

35. It is recommended that the plan change is notified as proposed by council staff, as it is supported by a historic heritage expert.

36. If a plan change is notified, the landowner will be able to make a submission and present their concerns and any expert evidence directly to an independent hearings panel, who will make a decision on the plan change on behalf of council.

37. If a plan change is notified, the relevant local boards will have another opportunity to provide their views. After the plan change has been notified and submissions have closed, the views of the Devonport-Takapuna and Upper Harbour local boards will be sought. If a local board passes a resolution and provides its views, those views will be included in the hearing report prepared under section 42A of the RMA.

38. Local board members can attend a plan change hearing and speak to their views if the board’s formal views have been provided by resolution of the whole board.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

39. The four historic heritage places that are the subject of the proposed plan change were first recorded as Māori-origin archaeological sites by the New Zealand Archaeological Association (NZAA) site recording scheme. Each of the places is identified in the AUP historic heritage schedule as a ‘Place of Māori Interest or Significance’.

40. Auckland Council is required to consult with iwi authorities when preparing a plan change. Consultation on the proposed plan change has been undertaken with the iwi authorities whose rohe includes the historic heritage places. Council staff have sought information to understand the mana whenua values of each place, if any.

41. As far as council staff are aware, this is the first time the views of Māori have been sought to understand the mana whenua historic heritage values of the places subject to the proposed plan change. If this has been undertaken before, information was not recorded.

42. A record of consultation with iwi authorities is included in the Section 32 report (Attachment C). In summary, with respect to the three sites that are proposed to be removed from the historic heritage schedule, there was no opposition to their removal. With respect to the site that is proposed to be amended (ID 00720), information provided by Te Kawerau ā Maki identifies mana whenua historic heritage value associated with the site (the place is a historic lookout and communication point associated with historic Māori settlement of the area). This information resulted in council’s historic heritage expert recommending that the historic heritage place ID 00720 at 11 Te Kawau Pass has overall considerable historic heritage value and that it be retained in the AUP, with amendments made to the name, location, historic heritage values of the place and to show the spatial extent of the place in the AUP maps.

Figure 1: 11 Te Kawau Pass, Greenhithe, shown in blue outline

Figure 2: Close up of 11 Te Kawau Pass, showing the existing Historic Heritage Overlay Place (red dot) and proposed Historic Heritage Overlay Extent of Place (EOP) on the property (blue polygon). The proposed EOP is approximately 83m² (37m² on private land at 11 Te Kawau Pass and the remainder within the adjacent Taihinui Historical Reserve).

43. Staff have met with the Houkura Secretariat to provide information about the proposed plan change.

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

45. The main cost of preparing plan changes to the AUP is internal staff time. There is also a cost associated with the public notification of the plan changes and the cost of a hearing, if it is needed, including payment of independent hearing commissioners.

46. These costs are covered by budget for statutory planning within the Planning and Resource Consents department.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

47. The owners of the four properties where the historic heritage places addressed in this plan change are located have made inquiries to council about the accuracy and integrity of the historic heritage places for some time (as far back as 2013 with council and as far back as 2007 with North Shore City Council).

48. There is a risk if this plan change does not proceed to public notification, that the historic heritage places would remain in the AUP and that this could potentially undermine the integrity and robustness of the AUP historic heritage schedule.

49. The only way to correct inaccurate or incomplete information in the AUP historic heritage schedule is to notify a plan change. No amendments can be made to each property without a plan change. The notification of a plan change is also the process for submitters, including landowners, to have their say and be involved in council’s decisions on the matter.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

50. If approved for notification, the plan change will be publicly notified in May 2025, in line with the process set out in the RMA. A period of at least 20 working days will be provided for submissions to be lodged on the plan change. Decisions requested in submissions will be summarised and publicly notified for further submissions.

51. Once submissions and further submissions are received on the plan change, council staff will prepare a report for the hearing. The report will summarise and analyse all submissions received and make recommendations about which parts of the plan change should be approved, removed, or modified.

52. The council will hold a hearing on the plan change if any submitters have requested to be heard. Independent commissions will be appointed to hear the submissions. The independent commissioners will make the council’s decision on the plan change under delated authority.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a⇨	Proposed amendments to Schedule 14.1 Schedule of Historic Heritage
b⇨	Proposed amendments to Auckland Unitary Plan maps
c⇨	Section 32 report
d⇨	Historic heritage review of ID 00720 Settlement site R11_50, Te Kawau Pass, Greenhithe
e ⇨	Material provided to the Upper Harbour Local Board by Mr Terry Randell

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Emma Rush - Senior Advisor Special Projects

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager Planning and Resource Consents

Megan Tyler - Director Policy, Planning and Governance

Policy and Planning Committee

15 May 2025

Auckland Unitary Plan - Making Operative Private Plan Change 98: 47 Golding Road and 50 Pukekohe East Road, Pukekohe

File No.: CP2025/06155

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To make operative Plan Change 98 (Private): 47 Golding Road and 50 Pukekohe East Road, Pukekohe to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (AUP).

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Plan Change 98 is a private plan change request to rezone approximately 27.15 hectares of land at Pukekohe from Future Urban Zone (FUZ) to Residential – Mixed Housing Urban (MHU) Zone.

3. The plan change also proposes a new precinct, the Pukekohe East – Central 2 Precinct which incorporates the Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS) as required by Section 77G(1) and Schedule 3A of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).

4. Plan Change 98 was publicly notified on 28 March 2024 and thirteen submissions and two further submissions were received, including from Auckland Council, Auckland Transport and Watercare.

5. The hearing was held on 30 October 2024. The decision by a panel of Independent Hearing Commissioners to approve Plan Change 98 (the Decision) with modifications, was notified on 14 February 2025. The commissioners were delegated authority to make this decision.

6. The appeal period closed on 28 March 2025 and no appeals were received.

7. The relevant parts of the AUP can now be amended to make Plan Change 98 operative in accordance with the Decision (and as shown in Attachments A and B of the agenda report).

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Policy and Planning Committee:

a) whakaae / approve Private Plan Change 98 to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) under clause 17(2) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 as set out in Attachments A and B to the agenda report

b) tono / request staff to complete the necessary statutory processes to publicly notify the date on which the plan change becomes operative as soon as possible, in accordance with the requirements in clause 20(2) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Horopaki

Context

Overview of Plan Change 98

8. Plan Change 98 to the AUP is a private plan change request from OMAC Limited and Next Generation Properties Limited (the Applicant) which relates to approximately 27.15 hectares of land to the south-east of Pukekohe East Road and Golding Road, Pukekohe.

9. The plan change area is to the west of Pukekohe, approximately 1.5 - 2km to the town centre. It is surrounded by MHU, Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban, Business – Neighbourhood Centre and Future Urban zoned land.

10. The plan change was publicly notified on 28 March 2024, and thirteen primary submissions, and two further submissions were received. Auckland Council, Auckland Transport and Watercare submitted on the plan change.

11. A panel of Independent Hearing Commissioners was delegated authority to hear and make the decision on the plan change. A hearing on the plan change was held on 30 October 2024.

12. The Commissioners’ Decision to approve the plan change (with modifications) was notified on 14 February 2025.

13. The Decision on the plan change amends the AUP by:

a) rezoning the plan change area from Future Urban Zone to MHU Zone

b) adding a new precinct, the Pukekohe East – Central 2 Precinct.

14. The purpose of the new precinct is to ensure land use, development and subdivision is undertaken in a manner that allows the stream and road network to be integrated with residential and open space development within the precinct, provides for stormwater management needs, and recognises the relationship of mana whenua with the land and its resources.

15. The precinct also seeks to integrate future subdivision and development with the timing and delivery of infrastructure. In particular the precinct provisions:

a) include a number of transport infrastructure upgrades that need to be undertaken before or in conjunction with future development and subdivision; and

b) require at the time a land use or subdivision consent application is made, an applicant must demonstrate that there is sufficient capacity in the bulk water supply and wastewater networks to cater for the development.

16. The precinct also incorporates the MDRS, as required by the RMA.

17. Maps showing the area to be rezoned, and the new precinct are in Attachment B of this report.

18. The appeal period for the Plan Change 98 Decision closed on 28 March 2025, and no appeals were received. Therefore, the plan change can now be made operative and the relevant parts of the AUP amended as set out in the Decision and included in Attachments A and B of this report.

Medium Density Residential Standards and National Policy Statement on Urban Development

19. Sections 77G, 77N and 80E of the RMA require the council to:

· give effect to Policies 3 and 4 of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD)

· incorporate into the AUP, MDRS contained in Schedule 3A of the RMA;

using an intensification planning instrument (IPI). Plan Change 78 – Intensification is the council’s IPI.

20. When Plan Change 78 was notified the area within Plan Change 98 was zoned Future Urban, therefore the area was not included in Plan Change 78.

21. Policy 3 of the NPS-UD requires specific building heights and density of form to be enabled in, and around different zones and/or rapid transit stops. Policy 4 enables the requirements of Policy 3 to be modified to accommodate a qualifying matter.

22. The plan change area is over a 1.5km walking distance to either the Pukekohe Town Centre Zone or train station, therefore is not within a walkable catchment. Although a site on Golding Road opposite the plan change area was recently rezoned as Neighbourhood Centre Zone, the centre has not yet been developed. Therefore due to the location of the plan change area, Policies 3 and 4 of the NPS-UD are not relevant to Plan Change 98.

23. The Pukekohe East – Central 2 Precinct incorporates the MDRS as required by the RMA. The precinct identifies one qualifying matter under section 771(A) of the RMA, which modifies the MRDS related to riparian yards (building setback requirements from streams).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

24. Schedule 1 of the RMA sets out the statutory process for plan changes.

25. Clause 17(2) states that ‘a local authority may approve part of a policy statement or plan, if all submissions or appeals relating to that part have been disposed of’. Decisions were made on all submissions and no appeals were received. On this basis the plan change can now be approved.

26. Clause 20 of Schedule 1 sets out the process that is required to be undertaken for the notification of the operative date. Planning and Resource Consent Department staff will notify the operative date as soon as possible following the Policy and Planning Committee’s resolution.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

27. The council’s climate goals are set out in Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan:

a) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to reach net zero emissions by 2050

b) to prepare the region for the adverse impacts of climate change.

28. The plan change area is located in an area already identified as suitable for urbanisation. The area is relatively close to public transport systems (the train station) and the Pukekohe town centre, as well as current and proposed employment nodes. The precinct provisions generally encourage walking and cycling within and surrounding the precinct.

29. Although some parts of the plan change area are identified as being subject to floodplains, the precinct provisions manage the risk of flooding. The precinct plan identifies the areas that are subject to floodplain risk as being an indicative open space / drainage reserve and requires development to direct stormwater to communal stormwater devices. The precinct also requires a detailed flood modelling assessment as part of the resource consenting process.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

30. As a procedural step, there are no council group impacts associated with the approval of Plan Change 98. Therefore no views from the council group were sought in relation to making the plan change operative.

31. Parks and Community Facilities, and Healthy Waters and Flood Resilience (Healthy Waters) provided expert advice on the plan change, through the council’s section 42A hearing report. This advice was taken into consideration during the plan change process and resulted in amendments to the precinct provisions.

32. Auckland Council, Watercare and Auckland Transport submitted on the plan change. Their submissions were considered as part of the hearing process and resulted in a number of amendments in the precinct provisions, which are reflected in the plan change Decision.

33. Overall Auckland Transport and Auckland Council (as a submitter) did not oppose the plan change but sought various amendments to the precinct to address matters raised in their submissions. The Decision notes that overall Auckland Council (as a submitter) and Auckland Transport supported the precinct provisions as amended through the evidence exchange prior to the hearing.

34. Watercare’s submission initially opposed the plan change due to its timing. However if the plan change was approved Watercare sought amendments to the proposed precinct provisions to address its concerns. Watercare provided planning evidence on the plan change. The Decision notes that Watercare’s planner, generally supported the precinct amendments as set out in the evidence exchange, subject to additional minor amendments.

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

Local impacts and local board views

35. As a procedural step, there are no local impacts associated with the approval of the plan change.

36. While this report is procedural only, it is noted that the Franklin Local Board provided its views on the proposed plan change at its 23 July 2024 business meeting.

37. In its views the local board outlined some concerns with respect to the plan change on the topics of water supply and wastewater management, transport and open space.

38. These local board views were included in the council’s hearing report and were considered in the Decision on the plan change.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

39. Six iwi are identified as having an interest in the area of the plan change.^{^[1]} The plan change is also within a Ngāti Tamaoho Statutory Acknowledgement Area.

40. The Applicant contacted these six iwi prior to lodging the plan change request, and Ngāti Te Ata and Ngāti Tamaoho requested engagement and the opportunity to provide a cultural values/impact assessment.

41. The plan change request outlined the matters raised by Ngāti Te Ata and Ngāti Tamaoho and how the proposed plan change responded to these matters.

42. When the plan change was publicly notified, the council provided direct notice of the plan change to the six iwi with interest in the area. No iwi submitted on the plan change.

43. The precinct provisions generally recognise the relationship of mana whenua and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga. In particular the precinct requires vacant lot subdivision and larger developments to incorporate Te Aranga Māori Design Principles, and to provide mana whenua the opportunity for further involvement.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

44. There are no financial implications arising from this procedural decision. Approving plan changes and amending the AUP is a statutory requirement and is budgeted expenditure for the Planning and Resource Consents Department.

45. As a private plan change costs associated with processing the plan change, including making it operative, are cost recoverable from the Applicant who requested the private plan change.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

46. There are no risks associated with making the plan changes operative.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

47. The final step in making Plan Change 98 operative is to publicly notify the date on which the plan change will become operative, and to update the AUP.

48. Planning and Resource Consents Department staff will undertake the actions required under Schedule 1 of the RMA to make Plan Change 98 operative, including the public notice and affixing seals to the AUP.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	PC98 Decision precinct text
b ⇨	PC98 maps and precinct plan

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Katrina David - Senior Policy Planner

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager Planning and Resource Consents

Megan Tyler - Director Policy, Planning and Governance

Resolution Number	Item	Status
PEPCC/2025/29	Hauraki Gulf Islands section of the Auckland District Plan - Proposed Plan Change - Helipads	This council plan change application is expected to be publicly notified for submissions on 26 June 2025., with a four-week submission period. Once, notified, the information may be viewed at the following link.
PEPCC/2025/31	Auckland Unitary Plan - On-site wastewater plan change	Plan change preparation is underway (including development of a project plan and a report for the Rural Advisory Panel). This plan change will be reported back to the committee before it is notified.
PEPCC/2025/32	Auckland Unitary Plan - making operative Private Plan Change 99 (13 Cresta Avenue and 96 Beach Haven Road, Beach Haven)	The plan change will be made operative on 9 May 2025. The background information may be viewed at the following link.
PEPCC/2025/33	Storm Recovery: Storm Affected Land Use Policy and implementation approach	Following the committee’s approval staff have incorporated changes to the policy. Final approval of the policy is being sought as per the resolution.
PEPCC/2025/34	Shaping how Tāmaki Makaurau plans for climate disruption	Staff will continue to develop the council’s approach and to speed up community adaptation. If central government consults on the national adaptation framework, staff will draft a submission based on the agreed position statements and seek approval from the delegated authority if the timeframe requires it.
PEPCC/2025/35	Auckland Botanic Gardens masterplan process	The research phase of masterplan development started with a mana whenua hui on 15 April 2025 to discuss the vision for a Māori garden. Staff will seek the views of the Mayor and councillors on the vision, principles, and outcomes for a Māori garden at a workshop in early 2026.
PEPCC/2025/36	Council group submission on proposed wastewater environmental performance standards to Water Services Authority - Taumata Arowai	Final submission dispatched by closing date of 24 April 2025 to the Water Services Regulator - Taumata Arowai following approval of delegated authorisers. Staff have sought further engagement with the Water Services Regulator - Taumata Arowai as the standards are further developed. . A copy of the submission is included within the summary of information report on this agenda.
PEPCC/2025/37	Auckland Council submission on the Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill	A submission was lodged with the Justice Select Committee on 15 April 2025. A copy of the submission is included within the summary of information report on this agenda.

Policy and Planning Committee

15 May 2025

Summary of Policy and Planning Committee information memoranda, workshops and briefings (including the Forward Work Programme) – 15 May 2025

File No.: CP2025/00840

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To tuhi tīpoka / note the progress on the forward work programme appended as Attachment A.

2. To whiwhi / receive a summary and provide a public record of memoranda, workshop and briefing papers that may have been held or been distributed to committee members.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3. This is a regular information-only report which aims to provide greater visibility of information circulated to committee members via memoranda/workshops and briefings or other means, where no decisions are required.

4. The following memoranda/information have been sent:

Date	Subject
9/4/2025	Memorandum - Progress update: Achieving better environmental outcomes for the Manukau Harbour
15/4/2025	Auckland Council’s Submission on the Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill
15/4/2025	Memorandum - Te Tupu Ngātahi \| Supporting Growth - North and Warkworth projects – Update on appeals
24/4/2025	Council group submission on proposed wastewater environmental performance standards to Water Services Authority - Taumata Arowai
29/4/2025	Memorandum – Accelerated use of the Climate Action Transport Targeted Rate budget (CATTR) to deliver additional walking and cycling infrastructure
29/4/2025	Memorandum - government national direction programme and Phase Three resource management reforms

5. The following workshops/briefings have taken place for the committee:

Date

Subject

9/4/2025

CONFIDENTIAL Workshop: Integrated intensification plan change

Reason:

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

Interests:

s7(2)(g) - The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege.

S7(2)(j) – The withholding of the information is necessary to prevent the disclosure or use of official information for improper gain or improper advantage.

In particular, the workshop material contains an outline of the choices, risks and mitigations related to developing the plan change.

Grounds:

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

11/4/2025

Open Space, Sport and Recreation Joint Political Working Group

16/4/2025

CONFIDENTIAL Workshop: Integrated intensification plan change

Reason:

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

Interests:

s7(2)(g) - The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege.

S7(2)(j) – The withholding of the information is necessary to prevent the disclosure or use of official information for improper gain or improper advantage.

In particular, the workshop material contains an outline of the choices, risks and mitigations related to developing the plan change.

Grounds:

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

30/4/2025

CONFIDENTIAL Workshop: Integrated intensification plan change

Reason:

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

Interests:

s7(2)(g) - The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege.

S7(2)(j) – The withholding of the information is necessary to prevent the disclosure or use of official information for improper gain or improper advantage.

In particular, the workshop material contains an outline of the choices, risks and mitigations related to developing the plan change.

Grounds:

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

2/5/2025

Open Space, Sport and Recreation Joint Political Working Group

14/5/2025

CONFIDENTIAL Workshop: Integrated intensification plan change

Reason:

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

Interests:

s7(2)(g) - The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege.

S7(2)(j) – The withholding of the information is necessary to prevent the disclosure or use of official information for improper gain or improper advantage.

In particular, the workshop material contains an outline of the choices, risks and mitigations related to developing the plan change.

Grounds:

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

14/5/2025

CONFIDENTIAL Workshop: Integrated intensification plan change

Reason:

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

Interests:

s7(2)(g) - The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege.

S7(2)(j) – The withholding of the information is necessary to prevent the disclosure or use of official information for improper gain or improper advantage.

In particular, the workshop material contains an outline of the choices, risks and mitigations related to developing the plan change.

Grounds:

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

These documents can be found on the Auckland Council website, at the following link:
http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/

o at the top left of the page, select meeting/te hui “Policy and Planning Committee” from the drop-down tab and click “View”;

o under ‘Attachments’, select either the HTML or PDF version of the document entitled ‘Extra Attachments’.

6. Note that, unlike an agenda report, staff will not be present to answer questions about the items referred to in this summary. Members should direct any questions to the authors.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Policy and Planning Committee:

a) tuhi tīpoka / note the progress on the forward work programme appended as Attachment A of the agenda report

b) whiwhi / receive the Summary of Policy and Planning Committee information memoranda, workshops and briefings – 15 May 2025.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇨	Policy and Planning Committee - Forward Work Programme
b ⇨	Memorandum - Progress update: Achieving better environmental outcomes for the Manukau Harbour, 9 April 2025 (Under Separate Cover)
c ⇨	Auckland Council’s Submission on the Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill, 15 April 2025 (Under Separate Cover)
d ⇨	Memorandum - Te Tupu Ngātahi \| Supporting Growth - North and Warkworth projects – Update on appeals, 15 April 2025 (Under Separate Cover)
e ⇨	Auckland Council’s submission on proposed wastewater environmental performance standards, 24 April 2025 (Under Separate Cover)
f ⇨	Memorandum – Accelerated use of the Climate Action Transport Targeted Rate budget (CATTR) to deliver additional walking and cycling infrastructure, 29 April 2025 (Under Separate Cover)
g ⇨	Memorandum - government national direction programme and Phase Three resource management reforms, 29 April 2025 (Under Separate Cover)
h ⇨	Open Space, Sport and Recreation Joint Political Working Group, 11 April 2025 (Under Separate Cover)
i ⇨	Open Space, Sport and Recreation Joint Political Working Group, 2 May 2025 (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author	Sandra Gordon - Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere Matua / Senior Governance Advisor
Authoriser	Megan Tyler - Director Policy, Planning and Governance

[1] Te Ākitai Waiohua, Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, Ngāti Te Ata, Ngāti Maru, Waikato - Tainui

Chairperson	Cr Richard Hills
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Angela Dalton
Members	Houkura Member Edward Ashby	Cr Mike Lee
	Cr Andrew Baker	Cr Kerrin Leoni
	Cr Josephine Bartley	Cr Daniel Newman, JP
	Mayor Wayne Brown	Cr Greg Sayers
	Cr Chris Darby	Deputy Mayor Desley Simpson, JP
	Cr Julie Fairey	Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
	Cr Alf Filipaina, MNZM	Cr Ken Turner
	Cr Christine Fletcher, QSO	Cr Wayne Walker
	Cr Lotu Fuli	Cr John Watson
	Houkura Member Hon Tau Henare	Cr Maurice Williamson
	Cr Shane Henderson