|
Resolution
number WTK/2025/126
MOVED by Chairperson
G Presland, seconded by Member L Manley:
That
the Waitākere Ranges Local
Board:
a)
tuku / provide the following feedback
on the Local Government (Auckland Council) (Transport Governance) Amendment
Bill to inform the council’s draft submission:
General feedback
i.
The local board
agree that Auckland’s transport network is struggling to efficiently
and effectively move goods and people around the city and that congestion is
a significant problem.
ii.
The local board
question however why there is no mention of the need to minimise emissions or
transport’s role in addressing climate change. In particular the Bill
requires the proposed Auckland Regional Transport Committee (ARTC) to concentrate
on efficiency and the 30-year Transport Plan, referred to in section 42 of
the Bill, that the RTC produces must promote productivity and economic
growth, safe movement and efficient asset management. The local board
consider that sustainability resilience and emissions reductions should be
included as objectives.
iii.
Whilst the somewhat
increased democratic power and accountability in relation to local roads is
welcome, it is noted that the issue is in large part due to lack of
resources. Previous Auckland Transport Alignment Projects suffered from a
clearly identified deficit which in 2017 was estimated to be $5.9 billion.
This funding was necessary to complete the projects designed to address
congestion.
iv.
The local board note
that measures which provide local boards with greater authority and
decision-making over council-owned property such as local roads and the road
corridor, will support local boards to deliver better transport outcomes.
However, it will be necessary to appropriately resource associated town-centre
improvements, placemaking and economic development opportunities.
v.
The bill process is
very truncated with the board’s initial response being required shortly
after the bill has been released. This bill will have long term consequences.
The board consider it is better to be done properly than quickly. The board
appreciate that the announcement has created a hiatus that needs to be dealt
with.
Allocated powers
to local boards
vi.
The local board welcome
increased powers over matters affecting local roads.
vii.
The local board support
measures which provide local boards with greater authority and
decision-making over council-owned property, such as the local roads and the
road corridor. This will support local boards to deliver better transport
outcomes and, if resourced appropriately, to deliver town centre
improvements, place-making, economic development outcomes and roads.
viii.
The local board receive
a significant number of complaints from locals about Auckland Transport
issues relating to local roads and local footpaths. The current system is
utilised and these complaints fed into Auckland Transport. But too often the
response is to decline requests for change on the basis that the proposed
change does not fit regional norms. Local communities should be allowed
greater discretion to have local solutions to local problems that takes into account the specific pressures of rural
versus urban versus coastal.
ix.
Note the proposed
change will require significant resourcing and funding. Although not directly
relevant this may require consideration for larger boards so that the
increased workload can be handled.
x.
Note Waitākere
Ranges has its own legislation and also unique issues and problems that will
require special care and attention.
xi.
Note that the
proposal may impose additional responsibilities on local board members, so
recommend that a review be undertaken by the independent Remuneration
Authority to assess whether new determinations are needed.
Transport bylaws
xii.
Section 47D of the
bill poses some interesting issues. It is noted that the Governing Body may
make a bylaw if it and a majority of local boards agree to it and the
Governing Body considers that a minority has “unreasonably withheld
their agreement”.
xiii.
Local boards are of
a variety of political flavours, some favour concentration on the actual or
perceived needs of car users, others focus more on sustainable forms of
transport such as walkways and cycleways.
xiv.
Deciding that a
local board has been unreasonable is an incredibly loaded judgment and
damaging of relationships between the entities.
xv.
One option is to
allow the Governing Body the power to pass bylaws if a majority of local
board support the measure with no judgment about the reason for the minority
local board view. Another option is to reserve the power to pass bylaws to
the Governing Body.
xvi.
The localised
powers for local boards referred to in section 47C and schedule 4 of the bill
are supported.
Reformed Transport
council-controlled organisation (CCO)
xvii.
The establishment
of the Transport CCO is supported.
xviii.
The local board note
that in section 43B of the bill the Transport CCO Is obliged to operate in a
financially responsible manner and seek value for money. Public Transport has
a major role to play in terms of meeting the region’s and
country’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals and we urge that
sustainability resilience and emission reductions be included as operating
principles.
xix.
The local board does
not support the requirement that delegations to the reformed Transport CCO
must be approved by the Minister of Transport. This function should be at the
discretion of Auckland Council.
xx.
The local board
also urge the operating principles of the CCO include the fostering and
promotion of community based public transport services.
Auckland Regional
Transport Committee
xxi.
The bill creates a
unique way of dealing with transport unlike the arrangement in any other
Local Authority area.
xxii.
The general rule is
contained in section 105 of the Land Transport Management Act 2003.
xxiii.
Decisions are made
by Local Authorities with some assistance/involvement with regional transport
committees established by each regional council.
xxiv.
Generally
membership includes two regional council representatives, one for each TLA in
the area and one to represent NZTA.
xxv.
For unitary
authorities there are four local representatives and one agency
representative. The Regional Council appoints from its representatives the
chair and deputy chair. Auckland's position is proposed to be different.
xxvi.
Currently Auckland
Transport has general responsibility for Auckland's roads public
transport. It has a board of up to eight, including two councillors. It
also has one non-voting director nominated by NZTA.
xxvii.
The bill proposes
that a new structure, the Auckland Regional Transport Committee, is
established to develop and maintain a strategic direction for land
transport. Nine members are anticipated, three appointed by the
Minister of Transport, three by the Mayor and three non-voting members from
NZTA, Kiwirail and Auckland's Transport CCO. This would give the Minister
huge powers over the future of Auckland’s Transport systems.
xxviii.
Already through the
control of funding and the involvement of NZTA Central Government has a huge
say. Having Ministerial appointees and NZTA representation skews control
dramatically towards Central Government.
xxix.
The recent history
of ATAP shows that the impediment is not Auckland’s ability to plan for
the future, it is funding.
xxx.
The local board
urge that the power for the Minister to make appointments be removed.
xxxi.
The local board is
concerned that of 10 positions on the ARTC, only three with voting rights are
Auckland Council representatives, and that there is no representation from local
boards on the ARTC, as this may risk handing significant control and
influence to central government.
xxxii.
The local board recommend
sections 41C of the bill includes the formation of a subcommittee to the ARTC
formed of members of each of the local boards, with representation at the
ARTC.
xxxiii. In response to section 41 (2) of the bill, the
local board’s strong position is that meetings should be public and
agendas generally should be made available subject to current restrictions
and the LGOIMA act. We do not consider that there is a case for change.
Auckland Roading
Classification Framework
xxxiv.
The local board
note that the Unitary Plan contains a description of arterial roads. Any
reclassification of roads should be taken into account when the Unitary Plan
is reviewed.
xxxv.
Local boards should
be jointly responsible alongside the Governing Body for the development,
approval, and maintenance of the Auckland Roading Classification Framework
before the end of the transition period, to ensure that there is clarity on
which roads are controlled by each body.
CARRIED
|
