I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee will be held on:
Date: Time: Meeting Room: Venue:
|
Thursday, 3 August 2023 10.00am Reception
Lounge |
Komiti mō te Whakarite Mahere, te Taiao, me ngā Papa Rēhia / Planning, Environment and Parks Committee
OPEN AGENDA
|
MEMBERSHIP
Chairperson |
Cr Richard Hills |
|
Deputy Chairperson |
Cr Angela Dalton |
|
Members |
IMSB Member Edward Ashby |
Cr Mike Lee |
|
Cr Andrew Baker |
Cr Kerrin Leoni |
|
Cr Josephine Bartley |
Cr Daniel Newman, JP |
|
Mayor 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 |
|
IMSB Member Hon Tau Henare |
Cr Maurice Williamson |
|
Cr Shane Henderson |
|
(Quorum 11 members)
|
|
Sandra Gordon Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere Matua / Senior Governance Advisor
31 July 2023
Contact Telephone: +64 9 890 8150 Email: Sandra.Gordon@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz |
Planning, Environment and Parks Committee 03 August 2023 |
|
ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
1 Ngā Tamōtanga | Apologies 5
2 Te Whakapuaki i te Whai Pānga | Declaration of Interest 5
3 Te Whakaū i ngā Āmiki | Confirmation of Minutes 5
4 Ngā Petihana | Petitions 5
5 Ngā Kōrero a te Marea | Public Input 5
5.1 Public Input: Paula Browning - mixed use zones and permitted light commercial activities 5
5.2 Public Input: Friends of Awa Matakanakana - waterways and potential solutions to improve the Matakana and Glen Eden catchments in the northeast 5
5.3 Public Input: Auckland Rugby League - Game Plan to 2030 strategy and and the important role Council can play in supporting their clubs, community and game across Auckland 6
5.4 Public Input: Auckland Conservation Board - statutory role and perspective of key conservation issues in the region 7
6 Ngā Kōrero a te Poari ā-Rohe Pātata | Local Board Input 7
6.1 Local Board Input: Waiheke Local Board - Notice of Motion - Caulerpa 7
7 Ngā Pakihi Autaia | Extraordinary Business 8
8 Shoreline Adaptation Plan: Āwhitu Report 9
9 Shoreline Adaptation Plan: Manukau South Report 23
10 Update on Caulerpa and gold clam biosecurity incursions 39
11 Kerbside refuse collection standardisation - implementation 41
12 2023/2024 Capital Investment Programme for Open Space, Community Asset Development, Public Art, Coastal Renewals and Other Regionally-funded Programmes 53
13 Cultural Initiatives Fund FY 2023-2024 Marae and Papakāinga Development Applications 71
14 Auckland Foundation Funding Agreement Review 77
15 Hūnua Traverse opening 87
16 Auckland Unitary Plan - Private plan change from Wellsford Welding Club Limited for land located at State Highway 1 and Monowai Street, Wellsford 93
17 Summary of Planning, Environment and Parks Committee information memoranda, workshops and briefings (including the Forward Work Programme) - 3 August 2023 115
18 Te Whakaaro ki ngā Take Pūtea e Autaia ana | Consideration of Extraordinary Items
ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
PUBLIC EXCLUDED
19 Te Mōtini ā-Tukanga hei Kaupare i te Marea | Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public 119
C1 CONFIDENTIAL: Auckland Unitary Plan - Environment Court appeal - Riverhead Landowner Group (Covering report) 119
1 Ngā Tamōtanga | Apologies
2 Te Whakapuaki i te Whai Pānga | Declaration of Interest
3 Te Whakaū i ngā Āmiki | Confirmation of Minutes
Click the meeting date below to access the minutes.
That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee: whakaū / confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 29 June 2023, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record. |
4 Ngā Petihana | Petitions
5 Ngā Kōrero a te Marea | Public Input
6 Ngā Kōrero a te Poari ā-Rohe Pātata | Local Board Input
7 Ngā Pakihi Autaia | Extraordinary Business
Planning, Environment and Parks Committee 03 August 2023 |
|
Shoreline Adaptation Plan: Āwhitu Report
File No.: CP2023/06960
Te take mō te pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To approve the Shoreline Adaptation Plan for Āwhitu (Attachment A).
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. Shoreline Adaptation Plans are being developed across Auckland to provide a long-term adaptation strategy for council-owned land and assets in response to the impacts of coastal hazards and climate change (including sea-level rise).
3. The Āwhitu Peninsula Shoreline Adaptation Plan is the fourth to be completed across the region. The plan was developed in parallel with the Manukau South plan, sharing community and iwi engagement processes. These plans are presented separately for approval.
4. Mana whenua engagement with local iwi Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua, Ngāti Tamaoho, Waikato-Tainui and Te Ākitai Waiohua was initiated in May 2022. This engagement consisted of hui both online and in person. Engagement included site visits with local iwi and reviews of Shoreline Adaptation Plan documents as they were developed. The values of mana whenua involved in this project have been applied through the choice of adaptation strategies for Āwhitu and through the addition of guidance notes for implementation, where appropriate.
5. Community engagement commenced in July 2022 and closed in October 2022. Following the established methodology developed for the programme, community engagement included a range of both digital and in-person events. Engagement results have identified community use and values from which objectives for the Āwhitu area were developed.
6. The Āwhitu peninsular coastline between Karioitahi ki Rukuwai (with Karioitahi beach being the border of the Auckland region) and Rauau Point to the southeast, was divided into nine coastal cells. The coastline was further divided into 23 stretches of coastline (see Figure 2 below) for management strategies to apply.
7. Through considering the results of the technical coastal hazards risk assessment (Attachment B), local iwi feedback, infrastructure and community objectives, a series of adaptation strategies were developed across the short, medium and long-term. Regionally consistent strategies include ‘Hold the Line’, ‘Limited Intervention’, ‘No Active Intervention’ and ‘Managed Retreat’. The result of the development of these strategies has demonstrated that:
· the majority of the Āwhitu shoreline areas can be managed over the next 100 years with no active intervention. Limited intervention is identified in areas which includes provision for maintenance of existing infrastructure. The strategy also provides for the landward relocation of assets in the future for increased resilience, where these experience ongoing maintenance issues
· coastal stretches identified as hold the line (Te Ngaio / Taitimu / Hudsons Beach and Grahams Beach) in the short and medium term have a strong link to infrastructure and reflect recent investment in coastal erosion protection structures.
· in the long term, managed retreat is required in some locations (for example: Waimatuku / Hamiltons Gap, Te Raroa ki Taratara / Wattle Bay to Orpheus Road Boat Ramp and Te Mako / Big Bay Beach) to coordinate infrastructure retreat or realignment and avoid ongoing erosion pressures and more frequent inundation.
8. The change in management strategy over time provides for a phased and adaptive management approach for coastal assets and infrastructure.
9. The development of Shoreline Adaptation Plans across the region is funded through the Long-term Plan 2021-2031 as part of the climate action investment package. The strategies selected in the reports do not commit the council to any additional investment and no financial investment decisions have been made at this time.
10. Implementation of the adaptation strategies recommended in the Āwhitu Shoreline Adaptation Plan require integration into relevant council documents and plans including long-term plan budgets, infrastructure strategies, Reserve Management Plans, Regional Parks Management Plans, and Asset Management Plans. Alongside ongoing monitoring of coastal assets and the surrounding coastal environment, this will help to inform the appropriate implementation of the Shoreline Adaptation Plan as a collaborative effort across Auckland Council departments.
11. Where there is an identified immediate need and strategies can be implemented through existing budgets, this will be integrated immediately following the adoption of this Shoreline Adaptation Plan. Active coastal asset renewal projects are currently in progress in several locations within the Āwhitu Shoreline Adaptation plan area.
12. The Āwhitu Shoreline Adaptation Plan was endorsed by the Franklin Local Board on 23 May 2023 (FR/2023/68). The resolution is included in full in Attachment C.
13. The remaining Shoreline Adaptation Plans across the Auckland region are continuing to be developed. Staff have developed an accelerated delivery programme following additional storm response funding support through the Annual Budget 2023/2024. Plans will continue to be presented to the Parks, Environment and Planning Committee for approval.
Recommendations
That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:
a) whakaae / approve the Āwhitu Shoreline Adaptation Plan provided as Attachment A to the agenda report
b) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that the Āwhitu Shoreline Adaptation Plan provides site-specific adaptive strategies that outline the preferred coastal management response for council owned land and assets for each coastal stretch over time
c) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that to implement the Āwhitu Shoreline Adaptation Plan, the recommendations will need to be integrated into relevant council strategies and plans to inform the maintenance and renewal of assets:
i) where strategies can be implemented through existing budgets, this will be integrated from now;
ii) where strategies require additional budget, this will be subject to a regional prioritisation process for funding once all Shoreline Adaptation Plans have been completed.
d) tuhi a-taipitopito / note that implementation of Āwhitu Shoreline Adaptation Plan including the Coastal Renewals Work Programme will require ongoing engagement with local iwi.
Horopaki
Context
14. The Shoreline Adaptation Plan work programme is focused on how to best manage and adapt Auckland Council-owned land and assets to the impacts of coastal hazards and climate change over time. The programme is led by the Resilient Land and Coasts department, in the Infrastructure and Environmental Services directorate, and is developed collaboratively across Auckland Council (including council-controlled organisations, Auckland Transport and Watercare).
15. The Shoreline Adaption Plan programme was launched in February 2021. A series of pilot and full plans completed and approved to date.
16. Development of each Shoreline Adaptation Plan has included engagement with mana whenua, the local community and relevant infrastructure providers. This has identified specific values and objectives for shoreline management in each area. In combination with the technical results of a coastal hazards exposure assessment (Attachment B), these objectives are used to determine an appropriate series of high-level adaptation strategies (see Figure 1).
17. Shoreline Adaptation Plans (SAPs) assess the potential future impacts of coastal erosion, coastal inundation, and rainfall flooding, including how climate change will alter the frequency, magnitude and extent of these natural hazards. The plans consider three timescales: short [1-20 years], medium [20-60 years], and long term [60 years and onwards]), to quantify the risk and inform decision-making. The resultant strategies provide high-level guidance on how coastal areas can be adapted over time to sustainably manage the escalating impacts of coastal hazards and climate change Table 1 summarises the strategies included.
Table 1: Adaptation Strategies used in Shoreline Adaptation Plans
Consistent programme wide description of the adaptation strategies |
No Active Intervention: allow natural processes and evolution of the coast to continue. This includes no investment in the provision or maintenance of any coastal defences. |
Limited Intervention: acknowledges that although the shoreline will not be fixed in the future, intervention and asset management in these areas are required. Limited intervention can include work to extend existing asset life, the landward relocation of assets as they are renewed and may include both hard (seawalls) and nature-based measures (dune planting). |
Hold the Line: maintain the coastal edge and/or land uses at a fixed location, using nature-based options (like beach nourishment) or hard structures (like sea walls). |
Managed Retreat: assets and activities are moved away from areas exposed to hazards in a controlled way, over time. Managed retreat allows greater space for natural buffers and reduces asset exposure to natural hazards. |
The Shoreline Adaptation Plan work programme forms part of the council’s response to climate change and building a Resilient Auckland
18. The need for SAPs was set out in the Coastal Management Framework adopted by the council in 2017 (ENV/2017/116). The SAPs are also aligned with the Resilient Auckland work programme and national policy and guidance:
· The SAPs support community-led discussions about natural hazard risk, adaptation and resilience as identified in the presentation on ‘Accelerating a Resilient Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland’ made to the Planning, Environment and Parks committee on 29 June 2023 (PEPCC/2023/81). The SAP programme aligns with and is supported by the proposed ‘Making Space for Water’ programme, with regards to flood hazards in coastal areas
· The New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (2010) directs councils to identify areas that may be affected by coastal hazards over a timeframe of at least 100 years.
· Guidance from the Ministry for the Environment (2017) is to enable a best practice method for developing the Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathways through the identification of mana whenua and community values and the development of a coastal hazards vulnerability and risk assessment. The approach also recognises the reforms to the Resource Management Act currently underway.
19. SAPs are focused on Auckland council-owned coastal land and assets, which generally fall into three major categories:
· parks and community facility assets,
· roading and access infrastructure and assets; and
· water assets; stormwater, potable water and wastewater.
20. Assets considered in the SAPs include those owned and managed by council-controlled organisations including Auckland Transport and Watercare.
Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu
Analysis and advice
Āwhitu Shoreline Adaptation Plan area
21. The Āwhitu Shoreline Adaptation Plan area includes:
· The Āwhitu peninsular coastline between Karioitahi ki Rukuwai (Karioitahi beach- border of the Auckland region) and Rauau Point to the southeast (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. Units and stretches within the Āwhitu Shoreline Adaptation Plan area
22. The Āwhitu Peninsula has three distinct physical settings in relation to coastal processes:
· the open west coast exposed to the Tasman Sea is dominated by wave-driven processes
· the northern tip of the Peninsula forms the entrance to the Manukau Harbour and the flood to ebb shoals are dominated by tidal currents and swells
· the more easterly setting of the inner Manukau Harbour forms the more sheltered, indented shores of the peninsula.
Coastal hazard risk assessment for Āwhitu
23. The physical risk presented to council owned land and assets within the Āwhitu shoreline areas due to coastal hazards, including predicted climate change impacts, was assessed across the short (20-year), medium (60-year) and long (100-year) term. The risk assessment approach has been developed for the Shoreline Adaptation Plan programme, and the full results of this are appended in Attachment B. This assessment groups assets and land under four wellbeings: social (including park and reserve assets); economic (including public three waters infrastructure and roads); environmental (including Significant Ecological Areas); and cultural (which reflects the risk to cultural heritage as layers identified in the Auckland Unitary Plan). These groupings enable an aggregated (or collective) presentation of risk results.
24. The results of the risk assessment are presented as a series of tables (Figure 3) for each hazard, demonstrating the changing risk over time for each of the wellbeings considered. The results show that:
· the overall risk outcomes for Āwhitu are highly variable
· the west coast generally has high to very high risks in the present day, (see red circle in Figure 3), with increased risk from coastal inundation to network infrastructure over the long term
· the northern coast is most at risk to coastal and rainfall inundation and erosional processes result in increases to cultural risks over time
· the east coast has more variable risks, with the highest risks, occurring in the long term, for Āwhitu Regional Park, (see purple circle in Figure 3).
Figure 3. Snapshot of the risk results for coastal inundation risk for the Āwhitu Shoreline Adaption Plan area
25. The risk assessment results were used to inform discussions of the changing coastal environment with local iwi, infrastructure providers (Community Facilities, Healthy Waters, Auckland Transport and Watercare), amenity and open space specialists (Parks and Community Facilities) and the local community. An understanding of changing risk over time has provided the technical basis to determining and changing high-level adaptation strategies along the coast.
Community engagement – local input to local issues
26. The purpose of community engagement throughout the Shoreline Adaptation Plan development process is to identify how the community use and value their coastal areas. Including current community interest, issues, and aspirations of the community regarding their interaction and use of coastal areas. This process also supports community discourse on adaptive planning, and provides an opportunity to share information on hazards, risk, and climate change and the potential impacts over time.
Figure 4. Social
Pinpoint maps generated from the digital engagement
The map displays the location of specific comments, with green circles
representing the “I go here because” pins, blue circles
representing “I remember this storm event…”, red circles
representing “I access the coast here” and pink circles
representing “I value this because” pins.
28. An analysis of the results was undertaken, and community objectives were developed for key themes identified across the feedback received. The community objectives identified for Āwhitu were then used to guide the development of the adaptation strategies which are included in Table 2 below.
Table 2: Community Objectives for Āwhitu
Community Objectives for Āwhitu |
|
Preservation of natural environment
|
· Adaptation strategies preserve and enhance the natural environment and ecosystems that support biodiversity, whilst protecting vulnerable flora/ fauna from adverse activities that damage these delicate systems. |
Connectivity and access
|
· Open-space areas provide for and maintain suitable paragliding and hang-gliding take-off and landing places. · All-tide access to the beach, coast and harbour at key community access locations is maintained to enable a range of recreational and water-based activities (e.g. swimming, paragliding, hang- gliding, walking, picnicking, sailing/boating, kiteboarding and surfing). |
Asset resilience
|
· Resilience of community facilities and assets in hazard zones is a priority. · Community facilities in the Āwhitu area support community resilience and recovery. |
Management and maintenance of coastal spaces |
· Pedestrian safety and use of public coastal walkways and lookouts is supported by improvements to signage and maintenance of coastal spaces. |
Transport considerations
|
· A resilient road network supports and maintains access for a diverse range of transport types (i.e. bikes, vehicles) to and along the coastal environment (improve/ support connectivity between coastal spaces). |
Adaptation strategies developed collaboratively
29. The Āwhitu shoreline has been divided into nine coastal units (See Figure 2) defined by the driving coastal processes and geomorphology. Within those units, stretches have been developed to reflect the differing distribution of infrastructure and assets and the approach to management of these areas.
30. Tables included in Section 5.0 of Attachment A outline the changing adaptation strategies across the coastline over time. This demonstrates that most areas of the Āwhitu Shoreline can be managed over the next 100 years with limited to no active intervention.
31. Coastal stretches identified as ‘hold the line’ in the short and mid-term include assets, land, and infrastructure and in many cases reflect a high community value or many have limited alternative management options. These include areas such as:
· Te Ngaio / Taitimu / Hudsons Beach and Grahams Beach - recognising the recent investment in coastal erosion protection for these beachfront areas (refer to Figure 5) and the communities value of the reserve areas and the coastal access this supports.
Figure 5. Adaption strategies for coastal stretches within the Te Ngaio / Hudsons Beach and Grahams Beach unit
32. In the mid to long term (50 years and onwards), an increasing proportion of the coast requires managed retreat to avoid ongoing erosion pressure and more frequent inundation. For example Waimatuku / Hamilton’s Gap, Te Mako / Big Bay Beach and Te Ngaio / Taitimu / Hudsons Beach and Grahams Beach, will require coordinated consideration of the retreat of assets and land uses due to increasing risk from erosion and inundation overtime.
33. Managed retreat does not signal abandonment of ‘at risk’ areas but identifies a process to ongoing asset management costs and manage risks to people using these assets and areas. This is achieved by moving council assets out of exposed areas to accommodate natural coastal processes, building a more resilient shoreline. Overall, the changing management strategies reflect the increasing risk over time but provide for a phased and adaptive management approach for assets and infrastructure located in hazard areas along the coast.
34. The strategy of no active intervention expects that shorelines will continue to erode, and low-lying areas become increasingly flood prone. The application of this strategy does not preclude advocacy and guidance for aspects such as vegetation restoration or planting techniques undertaken by local community groups or private property owners.
Implementing Shoreline Adaptation Plans
35. Shoreline Adaptation Plans are strategic guidance documents. The implementation process of these plans will require collaboration from across Auckland Council departments and mana whenua. No financial investment decisions are made within the SAPs.
36. Signals and triggers related to the timing of adaptation responses have to be identified at the individual asset level and therefore are not included in these plans.
37. Adaptation decisions depend strongly on risk analysis and acceptable levels of risk. If Auckland Council adopts a framework for tolerable risk levels, the recommended strategies may require review.
38. Strategic recommendations to support implementation will be identified through the continued development of the Shoreline Adaptation Plans across the region. Matters arising from the plans developed to date include:
· the need for a strategic network assessment of coastal access points and recreational water access is required (at an area and regional scale)
· the need to support further discussion and planning for the response for cultural heritage sites at risk from coastal hazards and climate change, where these sites are located within the Coastal Marine Area, council owned land and private or non-council land
· the future opportunity for council to provide advice, resources, and availability to support community discussion on how hazard risk is managed for private or third-party land and how the discussion on adaptation (including managed retreat) may be developed within the Auckland region. This matter is also matter identified in the Franklin Local Board resolution (FR/2023/68, Attachment C).
39. These matters will continue to be explored through the development of the Shoreline Adaptation Plan programme and in consultation with other council departments.
Future Shoreline Adaptation Plans
40. The Āwhitu Shoreline Adaptation Plan is the latest Shoreline Adaptation Plan to be completed for the Auckland region. The next three plans are currently in development and will complete the Manukau Harbour area, including Pahurehure Inlet, Manukau East and Manukau North. An accelerated delivery of the remaining plans has been developed and is being implemented following additional storm response funding.
Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi
Climate impact statement
41. The Shoreline Adaptation Plan work programme is primarily funded as part of the council’s climate action package and is a core climate adaptation workstream. Additional funding has been received for 2023/2024 through the Annual Budget storm recovery programme.
42. As global temperatures rise, Auckland is predicted to experience between 0.6m and 1.5m of sea level rise by 2130, depending on the future CO2 emissions scenario. The impacts of climate change and sea-level rise are expected to increase the frequency, intensity and magnitude of natural hazards including coastal erosion, coastal inundation, and rainfall flooding.
43. To prepare for the future with climate change, we need to plan adaptively. Shoreline Adaptation Plans will help reduce asset exposure and signal the need to work with nature by developing natural systems (such as wide beaches, well vegetated dunes, and tidal marshes) that can help buffer the impacts of climate change.
44. Shoreline Adaptation Plans also assist in educating the public about the impacts of climate change and the need to adapt. Building awareness and signalling the need to be prepared for coastal hazard events is an important part of long-term resilience. For that reason, Shoreline Adaptation Plans report under the Community and Coast priority area of Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan.
45. The Āwhitu plan outlines how Auckland Council owned land and assets in the shoreline area can be managed to mitigate the impacts of coastal hazards and climate change. Implementation of the plans will increase resilience by reducing exposure and vulnerability of assets in hazards zones. The implementation of the plans will also support the development of natural systems that can act as a future buffer.
46. Greenhouse gas emissions are not directly considered within the report, which focuses on the strategic goal of adapting the shoreline to build long-term resilience.
Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera
Council group impacts and views
47. Considering the non-statutory nature of the Shoreline Adaptation Plans, implementation of the plan will be a collaborative effort across Auckland Council departments, and council-controlled organisations. The SAP project team has worked with relevant departments to co-develop the Āwhitu Plan.
48. Implementation of the SAPs will be supported by monitoring of coastal assets and the surrounding coastal environment. This will inform triggers for changing management strategies. Monitoring will include coastal asset condition assessments, beach level surveys and tracking the rate of future coastal hazards and climate change impacts. Such activities are undertaken through the council as business-as-usual programmes. Mana whenua will have the opportunity to lead or be involved in future implementation as partners in the SAP programme.
49. SAP strategies will be pursued for integration into all relevant council Asset Management Plans to inform appropriate monitoring, maintenance, and renewal. For example, management of Parks and Community Facilities assets that provide a coastal defence or amenity function will be considered through the council’s Coastal Assets Renewals Programme. Decisions relating to this programme will be supported by site-specific assessments of coastal processes, option feasibility and costings to identify a preferred solution that aligns with the overarching adaptation strategy of the Shoreline Adaptation Plan.
50. Watercare and Auckland Transport were actively involved in the development of the Āwhitu plan and provided insight into infrastructure considerations around the coastline. These considerations were incorporated in the selection of adaptation strategies and as relevant the guidance notes for implementation.
Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe
Local impacts and local board views
51. A workshop with the Franklin Local Board to introduce the Shoreline Adaptation Plan process and the need to adapt was held in 2021 ahead of the development of the Beachlands and East Pilot Shoreline Adaptation Plan. Engagement with the local board has been ongoing following the pilot plan, including elected members’ active participation in the community engagement events.
52. Further workshops introducing and summarising the full Shoreline Adaptation Plan development process for both Āwhitu and Manukau South were held with the board in 2022 and March 2023.
53. Community objectives and area specific feedback were considered through the selection of adaptation strategies. These considerations are included at a unit level within the reports (refer to the social and policy context section for each unit). These inclusions, along with the adaptation strategies will inform future projects in the shoreline area including coastal local board and renewals work programmes, as well as being considered through implementation at a regional level for the Shoreline Adaptation Plan programme.
54. The Āwhitu Shoreline Adaption Plan was presented (in parallel with the Manukau South Plan) to the Franklin Board in May 2023. There was no specific feedback or discussion of the strategies included in the Āwhitu plan and the plan was endorsed as presented (resolution FR/2023/68, Attachment C).
Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori
Māori impact statement
55. The Shoreline Adaptation Plan programme has been developed in the spirit of partnership with mana whenua. The project team presents regularly to the Infrastructure and Environmental Services Kaitiaki Forum and undertakes direct engagement with local iwi to inform the development of each plan.
56. For development of the Āwhitu plan, local iwi Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua, Ngāti Tamaoho, Waikato-Tainui and Te Ākitai Waiohua have been actively involved in the in the development of the plan.
57. Between May 2022 and May 2023, multiple hui have been held with each local iwi. This has included in person and online hui and hikoi or site visits. The purpose of these hui has been to share knowledge and insights bilaterally to support the development of adaptation strategies for council owned land and assets within the Āwhitu area and within the respective rohe of the iwi more generally. During these hui, iwi provided cultural context to the coastline and identified guiding principles related to shoreline management as well as advocating for the following key principles:
· the autonomy of each iwi and hapū and the role and continued engagement of iwi and affiliate marae
· ensuring data and knowledge is shared appropriately with agreements and protection of mātauranga is clearly specified and documented
· supporting opportunities for innovation, utilising mātauranga, and being directly engaged in discussion around implementation of the Shoreline Adaption Plan programme.
58. The principles, gifted by mana whenua, informed the development of the adaptation strategies and are a core foundation of the Āwhitu Shoreline Adaptation Plan. These are summarised below (refer to section 3.2 of the report at Attachment A for full detail of the principles provided):
· Mana Whakahaere, iwi rangatiratanga, maru taha tika and paneketanga: recognizing self-determination, rights, interests, and governance concerning the Coastal Marine Area, foreshore and seabed. This is reflective of tikanga and cultural preferences for the management, use and development of these areas.
· Manākitanga and hono marino: acknowledging the role that council and local iwi must play in supporting whānau, hapū and iwi rights, needs and aspirations for coastal areas and recognizing that iwi would not unreasonably or without good cause deny others the use and sharing of coastal areas, consistent with the tikanga of the iwi.
· Kaitiakitanga or guardianship is described by local iwi as being relevant to the Shoreline Adaption Plan programme as tiaki, to guard or protect, including a holistic environmental management approach. This may include restoring mana of the iwi and damaged ecological systems, reducing risk to present and future generations and providing for the needs of present and future generations.
59. Prior values provided by Mana Whenua (taiao / environment, whakapapa / ancestry and tangata hononga / connecting people) through the development of pilot Shoreline Adaptation Plans and the principles provided through the Infrastructure and Environmental Services Kaitiaki Forum have also been identified and considered through the development of the reports. Section 1.0 of the report at Attachment A addresses how the Shoreline Adaptation Plan responds to Te Ora ō Tāmaki Makaurau, and Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau.
60. The Āwhitu Peninsula (and Manukau Harbour) are of great cultural significance to iwi. Some cultural sites are recorded as wāhi tapu sites. The specific location of some sites may be protected by iwi, and not shared, or may in some cases be unknown. Such sites may be located within council-owned esplanade reserves, the coastal marine area, or in private ownership.
61. Cultural heritage considerations and iwi values have informed the development of the adaption strategies which are applicable for these council assets and land holdings. The development of the Āwhitu SAP plans has confirmed the need to consider how risks to cultural heritage (from coastal hazards and climate change) is responded to. This matter involves multiple parties, including private landowners, and is a key risk identified at a national scale through the National Climate Change Risk Assessment (2020) and has been a subject raised through engagement with local iwi.
Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea
Financial implications
62. Delivery of the Shoreline Adaptation Plan work programme is regionally funded through the climate action package. The delivery of the remaining plans will be accelerated through additional funding provided through the storm recover budget.
63. Mitigating coastal hazards will become increasingly expensive for Auckland and wider Aotearoa. It will not be affordable or feasible to defend everywhere. Shoreline Adaptation Plans will ensure that shoreline projects consider the escalating future risk of climate change and respond in both an environmentally and economically sustainable manner.
64. No financial investment decisions have been made through the Āwhitu SAP report. The adaptation strategies of the Āwhitu Shoreline Adaptation Plan will be given effect to across relevant council decision-making. This includes the future management, maintenance and renewal of council assets and land located along the coast through existing work programmes and associated budgets. Over time, this will result in cost savings as assets are moved out of coastal hazard areas and incur less damage due to coastal erosion and flooding.
65. This will assist in budgeting for areas where managed realignment or other major coastal work has been recommended.
66. Where strategies can be implemented through existing budgets, this will be integrated from now. This is reflected in the Coastal Asset Renewals Programme where current renewals work aligns with the recommended strategies, including at Pollok (reserve) Wharf Road and at Big Bay in the northern coast and inner harbour areas of the Āwhitu shoreline.
67. The current allocated long-term plan budget for renewals of Community Facilities coastal assets is approximately $11.5 million a year and is managed by the Resilient Land and Coasts Department. It is anticipated that an increase in funding will be required for renewals in the future, particularly if the effects of climate change start to reduce the useful life of coastal assets. A Coastal Asset Management Plan is currently being developed to provide a better understanding of asset condition and forecast costs. This Asset Management Plan will consider the direction of Shoreline Adaptation Plans where available.
68. Once all SAPs across Auckland are completed, a regional prioritisation scheme will be developed to guide future funding requirements in response to climate change impacts. This will assist in informing future coastal renewal budgets to support significant coastal works recommended by managed retreat or hold the line strategies in response to future climate change impacts.
Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga
Risks and mitigations
69. Without strategic guidance, there is a risk of coastal asset and management decisions being made on an ad-hoc basis and may not take the escalating risk of climate change sufficiently into account. The Shoreline Adaptation Plan provides the strategic long-term vision for the coastal areas of the Āwhitu Peninsula. Table 3 provides a summary of risk identified and their corresponding mitigations.
Table 3: Risk and mitigations of the Āwhitu Shoreline Adaptation Plan
Risk |
Mitigation |
Public opposition to the proposed adaptation strategies |
The Shoreline Adaptation Plan has been developed in partnership with mana whenua and with extensive engagement with the local community, wider public and infrastructure providers. |
Coastal hazards may increase in frequency and intensity earlier than expected |
The Shoreline Adaptation Plan has been developed using a conservative climate change scenario in the long term, and therefore staff consider this risk to be low. In addition, the SAP advocates for a Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathway approach which is inherently flexible to allow for uncertainty in the rate of change. |
The Shoreline Adaptation Plan may not be applied across all business areas |
The Shoreline Adaptation Plan project team has worked in collaboration across council to develop the plan. A Coastal Governance Group has also been established to oversee the implementation of the Shoreline Adaptation Plans. Key to the implementation of the Shoreline Adaptation Plans are the development of a Coastal Asset Management Plan and the Coastal Renewals Work Programme. Both projects are owned and managed by the Resilient Land and Coasts team alongside the Shoreline Adaptation Plan work programme. |
Insufficient budget to implement the Shoreline Adaptation Plan strategies |
The full cost of implementing the high-level strategies recommended within shoreline adaptation plans will not be understood until all the plans are complete. However, the plans will provide a long-term, regional overview of coastal hazard risk using best-available information to inform future funding requirements. |
Ngā koringa ā-muri
Next steps
70. If approved, the adaptation strategies outlined in the SAP will be progressively integrated into council plans and strategies such as Asset Management Plans for implementation when these plans are reviewed.
71. The Shoreline Adaptation Plan programme will continue to be advanced across the region. The next three SAPs (Pahurehure Inlet, Manukau East and Manukau North) were launched for community consultation in mid-June 2023 and are scheduled to be delivered in September 2023. They will be presented to the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee when finished.
Attachments
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇨ |
Āwhitu Shoreline Adaptation Plan |
|
b⇨ |
Āwhitu Risk Assessment Technical Report |
|
c⇨ |
Franklin Local Board Resolution FR/2023/68 |
|
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
Authors |
Lara Clarke - Principal Coastal Adaptation Specialist Natasha Carpenter - Coastal Management Practice Lead |
Authorisers |
Paul Klinac - General Manager Resilient Land & Coasts Rachel Kelleher - General Manager Environmental Services Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy |
Planning, Environment and Parks Committee 03 August 2023 |
|
Shoreline Adaptation Plan: Manukau South Report
File No.: CP2023/09519
Te take mō te pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To approve the Shoreline Adaptation Plan for Manukau South (Attachment A).
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. Shoreline Adaptation Plans are being developed across Auckland to provide a long-term adaptation strategy for council-owned land and assets in response to the impacts of coastal hazards and climate change (including sea-level rise).
3. The Manukau South Shoreline Adaptation Plan is the fifth plan to be completed across the region. The plan was developed in parallel with the Āwhitu plan, sharing community and iwi engagement processes. These plans are presented separately for approval.
4. Mana whenua engagement with local iwi Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua, Ngāti Tamaoho, Waikato-Tainui and Te Ākitai Waiohua was first initiated in May 2022. This engagement consisted of hui both online and in person. Engagement included site visits with local iwi and reviews of Shoreline Adaptation Plan documents as they are developed. The values of mana whenua and local iwi involved in this project have been applied through the choice of adaptation strategies for Manukau South and through the addition of guidance notes for implementation, where appropriate.
5. Community engagement commenced in July 2022 and closed in October 2022. Following the established methodology developed for the programme, community engagement has included a range of both digital and in-person events. Engagement results have identified community use and values from which objectives for the Manukau South area were developed.
6. The Manukau South SAP area includes seven coastal units between Rauau Point (north of Te Toro) to Elletts Beach in the east. The coastline was further divided into 37 discrete coastal stretches (see Figure 2) for management strategies to apply.
7. Through considering the results of the technical coastal hazards risk assessment (Attachment B), local iwi feedback, infrastructure and community objectives, a series of adaptation strategies were developed across the short, medium and long-term. Regionally consistent strategies include ‘Hold the Line’, ‘Limited Intervention’, ‘No Active Intervention’ and ‘Managed Retreat’. The result of the development of these strategies has demonstrated that:
· Most of the Manukau South shoreline areas can be managed over the next 100 years with no active intervention or limited intervention. Limited intervention includes provision for maintenance of existing infrastructure and its landward relocation where infrastructure is routinely renewed in the future.
· Coastal stretches identified as hold the line have a strong link to infrastructure and reflect recent investment in coastal erosion protection structures. For example, Tahuna Kaitoto / Sandspit, Tamakae / Tamakae Wharf, Racecourse Road, Glenbrook Beach and Wilsons Access West at Clarks Beach.
· Over various time horizons, managed retreat is required in some locations to coordinate infrastructure retreat or realignment and avoid ongoing erosion pressures and more frequent inundation. In the short term, routine renewals provide an opportunity to plan for coordinated realignment of assets and associated uses such as at Clarks Beach - Halls Beach access. In the long term, low-lying areas such as the Tahuna Kaitoto / Sandspit areas of Clarks Beach will require planned realignment and reconsideration of uses due to erosion and inundation hazards (exacerbated by sea level rise).
8. The change in management strategy over time provides for a phased and adaptive management approach for coastal assets and infrastructure.
9. The development of Shoreline Adaptation Plans across the region is funded through the Long-term Plan 2021-2031 as part of the climate action investment package. The strategies selected in the reports do not commit council to any additional investment and no financial investment decisions have been made at this time.
10. Implementation of the adaptation strategies recommended in the Manukau South Shoreline Adaptation Plan will require integration into relevant council documents and plans including long-term plan budgets, infrastructure strategies, Reserve Management Plans, Regional Parks Management Plans, and Asset Management Plans. Alongside ongoing monitoring of coastal assets and the surrounding coastal environment, this will help to inform the appropriate implementation of the Shoreline Adaptation Plan as a collaborative effort across Auckland Council departments.
11. Where there is an identified immediate need and strategies can be implemented through existing budgets, this will be integrated immediately following the adoption of this Shoreline Adaptation Plan. Active coastal asset renewal projects are currently in progress in several locations within the Manukau South Shoreline Adaptation Plan area.
12. The Manukau South Shoreline Adaptation Plan was endorsed, subject to six clarifications and changes, by the Franklin Local Board on 23 May 2023 (FR/2023/68, Attachment C). These clarifications and changes were considered as part of the SAP finalisation process, and a detailed analysis and response has been included as Attachment D. Based on this analysis staff recommend that no changes to the strategies included in the Manukau South Shoreline Adaptation Plan are required to meet the desired outcomes of the local board.
13. The remaining Shoreline Adaptation Plans across the Auckland region are continuing to be developed. Staff have developed an accelerated delivery programme following additional storm response funding support through the Annual Budget 2023/2024. Plans will continue to be presented to the Parks, Environment and Planning Committee for approval.
Recommendations
That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:
a) whakaae / approve the Manukau South Shoreline Adaptation Plan provided as Attachment A to the agenda report
b) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note the views provided by the Franklin Local Board (FR/2023/68)
c) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that the Manukau South Shoreline Adaptation Plan provides site-specific adaptive strategies that outline the preferred coastal management response for council owned land and assets for each coastal stretch over time
d) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that to implement the Manukau South Shoreline Adaptation Plan, the recommendations will need to be integrated into relevant council strategies and plans to inform the maintenance and renewal of assets:
i) where strategies can be implemented through existing budgets, this will be integrated from now;
ii) where strategies require additional budget, this will be subject to a regional prioritisation process for funding once all Shoreline Adaptation Plans have been completed.
e) tuhi a-taipitopito / note that implementation of Manukau South Shoreline Adaptation Plan including the Coastal Renewals Work Programme will require ongoing engagement with local iwi.
Horopaki
Context
14. The Shoreline Adaptation Plan work programme is focused on how to best manage and adapt Auckland Council-owned land and assets to the impacts of coastal hazards and climate change over time. The programme is led by the Resilient Land and Coasts department, in the Infrastructure and Environmental Services directorate, and is developed collaboratively across Auckland Council (including council-controlled organisations, Auckland Transport and Watercare).
15. The Shoreline Adaption Plan programme was launched in February 2021. A series of pilot and full plans have been completed and approved to date.
16. Development of each Shoreline Adaptation Plan has included engagement with mana whenua, the local community and relevant infrastructure providers. This has identified specific values and objectives for shoreline management in each area. In combination with the technical results of a coastal hazards exposure assessment (Attachment B), these objectives are used to determine an appropriate series of high-level adaptation strategies (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: The process involves four key stages; the blue arrow represents mana whenua engagement which is vital to every stage of development.
17. Shoreline Adaptation Plans (SAPs) assess the potential future impacts of coastal erosion, coastal inundation, and rainfall flooding, including how climate change will alter the frequency, magnitude and extent of these natural hazards. The plans consider three timescales: short [1-20 years], medium [20-60 years], and long term [60 years and onwards]), to quantify the risk and inform decision-making. The resulting strategies provide high-level guidance on how coastal areas can be adapted over time to sustainably manage the escalating impacts of coastal hazards and climate change. Table 1 summarises the strategies included.
Table 1: Adaptation Strategies used in Shoreline Adaptation Plans
Consistent programme-wide description of the adaptation strategies |
No Active Intervention: allow natural processes and evolution of the coast to continue. This includes no investment in the provision or maintenance of any coastal defences. |
Limited Intervention: acknowledges that although the shoreline will not be fixed in the future, intervention and asset management in these areas are required. Limited intervention can include work to extend existing asset life, the landward relocation of assets as they are renewed and may include both hard (seawalls) and nature-based measures (dune planting). |
Hold the Line: maintain the coastal edge and/or land uses at a fixed location, using nature-based options (like beach nourishment) or hard structures (like sea walls). |
Managed Retreat: assets and activities are moved away from areas exposed to hazards in a controlled way, over time. Managed retreat allows greater space for natural buffers and reduces asset exposure to natural hazards. |
The Shoreline Adaptation Plan work programme forms part of the council’s response to climate change and building a Resilient Auckland
18. The need for SAPs was set out in the Coastal Management Framework adopted by the council in 2017 (ENV/2017/116). The SAPs are also aligned with the Resilient Auckland Work programme, National Policy and Guidance.
19. SAPs are focused on Auckland council-owned coastal land and assets, which generally fall into three major categories:
· parks and community facility assets
· roading and access infrastructure and assets
· water assets; stormwater, potable water and wastewater.
20. Assets considered in the SAPs include those owned and managed by council-controlled organisations including Auckland Transport and Watercare.
Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu
Analysis and advice
Manukau South Shoreline Adaptation Plan Area
21. The Manukau South Shoreline Adaptation Plan area includes the shoreline of the southern Manukau Harbour, between Rauau Point (north of Te Toro) to Elletts Beach in the east (see Figure 2).
Figure 2: Units and stretches within the Manukau South Shoreline Adaptation Plan area
22. The Manukau Harbour is the second largest harbour on the west coast of the North Island. There are two distinct physical settings within this SAP area:
· Harbour coast: The more uniform and regular southern shores of Manukau Harbour extending from Waiuku River to the west and the Pahurehure Inlet to the east.
· River shorelines: The more narrow but highly indented shorelines along the Waiuku and Taihiki Rivers, and Whātāpaka Creek that extend approximately 12km to the south from the south-western corner of Manukau Harbour, with length of shoreline around the many smaller inlets totalling over 90km.
Coastal hazard risk assessment for Manukau South
23. The physical risk presented to council owned land and assets within the Manukau South shoreline areas due to coastal hazards, including predicted climate change impacts, was assessed across the short (20-year), medium (60-year) and long (100-year) term. The risk assessment approach has been developed for the Shoreline Adaptation Plan programme, and the full results of this are appended in Attachment B.
24. This assessment groups assets and land under four wellbeings: social (including park and reserve assets); economic (including public three waters infrastructure and roads); environmental (including Significant Ecological Areas); and cultural (which reflects the risk to cultural heritage as layers identified in the Auckland Unitary Plan). These groupings enable an aggregated (or collective) presentation of risk results. The results of the risk assessment are presented as a series of tables (example Figure 3) for each hazard, demonstrating the changing risk over time for each of the wellbeings.
25. The results show that:
· Manukau South has greater risk from coastal erosion than coastal inundation and rainfall flooding for all wellbeings, particularly council-owned land, such as esplanade reserves (see red circle in Figure 3).
· Cultural heritage sites located within these areas (see purple circle in Figure 3) are subject to high and very high risk across most units, noting that there are a significant number of cultural heritage sites within the SAP area which are not recorded. These exist both above and below mean high water springs (within the Coastal Marine Area) and are not represented in this assessment of risk.
· The risk to network infrastructure is comparably low (refer to Figure 3), due to low exposure of infrastructure assets within proximity to the shoreline and the road corridor being generally located away from the coastal edge.
Figure 3: Snapshot of the 'traffic light' risk table produced for coastal erosion risk for the Manukau South Shoreline Adaption Plan area.
26. The risk assessment results were used to inform discussions of the changing coastal environment with local iwi, infrastructure providers (Community Facilities, Healthy Waters, Auckland Transport and Watercare), amenity and open space specialists (Parks and Community Facilities) and the local community. An understanding of changing risk over time has provided the technical basis to determining and changing high-level adaptation strategies along the coast.
Community engagement – local input to local issues
27. The purpose of community engagement throughout the Shoreline Adaptation Plan development process is to identify how the community use and value their coastal areas. This includes current community interest, issues, and aspirations of the community regarding their interaction and use of coastal areas. This process also supports community discourse on adaptive planning, and provides an opportunity to share information on hazards, risk and climate change, and the potential impacts this may have over time.
28. Community engagement was undertaken in parallel for the Āwhitu and Manukau South Shoreline Adaptation Plans. Public consultation was open from mid-July to mid-October 2022. Consultation included both in-person public outreach events and digital engagement. Through the digital engagement platform Social Pinpoint (see Figure 4), 270 users participated and a total of 26 surveys for Manukau South were submitted via Engagement HQ.
|
|
Figure 4: Social Pinpoint maps generated from the digital engagement Map A displays the location of specific comments, with green circles representing the “I go here because” pins, blue circles representing “I remember this storm event…”, red circles representing “I access the coast here” and pink circles representing “I value this because” pins. Map B is a heatmap highlighting the areas most commented on during the digital engagement, which for Manukau South is Clarks Beach, Glenbrook Beach, Te Toro, and Waiau Pa, meaning that these are areas of high interest to the local community. |
29. An analysis of the results was undertaken, and community objectives were developed based on key themes identified across the feedback received.
30. The community objectives identified for the Manukau South area were then used to guide the development of the adaptation strategies which are included in Table 2 below.
Table 2: Community Objectives for Manukau South
Community Objectives for Manukau South |
|
Preservation of natural environment |
· Adaptation strategies preserve and enhance the natural environment and ecosystems that support biodiversity, whilst protecting vulnerable flora/ fauna from adverse activities that damage these delicate systems. |
Connectivity and access
|
· Adaptation strategies maintain safe access to the beach, coast and harbour (via boat launching facilities) with parking to support a range of recreational and water-based activities at a range of tide levels (e.g. swimming, walking, picnicking, sailing/boating, kiteboarding and surfing). · All-tide access to the beaches, coast and harbour is maintained to enable a range of recreational and water-based activities (e.g. swimming, walking, picnicking, sailing/boating, kiteboarding and surfing). |
Asset resilience
|
· Resilience of community facilities and assets in hazard zones is a priority. · Community facilities in the Manukau South area support community resilience and recovery. |
Management and maintenance of coastal spaces |
· Pedestrian safety and use of public coastal walkways and lookouts are supported by improvements to signage and maintenance of coastal spaces. |
Transport considerations |
· Access to, and parking near popular coastal recreation areas is improved, resilient and covers a range of transport modes (improve/ support connectivity between coastal spaces). |
Adaptation strategies developed collaboratively
31. The Manukau South shoreline has been divided into seven coastal units (See Figure 2) defined by the driving coastal processes and geomorphology. Within those units, stretches have been developed to reflect the differing distribution of infrastructure and assets and the approach to management of these areas.
32. Tables included in Section 5.0 of Attachment A outline the changing adaptation strategies across the coastline over time. This demonstrates that most areas of the Manukau South Shoreline can be managed over the next 100 years with limited intervention or no active intervention.
33. Coastal stretches identified as ‘hold the line’ in the short and midterm include assets, land, and infrastructure and, in many cases, reflect a high community value or have limited alternative management options. These include areas such as:
· Stretch 5 Tahuna Kaitoto / Sandspit: Hold the line recognises the open space recreational reserve area valued by the wider community. Hold the line in this location (refer to Figure 5) is supported by both nature-based options, including sand renourishment and ongoing sand transfer to provide a dry, high-tide beach area to buffer the armoured reserve.
Figure 5: Adaptation strategies for coastal stretches within the Waiuku unit area, red circle identifies Stretch 5
· Stretch 15: Kahawai / Glenbrook Beach: Hold the line in the short term (see the red circle in figure 6) recognising the high recreational amenity value of Glenbrook Beach and associated reserve area. This is supported by the community objective identifying the importance of connectivity to the beach and along the coastal edge reserve. This strategy supports the planned protection from coastal erosion over the short term of council group land and assets, including Beach Road.
Figure 6: Adaptation strategies for coastal stretches within the Glenbrook unit area. The red circle identified Glenbrook beach
· Stretch 25: Wilsons Access West: Hold the line in the short term (refer to the red circle in figure 6 below) reflects the expected design life of, and investment in a timber seawall which provides erosion protection to amenities and assets.
34. Where hold the line is identified in relation to coastal erosion, the landward relocation and further consideration of inundation hazards may be required over mid to long timeframes with ongoing sea-level rise.
35. In the mid to long term (50 years and onwards), an increasing proportion of the coast requires managed retreat to avoid ongoing erosion and more frequent inundation. For example:
· Stretch 12: Waiuku Wastewater Treatment Plant: identifies managed retreat in the long term (refer to figure 7) as aspects of this treatment plant are likely to be relocated (with some assets remaining which are appropriately designed).
Figure 7: Adaptation strategies for coastal stretches within the Glenbrook Steel Mill unit area
· Stretch 21 Karaka/Waiau / Clarks Beach Golf Course: Managed retreat in the long term (refer to the yellow circle in figure 8 below) reflects the need for a coordinated management approach to relocate assets and manage hazard risks. This includes the need to consider realignment of network infrastructure, reserve land and the retreat of road and coast access, particularly where these roads run perpendicular to the coast. This also signals the need to consider the location of third-party assets subject to leases, located within reserve areas.
Figure 8: Adaptation strategies for coastal stretches within the Clarks Beach unit area (red circle Wilsons Road access; yellow circle Clarks beach Golf Course)
36. Managed retreat does not signal abandonment of ‘at risk’ areas but identifies a process to reduce ongoing asset management costs and manage risks to people using these assets and area. This is achieved by moving council assets out of exposed areas to accommodate natural coastal processes, building a more resilient shoreline. Overall, the changing management strategies reflect the increasing risk over time but provides for a phased and adaptive management approach for assets and infrastructure located in hazard areas within the coast.
37. The strategy of no active intervention expects that shorelines will continue to erode, and low-lying areas become increasingly flood prone. The application of this strategy does not preclude advocacy and guidance for aspects such as vegetation restoration or planting techniques undertaken by local community groups or private property owners.
Implementing Shoreline Adaptation Plans
38. Shoreline adaptation plans are strategic guidance documents. The implementation process of these plans will require collaboration from across Auckland Council departments and mana whenua. No financial investment decisions are made within the SAPs.
39. Signals and triggers related to the timing of adaptation responses have to be identified at the individual asset level and therefore are not included in these plans.
40. Adaptation decisions depend strongly on risk analysis and acceptable levels of risk. If Auckland Council adopts a framework for tolerable risk levels, the recommended strategies may require review.
41. Strategic recommendations to support implementation will be identified through the continued development of the Shoreline Adaptation Plans across the region. Matters arising from the plans developed to date include:
· the need for a strategic network assessment of coastal access points and recreational water access is required (at an area and regional scale)
· the need to support further discussion and planning for the response for cultural heritage sites at risk from coastal hazards and climate change, where these sites are located within the Coastal Marine Area, council owned land and private or non-council land
· the future opportunity for council to provide advice, resources, and availability to support community discussion on how hazard risk is managed for private or third-party land and how the discussion on adaptation (including managed retreat) may be developed within the Auckland region. This matter is also matter identified in the Franklin Local Board resolution (FR/2023/68, Attachment C).
42. These matters will continue to be explored through the development of the Shoreline Adaptation Plan programme and in consultation with other council departments.
Future Shoreline Adaptation Plans
43. The Manukau South Shoreline Adaptation Plan is one of the latest Shoreline Adaptation Plans to be completed for the Auckland region. The next three plans are currently in development and will complete the Manukau Harbour area, including Pahurehure Inlet, Manukau East and Manukau North. An accelerated delivery of the remaining plans has been developed and is being implemented following additional storm response funding.
Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi
Climate impact statement
44. The Shoreline Adaptation Plan work programme is primarily funded as part of the council’s climate action package and is a core climate adaptation workstream. Additional funding has been received for 2023/2024 through the Annual Budget storm recovery programme.
45. As global temperatures rise, Auckland is predicted to experience between 0.6m and 1.5m of sea level rise by 2130, depending on the future CO2 emissions scenario. The impacts of climate change and sea-level rise are expected to increase the frequency, intensity and magnitude of natural hazards including coastal erosion, coastal inundation, and rainfall flooding.
46. To prepare for the future with climate change, we need to plan adaptively. Shoreline Adaptation Plans will help reduce asset exposure and signal the need to work with nature by developing natural systems (such as wide beaches, well vegetated dunes, and tidal marshes) that can help buffer the impacts of climate change.
47. Shoreline Adaptation Plans also assist in educating the public about the impacts of climate change and the need to adapt. Building awareness and signalling the need to be prepared for coastal hazard events is an important part of long-term resilience. For that reason, Shoreline Adaptation Plans report under the Community and Coast priority area of Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan.
48. The Manukau South Plan outlines how Auckland Council owned land and assets in the shoreline area can be managed to mitigate the impacts of coastal hazards and climate change. Implementation of the plans will increase resilience by reducing exposure and vulnerability of assets in hazard zones. The implementation of the plans will also support the development of natural systems that can act as a future buffer.
49. Greenhouse gas emissions are not directly considered within the report, which focuses on the strategic goal of adapting the shoreline to build long-term resilience.
Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera
Council group impacts and views
50. Considering the non-statutory nature of the Shoreline Adaptation Plans, implementation of the plan will be a collaborative effort across Auckland Council departments, and council-controlled organisations. The SAP project team has worked with relevant departments to co-develop the Manukau South Plan.
51. Implementation of the SAPs will be supported by monitoring of coastal assets and the surrounding coastal environment. This will inform triggers for changing management strategies. Monitoring will include coastal asset condition assessments, beach level surveys and tracking the rate of future coastal hazards and climate change impacts. Such activities are undertaken through the council as business-as-usual programmes. Mana whenua will have the opportunity to lead or be involved in future implementation as partners in the SAP programme.
52. SAP strategies will be pursued for integration into all relevant council Asset Management Plans to inform appropriate monitoring, maintenance, and renewal. For example, management of Parks and Community Facilities assets that provide a coastal defence or amenity function will be considered through the council’s Coastal Assets Renewals Programme. Decisions relating to this programme will be supported by site-specific assessments of coastal processes, option feasibility and costings to identify a preferred solution that aligns with the overarching adaptation strategy of the Shoreline Adaptation Plan.
53. Watercare and Auckland Transport were actively involved in the development of the Manukau South Plan and provided insight into infrastructure considerations around the coastline. These considerations were incorporated in the selection of adaptation strategies and as relevant the guidance notes for implementation.
Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe
Local impacts and local board views
54. A workshop with the Franklin Local Board to introduce the Shoreline Adaptation Plan process and the need to adapt was initiated in 2021 ahead of the development of the Beachlands and East Pilot Shoreline Adaption Plan. Engagement with the board and members has been ongoing following the pilot plan, including the elected members’ active participation in the community engagement events.
55. Further workshops introducing and summarising the full Shoreline Adaptation Plan development process for both Āwhitu and Manukau South were held with the board in 2022 and March 2023.
56. Community objectives and area specific feedback were considered through the selection of adaptation strategies. These objectives, along with the adaptation strategies, will inform future projects in the shoreline area including coastal local board and renewals work programmes, as well as being considered through implementation at a regional level for the Shoreline Adaptation Plan programme.
57. The Manukau South Shoreline Adaptation Plan was presented to the Franklin Local Board in May 2023, in parallel with the Āwhitu Plan. The Plan was endorsed subject to six clarifications or changes identified by the board (refer to Attachment C). The changes generally relate to a view to change management strategies from ‘limited intervention’ to ‘hold the line’ at specific coastal stretches. This change is typically in the short term where coastal access points (or network infrastructures) of high value to the community were identified by the board. The six stretches/locations are identified in Table 3.
Table 3: Franklin Local Board changes and clarifications sought to strategies
Coastal Stretch |
Strategy presented in Manukau South Plan |
Clarification/change sought by the Franklin Local Board |
Stretch 20: Waiau/Waitete | Waiau Beach/Pā |
Limited intervention |
Hold the line (short term) |
Stretch 22: Waiau | Torkar Bay |
Limited intervention |
Hold the line (short term) |
Stretch 23: Karaka Point / Torkar Road Reserve |
Limited intervention |
Hold the line (concerns regarding sewage and potable water) |
Stretch 27: Halls Beach Access |
Managed retreat |
Hold the line (term unspecified) |
Stretch 29: Knights Beach Access, 31 Hoskings Access and 33 Bradleys Access |
Limited intervention |
Hold the line (short term) concerns regarding wastewater |
Stretch 26: Wilsons Beach East (private land and Irwin’s Access) |
No Active intervention |
Hold the line (short term) |
58. An analysis and discussion of the alternate adaptation options sought by the Franklin Local Board is included as Attachment D. At this time no changes to strategies are recommended to be adopted subject to the clarifications made in Attachment D.
59. The project team are confident the desired outcomes of the local board can be met with the existing recommended strategies. A further workshop with the Franklin Board is scheduled for 25 July 2023 to further discuss the final strategies approved in the Manukau South Shoreline Adaptation Plan.
60. Adaptation planning should continue to identify and explore multiple ‘pathways’ with associated signals, trigger and thresholds for change and review. As such, changing social, economic, cultural and policy influences may require the future need to consider alternative adaption pathways.
Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori
Māori impact statement
61. The Shoreline Adaptation Plan programme has been developed in the spirit of partnership with mana whenua. The project team presents regularly to the Infrastructure and Environmental Services Kaitiaki forum and undertake direct engagement with local iwi to inform the development of each plan.
62. For development of the Manukau South plan, local iwi Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua, Ngāti Tamaoho, Waikato-Tainui and Te Ākitai Waiohua have been actively involved in the development of the plan.
63. Between May 2022 and May 2023, multiple hui have been held with each local iwi who have chosen to engage on this kaupapa. This has included in person and online hui and hikoi or site visits. The purpose of these hui has been to share knowledge and insights bilaterally to support the development of adaptation strategies for council owned land and assets within the Manukau South area and within the respective rohe of each iwi more generally. During thesehui, iwi provided cultural context to the coastline and identified guiding principles related to shoreline management as well as advocating for the following key principles:
· The autonomy of each iwi and hapū and the role and continued engagement of iwi and affiliate marae.
· Ensuring data and knowledge is shared appropriately with agreements and protection of mātauranga is clearly specified/documented.
· Supporting opportunities for innovation, utilise mātauranga, and being directly engaged in discussion around implementation of the Shoreline Adaption Plan programme.
64. The principles, gifted by mana whenua, informed the development of the adaptation strategies and are a core foundation of the Manukau South Shoreline Adaptation Plan. These are summarised below (please refer to section 3.2 of the report at Attachment A for full detail of the principles provided):
· Mana Whakahaere, iwi rangatiratanga, maru taha tika and paneketanga; recognizing self-determination, rights, interests, and governance concerning the Coastal Marine Area, foreshore and seabed. This is reflective of tikanga and cultural preferences for the management, use and development of these areas.
· Manākitanga and hono marino; acknowledging the role that council and local iwi must play in supporting whanau, hapu and iwi rights, needs and aspirations for coastal areas and recognizing that iwi would not unreasonably or without good cause deny others the use and sharing of coastal areas, consistent with the tikanga of the iwi.
· Kaitiakitanga or guardianship is described by local iwi as being relevant to the Shoreline Adaption Plan programme as tiaki, to guard or protect, including a holistic environmental management approach. This may include restoring mana of the iwi and damaged ecological systems, reducing risk to present and future generations and providing for the needs of present and future generations.
65. Prior values provided by Mana Whenua (taiao - environment, whakapapa / ancestry and tangata hononga / connecting people) through the development of pilot shoreline adaptation plans and the principles provided through the Infrastructure and Environmental Services Kaitiaki Forum have also been identified and considered through the development of the reports. Section 1.0 of the report at Attachment A addresses how the Shoreline Adaptation Plan responds to Te Ora ō Tāmaki Makaurau, and Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau.
66. The Manukau Harbour is of great cultural significance to iwi. Some cultural sites are recorded as wāhi tapu sites. The specific location of some sites may be protected by iwi, and not shared, or may in some cases be unknown. Such sites may be located within council-owned esplanade reserves, the coastal marine area, or in private ownership.
67. Cultural heritage considerations and iwi values have informed the development of the adaption strategies which are applicable for these council assets and land holdings. The development of the Manukau South SAP plans has confirmed the need to consider how risks to cultural heritage (from coastal hazards and climate change) is responded to. This matter involves multiple parties, including private landowners, and is a key risk identified at a national scale through the National Climate Change Risk Assessment (2020) and has been a subject raised through engagement with local iwi.
Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea
Financial implications
68. Delivery of the Shoreline Adaptation Plan work programme is regionally funded through the climate action package. The delivery of the remaining plans will be accelerated through additional funding provided through the storm recover budget.
69. Mitigating coastal hazards will become increasingly expensive for Auckland and wider Aotearoa. It will not be affordable or feasible to defend everywhere. Shoreline Adaptation Plans will ensure that shoreline projects consider the escalating future risk of climate change and respond in both an environmentally and economically sustainable manner.
70. No financial investment decisions have been made through the Manukau South SAP report. The adaptation strategies of the Manukau South Shoreline Adaptation Plan will be given effect to across relevant council decision-making. This includes the future management, maintenance and renewal of council assets and land located along the coast through existing work programmes and associated budgets. Over time, this will result in cost savings as assets are moved out of coastal hazard areas and incur less damage due to coastal erosion and flooding.
71. This will assist in budgetary requirements for areas where managed realignment or other major coastal works has been recommended.
72. Where strategies can be implemented through existing budgets, this will be integrated from now. This is reflected in the Coastal Asset Renewals Programme where current renewals work aligns with the recommended strategies, including at Tamakae Wharf, Glenbrook Beach and Clarks Beach (accessways).
73. The current allocated long-term plan budget for renewals of Community Facilities coastal assets is approximately $11.5 million a year and is managed by the Resilient Land and Coasts Department. It is anticipated that an increase in funding will be required for renewals in the future, particularly if the effects of climate change start to reduce the useful life of coastal assets. A Coastal Asset Management Plan is currently being developed to provide a better understanding of asset condition and forecast costs. This Asset Management Plan will consider the direction of Shoreline Adaptation Plans where available.
74. Once all SAPs across Auckland are completed, a regional prioritisation scheme will be developed to guide future funding requirements in response to climate change impacts. This will assist in informing future coastal renewal budgets to support significant coastal works recommended by managed retreat or hold the line strategies in response to future climate change impacts.
Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga
Risks and mitigations
75. Without strategic guidance, there is a risk of coastal asset and management decisions being made on an ad-hoc basis and may not take the escalating risk of climate change sufficiently into account. The Shoreline Adaptation Plan provides the strategic long-term vision for the coastal areas of the southern Manukau area. Implementation of the plan will require multiple teams in the council and CCOs to work together.
Table 4. Risk and mitigations of the Manukau South Shoreline Adaptation Plan
Risk |
Mitigation |
Public opposition to the proposed adaptation strategies |
The Shoreline Adaptation Plan has been developed in partnership with mana whenua and with extensive engagement with the local community, wider public and infrastructure providers. |
Coastal hazards may increase in frequency and intensity earlier than expected |
The Shoreline Adaptation Plan has been developed using a conservative climate change scenario in the long term, and therefore staff consider this risk to be low. In addition, the SAP advocates for a Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathway approach which is inherently flexible to allow for uncertainty in the rate of change.
|
The Shoreline Adaptation Plan may not be applied across all business areas |
The Shoreline Adaptation Plan project team has worked in collaboration across council to develop the plan. A Coastal Governance Group has also been established to oversee the implementation of the Shoreline Adaptation Plans. Key to the implementation of the Shoreline Adaptation Plans are the development of a Coastal Asset Management Plan and the Coastal Renewals Work Programme. Both projects are owned and managed by the Resilient Land and Coasts team alongside the Shoreline Adaptation Plan work Programme. |
Insufficient budget to implement the Shoreline Adaptation Plan strategies |
The full cost of implementing the high-level strategies recommended within shoreline adaptation plans will not be understood until all the plans are complete. However, the plans will provide a long-term, regional overview of coastal hazard risk using best-available information to inform future funding requirements. |
Ngā koringa ā-muri
Next steps
76. If approved, the adaptation strategies outlined in the SAP will be progressively integrated into council plans and strategies such as Asset Management Plans for implementation when these plans are reviewed.
77. The Shoreline Adaptation Plan programme will continue to be advanced across the region. The next three SAPs (Pahurehure Inlet, Manukau East and Manukau North) were launched for community consultation in mid-June 2023 and are scheduled to be delivered in September 2023. They will be presented to the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee when finished.
Attachments
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇨ |
Manukau South Shoreline Adaptation Plan |
|
b⇨ |
Manukau South Risk Assessment Technical Report |
|
c⇨ |
Franklin Local Board Resolution FR/2023/68 |
|
d⇨ |
Discussion of Franklin Local Board resolution |
|
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
Authors |
Lara Clarke - Principal Coastal Adaptation Specialist Natasha Carpenter - Coastal Management Practice Lead |
Authorisers |
Paul Klinac - General Manager Resilient Land & Coasts Rachel Kelleher - General Manager Environmental Services Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy |
Planning, Environment and Parks Committee 03 August 2023 |
|
Update on Caulerpa and gold clam biosecurity incursions
File No.: CP2023/08551
Te take mō te pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To provide an update on the Caulerpa and gold clam biosecurity incursions.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. The Chair of the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee has requested an update on Caulerpa and gold clam biosecurity incursions.
3. Two serious new-to-New Zealand pest incursions currently threaten the Auckland region; two species of Caulerpa seaweed and a freshwater gold clam. These pests can easily be accidentally moved to new places on boats or other equipment.
4. A memo (Attachment A) providing an update on these incursions was sent to the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee and Hauraki Gulf local boards.
5. Existing initiatives funded by the natural environment targeted rate are supporting Ministry for Primary Industries’ response, however there is no unallocated funding available to directly focus on these species or to expand current pathway activity. Resourcing for marine and freshwater biosecurity may need to be re-examined through the upcoming Long-term Plan process.
6. Environmental Services staff will provide an update to the meeting on the following items:
· the recent Caulerpa and gold clam incursions, including the July 2023 Caulerpa detection north of Kawau Island
· the role of the Ministry for Primary Industries and Auckland Council in prevention, response and control
· implications of these incursions for the council.
7. Existing initiatives funded by the natural environment targeted rate are supporting Ministry for Primary Industries’ response, however there is no unallocated funding available to directly focus on these species or to expand current pathway activity. Resourcing for marine and freshwater biosecurity may need to be re-examined through the upcoming Long-term Plan process.
Ngā tūtohunga
Recommendations
That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:
a) whiwhi / receive the update on Caulerpa and gold clam incursions.
Attachments
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇨ |
Memo - update on exotic Caulerpa and freshwater gold clam |
|
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
Authors |
Phil Brown - Head of Natural Environment Delivery, Environmental Services Rachel Kelleher - General Manager, Environmental Services |
Authorisers |
Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy |
Planning, Environment and Parks Committee 03 August 2023 |
|
Kerbside refuse collection standardisation - implementation
File No.: CP2023/08691
Te take mō te pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To seek endorsement of a two phased approach to implement the decision to move to standardised regionwide rates-funded kerbside refuse collections.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. In June 2022, the council agreed to implement a standardised regionwide rates-funded refuse collection system (GB/2022/46). This was part of the council’s ongoing transition to consistent kerbside services for all Auckland properties.
3. To move to a regional rates-funded and consistent service model every property will need access to a council refuse bin (or equivalent bags, in rural areas).
4. As ‘do nothing’ does not achieve the council’s commitment to a standardised refuse collection service, the two options that have been considered to put this policy into practice are:
· Option 1: a full upfront bin replacement programme for all current ‘pay-as-you-throw’ (PAYT) areas, prior to shifting to rates-funded collections.
· Option 2: a programme that minimises upfront bin replacements, by only delivering new bins to areas with no current council bins (legacy Rodney and Franklin) and to customers in PAYT areas (North Shore, Papakura and Waitākere) that have not kept their council bin or use bags. In all areas, this would use a mix of new bins, existing council bins, repurposed PAYT council bins and bins acquired from existing private services. New bins will only be supplied where a customer’s existing bin cannot be repurposed.
5. Staff recommend Option 2 as it provides a pragmatic and affordable solution that recognises the council’s current financial constraints, maximises the bins currently in service and minimises disruption to customers. The efficiency of implementing this option ensures that the waste minimisation, climate emissions savings, equity, and cost and efficiency savings that the rates-funded option delivers can be realised as soon as possible.
6. The total cost of Option 1 is $27.8 million (of which $22 million is capital expenditure). The total cost of Option 2 (recommended) is $12.9 million (of which $8.3 million is capital expenditure). Option 1 would be funded by a combination of unbudgeted long-term plan funding and waste levy funding whereas Option 2 would be mainly funded by the waste levy and represents minimal cost in rates to council.
7. Option 2 can be implemented over a period of 15 months, whereas Option 1 would need at least three years to implement due to the higher level of complexity and need to secure long-term plan funding. Option 2 ensures that standardised rates-funded refuse is implemented sooner.
8. If Option 2 is approved, planning and preparation for bin replacements to implement this will commence immediately and will run until 30 June 2024. Bin supply or exchange for residents will then occur for 15 months from 1 July 2024.
9. Further refinements of the council’s refuse service will be part of a second phase where the council will reconfirm moving to a fortnightly collection as part of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2024. This will be considered as part of the development of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2024 which will be worked through with elected members from August 2023.
Recommendations
That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:
a) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that on 7 June 2022 the Governing Body agreed to amend the Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 to move to a regionwide rates-funded refuse collection service (GB/2022/46)
b) whakaae / approve option 2 – a two-phased approach to implement the decision to move to regionwide rates-funded kerbside refuse collections that minimises upfront bin replacement costs by delivery of new bins only to properties with no bins, or acquisition of existing private bins in areas with no current council bins, to ensure every property is provided with a bin prior to moving to regionwide, staged rates-funded refuse collections.
Horopaki
Context
Last year the council further agreed to standardise kerbside refuse services
10. The goal of progressively standardising the kerbside collection services for all areas of Auckland has been in place since adopting the first Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) in 2012. Standardisation covers receptacle type and size, charging method and frequency of collection.
11. More recently, the 2018 WMMP reiterated the need for standardisation. To minimise kerbside household waste the 2018 WMMP committed to:
· the introduction of a regionwide “three bin” collection system to enable maximum diversion of waste from landfill
· implementing a region-wide ‘pay-as-you-throw’ (PAYT) charging system for refuse collections.
12. A review was initiated prior to implementing this change to determine whether PAYT remained the best policy approach (resolution FIN/2021/107). After extensive consultation, staff recommended a change in policy to implement a rates-funded refuse collection system as part of ongoing transition to consistent kerbside services.
13. The Governing Body adopted this policy change in June 2022 (resolution GB/2022/46), alongside several smaller policy and service changes to address inconsistencies in charging methods (resolution GB/2022/47). The Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 was updated in September 2022 to reflect this change (resolution ECC/2022/79). Since then, staff have been working through options to put this policy into practice.
We need to address the variety of receptacles and payment methods
14. At present, refuse collection in the Auckland region is provided in three different ways:
· Rates-funded collection by Auckland Council using council-provided 120-litre bins (with 80-litre and 240-litre bins available according to customer need), or equivalent bags (inner city and rural areas only).
· Pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) collection by Auckland Council using pre-paid council collection bags or tags. Households use 120-litre bins in Papakura, but 140-litre bins (repurposed recycling bins) on the North Shore and in Waitākere. 80-litre and 240-litre bins are also available in all PAYT areas.
· Private collection paid on either a PAYT or subscription basis using privately provided bins or bags.
15. Table 1 summarises the current state of refuse collection services by legacy council, with the legacy council boundaries and existing refuse collection services shown in Figure 1.
Table 1: Current states for legacy council areas
Former Legacy Council |
Refuse Charging Mechanism |
Refuse Bin Access |
Rodney District |
Private service |
Private bins and bags |
North Shore City Council |
PAYT |
Private bins, bags and council bins |
Waitākere City Council |
PAYT |
Private bins and council bins and bags |
Auckland City Council |
Rates-funded |
Council bins and council bags |
Manukau City Council |
Rates-funded |
Council bins |
Papakura District Council |
PAYT |
Private bins, bags and council bins and bags |
Franklin District Council |
PAYT |
Private bins, bags and council bags |
Figure 1: Legacy council areas and current council collection services
There are a number of challenges to standardisation
16. Due to the mix of service providers and receptacle types on offer across the region, differing degrees of service changes are required to bring the remaining legacy council areas up to an equivalent level of service.
17. A further challenge in moving to a standardised council kerbside service is that the impact on the refuse volumes from the introduction of the food scraps services will take some time to be fully bedded in and understood, particularly in terms of customer participation and behaviour change. For this reason, the transition from weekly to fortnightly refuse services remains to be reconfirmed by council within the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2024.
18. Another challenge is that the bins in the legacy Auckland City area (in service since 2001) are reaching the end of their asset life and will need to be replaced soon. This is a costly exercise. This change could be made now, whilst rolling out the rates-funded service, or delayed until the decision has been reconfirmed within the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2024 whether to continue with the proposed move to fortnightly refuse collections.
19. For operational reasons described below, the preferred option is to focus on the implementation of standardised weekly refuse collection services under a rates-funded model and ensure that every customer has access to a council refuse collection service with a refuse bin, so that the benefits of the rates-funded model can be realised as soon as possible.
Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu
Analysis and advice
Options we have considered to standardise collection services
20. The following objectives have been identified for transitioning to standardised refuse charging, receptacles and collection frequency:
· standardised charging methods for refuse
· provide a consistent level of service across Auckland for waste collection
· fit for purpose receptacles to promote waste minimisation
· maintain high participation and low contamination in food scraps and recycling collection services
· maximise the use of bins currently in service.
21. The fundamental basis for each option considered is that, at the point of transition of all collection areas in Auckland to rates-funded refuse collections, all households have access to a refuse bin. The two options outlined below are different implementation approaches for delivering consistent access to refuse receptacles across the collection areas in Auckland, including replacing all aged stock with RFID-enabled (Radio Frequency Identification) new bins versus a minimum replacement programme.
22. As ‘do nothing’ does not achieve the council’s agreed standardisation policy, staff discounted this as an option from the outset and considered two further options to achieve these objectives:
· Option 1: a full upfront bin replacement programme for all current PAYT areas prior to shifting to rates-funded collections.
· Option 2: a programme that minimises upfront bin replacements, by only delivering new bins to areas with no current council bins (legacy Rodney, where there is no council refuse service, and Franklin, where council customers use PAYT bags) and to customers in PAYT areas (North Shore, Papakura and Waitākere) that have not kept their council bin or use bags. In all areas, this would use a mix of new bins, existing council bins, repurposed PAYT council bins and bins acquired from existing private services. New bins will only be supplied where a customer’s existing bin cannot be repurposed.
23. In assessing the two options staff considered key constraints that would have a material influence on achieving the objectives:
· approval of funding as part of the 2024 long-term plan process
· availability of resources to support roll-out of this scale, while maintaining existing services
· lead time to complete negotiations with the bin supply contractor and affected collection contractors, to enable bin and truck orders to be placed
· lead time for manufacture of additional trucks and bins to enable roll-out.
24. Table 2 provides a description of what these two options would entail.
Table 2: Description of options
Description of options |
Option 1: |
Option 2: |
Option description |
1. Full upfront bin replacement |
2. Minimise initial bin replacements |
Initial bin supply costs* |
$27,810,000 |
$12,880,817 |
Scale, scope, and location |
Supply all new bins, except in Auckland, Manukau and Papakura: · Areas that do not have a council bin: Rodney, Franklin · Replace 140-litre PAYT bins or supply new if the property has neither a private nor council bin: North Shore, Waitākere · 10-15 per cent areas with 120-litre PAYT bins: Papakura |
Only supply new bins where no existing Council or Private bin: · Areas that do not have a council bin: Rodney, Franklin · 10-15 per cent of areas with 140-litre bins: North Shore, Waitākere · 0-15 per cent areas with 120-litre PAYT bins: Papakura Replace existing bins only when damage identified or supply new if the property has neither a private nor council bin to re-use. |
Service solution |
Supply new 120-litre RFID-enabled council refuse bins. |
Supply new 120-litre RFID-enabled council refuse bins. Purchase used bins from private collectors |
Delivery Approach |
Bin supply and collections contracted to existing suppliers. |
Bin supply and collections contracted to existing suppliers. Negotiate purchase and use of private bins with private collectors. |
Funding source |
LTP and Waste Levy |
Waste Levy |
Implementation |
Commencing FY
2026 (after LTP approval) and completed in |
Commencing FY 2025 and
completed in |
* Note that this includes implementation costs as well as bin capital requirements.
Summary of options assessment
25. The benefits of moving to a rates-funded service were assessed as part of the review in 2021/2022.
26. The priority considerations for implementation have been cost and affordability for council within current economic constraints, speed and ease of achieving standardisation to realise the benefits of the rates-funded service, impact on customer service/satisfaction, best use of existing assets, climate impacts, and future proofing for anticipated service frequency changes.
27. Option 1 is full bin delivery and replacement across the PAYT areas (for properties with no bin or aged bin stock) aligned with a change to fortnightly collections. Option 2 splits the changes into two phases over five years, as shown above, thereby fitting within council’s current financial position.
28. The two-phased approach of Option 2 ensures a standardised rates-funded refuse service and the advantages this brings is implemented sooner for Tāmaki Makaurau as Phase 1 of Option 2 can be implemented over a period of 15 months, whereas Option 1 will take over three years to implement due to the complexity of the larger roll out and resources required.
29. Option 2 does have some disadvantages, particularly that it does not provide 100 per cent consistency with bin stock from the outset. It will also come with a slightly higher interim bin maintenance cost because some of the bins are older.
30. On balance however, staff consider these disadvantages are outweighed by the advantages when assessed against key considerations summarised in Table 3, particularly as a full bin replacement adds a layer of complexity for council negotiating with private collectors and agreeing choice with households where private services are in place. Option 2 allows the impact on the collection contract to be smoothed out for collection contracts that need to be renegotiated in areas where the supplier is providing a private service.
Table 3: Summary of options assessment against key criteria
Consideration |
Option 1 |
Option 2 (preferred) |
Notes/explanation |
Cost and affordability for the council |
ü |
üüü |
Moving the entire region to a rates-funded billing mechanism in parallel with a full bin replacement programme would require significantly higher levels of project resourcing, coordination and time. Funding a region-wide bin replacement will be costly. Option 2 is more affordable in the short-term and works within the council’s current financial constraints. |
Speed and ease of achieving standardisation |
ü |
üüü |
The shorter implementation time of Option 2 means that the benefits of a full rates-funded service will be realised nine to 18 months earlier than Option 1. It also accelerates the removal of service ‘bleed’ through the collection of PAYT refuse bins that are using illegal bin tags. |
Impact on customer service/ satisfaction |
ü |
üü |
Many customers in areas using PAYT or private collection services already have a bin. Transitioning to a weekly council provided service will create a degree of disruption for these users. Option 2 allows customers to use their existing bins for the transition, which will limit disruption and provide time to choose the right bin size for their needs. |
Minimise wastage of bin assets |
û |
üü |
A partial bin roll-out avoids need for new bins, maximises asset life of existing aging council bins as well as keeping newer private bins in service. |
Climate impacts |
ü |
üü |
A faster shift to full rates-funded enables the climate emissions reduction benefits of this model from reduced truck movements and greater diversion to be realised much sooner. |
Future proofing / flexibility for future services |
û |
üü |
A two-phased implementation provides time for the council and customers to assess refuse volumes and impacts of food scraps on collection frequency requirements more accurately. |
ûûû |
ûû |
û |
ü |
üü |
üüü |
most negative |
moderately negative |
slightly negative |
slightly positive |
moderately positive |
most positive |
Strategic phasing of changes is an important consideration
31. The preferred Option 2 proposes that service changes are adopted in two sequenced phases over five years, allowing impacts to the council’s customers and contractors to be managed in a controlled way. The indicative strategic phases of the overall transition of refuse services are outlined in Figure 2.
32. Phase 1 service implementation involves council bins being provided to customers that do not currently have bins and additional collection fleet being brought in by the collection contractors to service the additional customers, where required. The transition would occur progressively by area across the region over a 15 to 18-month period, starting 1 July 2024.
33. Phase 2 service implementation would involve rolling out collection day changes to accommodate fortnightly collections, when approved, and associated collection fleet changes for the collection contractors to accommodate the reduction in service frequency.
34. It is proposed that the wider bin replacement programme to update the aged Auckland City, North Shore and Waitākere refuse bin stocks is carried out as part of phase 2 of the refuse collection service changes. This enables the asset life of the existing bins to be extended, and allows the impact of diverting food scraps to inform customer choice on the size of bin required (80-litre, 120-litre or 240-litre).
35. At this time, staff are only seeking endorsement of the principle of a two phased approach and the detailed programme for Phase 1 of Option 2.
Timeline for implementation
36. The proposed timeline for Phase 1 implementation is from July 2024 to October 2025. Some tasks such as consulting on the proposed targeted rate will be performed prior to July 2024, with public communications and engagement commencing from July 2024.
37. Phase 2 will only commence upon reconfirmation of progressing to fortnightly refuse collections, which will follow WMMP 2024 consultation. Once approved, planning will commence from late 2024, with fortnightly collections starting from July 2026.
38. Bin exchanges will occur over the following year as residents adapt to the new service level. Full replacement of aged bin stock will then occur from July 2027 and will take two years to complete. Figure 2 shows the overall timeline for Phases 1 and 2.
Figure 2: Option 2 - Strategic Phasing of Implementation
Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi
Climate impact statement
39. The climate impact of moving to a regionwide rates-funded was outlined in the 8 December 2021 report to Finance and Performance Committee.
40. Auckland Council can make a significant contribution to our climate goals by optimising waste reduction and resource recovery, including the ability to influence a greater number of households into the future through the proposed rates-funded model.
41. Over the lifetime of the proposed decision, the impact of greater diversion from landfill of both food scraps and general recycling will be the most significant components of emissions reduction, with an anticipated emissions saving of 125,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year under a rates-funded weekly service.
42. Option 2 will enable a quicker move to standardisation, presenting the ability to influence truck fleet fuel efficiency (with a higher number of households on the service) and maximises the use of existing bin stocks, thereby avoiding the energy and material requirements of producing new bins.
Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera
Council group impacts and views
43. The proposed implementation relates to kerbside collection services for residential properties. The impacts will therefore relate largely to residential ratepayers.
44. For this reason, we have not sought the views of other Auckland Council departments and council-controlled organisations as they will not be impacted by the implementation proposal.
45. Staff from Auckland Council’s Financial Strategy and Planning group and Digital and Customer Experience have been actively involved in this approach to implementation.
Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe
Local impacts and local board views
46. Local boards provided their views on the impacts on their local community of standardisation of waste services at the 4 May 2022 workshop of the Finance and Performance Committee. Formal feedback on the proposed change was recorded at their May 2022 business meetings and received as part of the annual budget feedback. These views were taken into account as part of the final advice to the Finance and Performance Committee in June 2022, which endorsed the move to regionwide rates-funded refuse collections.
47. Local board views have not been sought on the operational implementation of the agreed policy change. The council will continue to offer support for service changes which will include ongoing communication the boards and workshops where requested.
Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori
Māori impact statement
48. During the review of the best refuse charging model for Tāmaki Makaurau, it was recognised that the way Māori live, where they live and the way they engage with waste services has specific implications for Māori in Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland in the decision to move to a rates-funded refuse service.
49. According to the 2018 census, 53 per cent of the Māori population of Tāmaki Makaurau currently live in a rates-funded area, primarily in south Auckland and 47 per cent live in PAYT areas, primarily in Papakura, Henderson-Massey and Franklin.
50. Statistically, Māori in Tāmaki Makaurau / Auckland have lower rates of home ownership (25 per cent) than the wider Auckland average (45 per cent). With 75 per cent of the Māori population living in rented accommodation, currently those in rates-funded areas do not pay directly for refuse services while renters in PAYT areas are more likely to be purchasing the bags or tags themselves.
51. Option 2 provides a quicker method to remove inequities where households in PAYT areas are having to pay each time they set out their refuse, while households in rates-funded areas have the annual cost of kerbside services paid for by the ratepayer (usually the landlord).
Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea
Financial implications
52. The overall estimated cost to deliver Option 1 is $27,810,000 and Option 2 is $12,880,817. This includes operational and capital costs and contingency. A cost breakdown of the options is shown in Table 4 below.
Table 4: Option cost breakdown
Cost |
Option 1 |
Option 2 |
Capital |
$19,990,000 |
$6,080,000 |
Capital contingency (Opt 1: 10%, Opt 2: 30%) |
$2,000,000 |
$2,200,000 |
Operational |
$4,850,000 |
$3,834,014 |
Operational contingency (20%) |
$970,000 |
$766,803 |
Total incl Contingency |
$27,810,000 |
$12,880,817 |
53. The overall cost of Option 2, the minimised replacement programme is $12.9 million. This is made up of $8.3 million of bin capital costs and $4.6 million of project implementation costs (personnel and other project costs). This includes a 30 per cent contingency on estimated numbers of bins required and 20 per cent contingency on project implementation costs. The costs are spread over the 2023/2024 to 2025/2026 financial years, with most cost falling in the 2024/2025 financial year in alignment with the implementation programme.
54. Operational contingency for both options is 20 per cent. Capital contingency for Option 1 is 10 per cent of bin numbers and for Option 2, 30 per cent. The reason for the higher capital contingency percentage for Option 2 is due to uncertainty around the legacy 140-litre bin quantities.
55. The total cost difference between options is due to the requirement to replace existing, aging refuse bins in North Shore and Waitākere. This will still need to occur in phase 2 of Option 2, but taking a two-phased approach allows council to manage the impact on customers and contractors and the asset life of the bins to be extended. It also allows the impact of diverting food scraps to inform customer choice on the size of bin required. The future costs for Phase 2 of Option 2 will be detailed and discussed as part of future decisions.
56. The budget for Option 2 will be provided through Auckland Council’s share of the Waste Disposal Levy. The waste levy is a central government economic instrument to discourage sending waste to landfill. Half of the money collected is paid to territorial authorities to promote or achieve waste minimisation in accordance with their waste management and minimisation plans. The budget for Option 1 would require additional unbudgeted capital funding through the long-term plan.
Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga
Risks and mitigations
57. The key risks and mitigations of the two implementation options considered are shown in Table 5.
Table 5: High level risks and mitigation
# |
Risk Description |
Mitigations (Current and Planned) |
1 |
Base bin asset data is incomplete and cannot be confirmed as accurate, resulting in multiple bins per property in PAYT areas, additional waste volumes and costs to council. Impact on assumptions, inaccurate cost and budget setting. |
· Additional bin process for PAYT areas · Policy for rates-funded areas · Details gathered from bin requests and customer contact · Enforcement plan · Additional project resources applied to managing bin data · Advanced communications to known additional bin properties |
2 |
Lack of process around tag refunds for customers, with an impact on customer experience and council reputation. |
· Develop refund policy and process · Advanced communications on service change |
3 |
Bin supplier’s contract variation to accommodate refuse programme to reset contract value for term not completed on time. |
· Contract term extended and rates agreed for new bins |
4 |
Difficulty in employing runners prior to rates-funded services, leading to loss of revenue and compliance in service use |
· Contracts with KPIs · Supplier negotiation · Scope change to service |
5 |
Tight labour market restricting recruitment/additional resources to cover implementation |
· Commence recruitment as early as possible and stage recruitment over six months. · Confirm project budgets as early as possible |
6 |
Council unable to meet Service Level Agreements for customers due to spikes in Requests for Service numbers exceeding council resource capacity and bin production |
· Current council processes and contracts with KPIs · Confirming budget and resource · Bin stocks and resources · Prioritising new bin customers · Online process improvements |
Ngā koringa ā-muri
Next steps
58. If the Governing Body approves Option 2 a timeline of the changes will be confirmed and communicated with residents in the affected areas and bins will be progressively supplied and/or exchanged from 1 July 2024.
Attachments
There are no attachments for this report.
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
Author |
Sarah Le Claire - Waste Planning Manager |
Authorisers |
Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy |
Planning, Environment and Parks Committee 03 August 2023 |
|
2023/2024 Capital Investment Programme for Open Space, Community Asset Development, Public Art, Coastal Renewals and Other Regionally-funded Programmes
File No.: CP2023/09789
Te take mō te pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To approve the regional programme for parks and community related capital investment for the 2023/2024 financial year.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. This report sets out the regional capital works programme for parks and community related investment for the 2023/2024 financial year within the decision making of the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee. The work programme includes component programmes which are delivered through regional funding but have a level of input and decision-making from local boards.
3. The total budget for delivery of the proposed 2023/2024 financial year regional capital works programme is $49,851,075 and is summarised in Table 1.
Table 1: Summary of Proposed Capital Investment
Programme |
2023/2024 Budget ($) |
Regional Renewals and Development |
16,372,455 |
Residential Leasing |
1,594,471 |
Slips Prevention and Remediation |
950,000 |
Seismic Strengthening |
4,750,485 |
Local and Sports Park Development (Growth) |
10,910,322 |
Public Art |
3,770,000 |
Coastal Renewals |
11,503,342 |
TOTAL |
49,851,075 |
4. This report recommends approval of the component work programmes found in Attachments B-I. A description of each component work programme can be found in Attachment A.
5. All work programmes are provided within budget envelopes approved in the 2023/2024 Annual Budget on 8 June 2023.
6. Aside from Public Art, all the work programmes have been proposed over a rolling three-year timeframe. Approval from the committee is sought for the 2023/2024 financial year and approval in-principle is sought for financial years 2024/2025 and 2025/2026, noting these will be subject to decisions on the Long-term Plan 2024-34.
7. Projects that form the local and sports field development (growth) and the slip remediation and prevention programmes will be incorporated into local board work programmes. Local boards have provisionally approved these projects as part of their work programmes and provided feedback, a summary of which will be circulated to the committee and tabled at the 3 August Planning, Environment and Parks Committee meeting.
8. The most significant risk to the successful delivery of the 2023/2024 work programme is the unknown cost of addressing damage caused by the storm events earlier this year, the quantum of which is still not fully known at this time. The need to replace assets and ensure areas are safe for use by the public is likely to lead to reprioritisation of some projects. Minor changes are likely to be made under delegations. Where new projects are required to be added to the programme and these changes impact the programme significantly, these will be presented back to this committee.
9. In the meantime, approval of the work programme as presented in this report is sought so that delivery of projects can be started or continue as soon as possible. The programme includes $1.3 million for storm remedial work for 2023/2024 and 2025/2026.
10. Within the work programme several projects have been identified for the 2024/2025 and 2025/2026 financial years as part of the Risk Adjusted Programme (RAP).
11. Approval is sought for the planning and design of the RAP projects to commence during the 2023/2024 financial year, so that they can be prioritized, if other already approved projects cannot be delivered or are delayed due to unforeseen reasons.
Recommendation/s
That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:
a) whakaae / approve the 2023/2024 work programmes for capital investment as set out in Attachments B, C, D, E, F, G and I to the agenda report.
b) whakaae / approve in principle the 2024/2025 and 2025/2026 work programmes as set out in Attachments B, C, D, E, F, G and I to the agenda report.
c) whakaae / approve the 2023/2024 Public Art Regional Work Programme investment areas and initiatives as per Attachment H to the agenda report.
d) whakaae / approve the Risk Adjusted Programme projects identified in the work programme (Attachments B – G and I of the agenda report) as projects that will commence and may be delivered in advance of the expected delivery year, to offset unforeseen delays in other planned projects, to meet expected financial expenditure for the 2023/2024 financial year.
e) tautapa / delegate to the Manager, Public Art authority to approve amendments to the 2023-2024 Public Art Work Programme.
f) tautapa / delegate to the General Manager Parks and Community Facilities authority to approve amendments to the 2023-2026 Parks and Community Facilities Regional Work Programme.
g) tautapa / delegate to the General Manager Resilient Land and Coasts authority to approve amendments to the 2023-2026 Coastal Renewals Work Programme.
h) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that approval of budget allocation in the 2023/2024 financial year for multi-year projects implies the Committee’s support for the projects in their entirety.
i) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that where budget is allocated to a project in the regional work programme that falls within a local board decision-making allocation e.g. a local park, that project is included in the local board work programme and the local board then has decision-making responsibility for that project, within the parameters set by the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee, namely location, scope and budget.
j) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note the feedback provided by local boards in relation to the projects funded from the slips prevention and local parks and sports field development (growth) budgets in Attachment F to the agenda report.
k) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that budget allocations for all projects are best current estimates, and amendments may be required to the work programme to accommodate final costs as the year progresses.
Horopaki
Context
12. Capital investment in open space, community asset development, public art, coastal renewals and other regionally funded programmes are usually approved in July each year, but this has been delayed due to this year’s Annual Budget timing and decisions.
13. The final regional work programme includes projects for parks, environmental assets, arts and culture, community services, and coastal renewals and is presented to the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee for approval.
14. The capital funded regional work programme includes projects within the following activity areas:
· Regional renewals and development, which includes Regional Parks, Farming, Holiday Parks, Auckland Botanic Gardens, Pukekawa Auckland Domain and Auckland Cemeteries
· Residential leases
· Slips prevention and remediation
· Seismic strengthening
· Local parks and sports field development (growth-funded)
· Public Art under the Public Art Policy
15. A description of each activity area is provided in Attachment A.
16. Also covered in this report is the Coastal Renewals work programme proposed by the Resilient Land and Coasts department of the Infrastructure & Environmental Services (I&ES) directorate. This programme covers only the coastal assets within the community portfolio.
17. The regional capital programmes proposed for delivery during the 2023/2024 financial year are detailed in attachments B-I. The projects identified in the work programme have been prioritised based on feedback from the community, local boards and the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee, staff assessments of asset condition, and key stakeholder input.
Governance role
18. The Planning, Environment and Parks Committee has different decision-making roles for regional work programmes:
· Regional renewals and Development and Cemeteries work programmes
The committee has full responsibility for both budget allocation to specific projects, and subsequent governance decision-making regarding the delivery of those projects.
· Slips prevention and remediation programme, and the Local parks and sports field development budgets
The committee is responsible for the prioritisation and allocation of budgets to specific projects. However, some of these projects relate to assets within the local park network, and local boards therefore have a decision-making role in determining the outcomes for delivery.
19. While Pukekawa Auckland Domain is funded from regional budgets, the Auckland Domain Committee has the decision-making role for its work programme. Staff engaged with the committee and discussed the draft programme at a workshop in March 2023. The work programme was then endorsed by the Auckland Domain Committee on 29 May 2023 (ADCCC/2023/11).
20. The Public Art programme is funded from regional capital budgets and has four focus areas:
· artwork renewals
· semi-permanent artworks
· digital/moving image commissions
· City Centre Targeted Rate projects
21. The City Centre Targeted Rate projects do not require committee approval because they were approved when the 2021-2022 work programme was approved. (PAC/2021/300).
22. Discreet Long-Term Plan (LTP) projects that are included in the LTP through a separate Governing Body decision are not programmed and therefore not included in this report (for example Te Whau Pathway and Colin Dale Park). Other parks and community related capital projects, such as information technology or digital investments, are approved via Chief Executive delegations and are not covered in this report.
23. The Coastal Renewals work programme, prepared by the Resilient Land and Coasts department in I&ES, is included as an information update to the committee on the budget allocation to specific coastal projects within the community portfolio. The programme is risk-adjusted to enable high-risk projects to be prioritised and delivered efficiently.
Strategic objectives
24. The 2021-2031 LTP signalled a transition to a new investment approach that focusses on alternative ways of providing services with less reliance on asset-based delivery models. Staff considered this strategic shift in preparing this work programme.
25. As well as looking at alternative service delivery models, an increasingly integrated approach to planning and delivering work programmes is being taken. This enables greater efficiencies within the overall programme through consistent prioritisation, and the identification of opportunities for greater project alignment and sequencing. Prioritisation has included engagement with the staff responsible for the practical delivery of both assets and services.
26. Customer and Community Services directorate works closely with other council directorates such as I&ES, as well as council-controlled organisations and external agencies, such as Watercare, Eke Panuku, Auckland Transport, Kāinga Ora and Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency, and aims to align as much as possible with their work programmes.
27. In addition to asset assessments and stakeholder input, the projects in this work programme have been prioritised for investment, based on feedback from local boards in May and July.
Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu
Analysis and advice
28. Staff have included all the projects funded by capital investment into a combined work programme for 2023/2024. The budgeted programme is summarised in Table 2.
29. The programme reflects consideration of service outcomes, the condition of existing assets and the demands for new assets. Project managers responsible for on-the-ground delivery of both assets and services have also had input into prioritisation. With respect to renewals which is a significant portion of the programme, asset condition and criticality is taken into account to ensure prioritisation of ageing assets.
30. A major consideration for the prioritisation of the work programme was the cost of remedying storm damage to parks and other council assets. Staff are completing storm damage assessments and will make recommendations once assessments are completed. Minimal provision for storm remediation included in the regional parks programme amounts to $400,000 in 2023/2024 and an additional $900,000 over 2024-2026. Further reprioritisation of current and proposed projects is therefore likely.
31. This regional capital expenditure work programme, which amounts to $49.9 million in total, will be implemented alongside the local board capital works programmes, which have an estimated total value of $180 million for community investment in the 2023/2024 financial year, subject to confirmation at July local board business meetings.
32. The attached work programmes outline projects for approval for the 2023/2024 financial year, and approval in-principle for the 2024/2025 and 2025/2026 financial years. The only exception is the Public Art programme which outlines projects for the 2023/2024 financial year only. The Public Art programme will move to a three-year programme alongside the next Long-term Plan.
33. The Coastal Renewals three-year work programme will be delivered by the I&ES directorate, using the expertise of staff within the Resilient Land and Coasts unit. This approach combines the project management and technical inputs within one department. The 2023/2024 programme has a budget of $11.5 million and focuses on completing existing priority projects arising from previous storm events.
34. Staff are also seeking approval for some parks projects in the 2024/2025 financial year to be included in the RAP. This enables approved projects to be started early to financially offset other project delays due to unforeseen circumstances. This approach ensures delivery of projects in a timely and fluid way, maximising budget availability and staff time, while ensuring assets are kept in a suitable condition for use.
35. A memo was provided to the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee on 3 July 2023 on the proposed regional work programme.
36. The proposed work programmes also take into consideration feedback received from local boards at workshops. A summary of formal feedback resolved by local boards at their July business meetings will be circulated to the committee and tabled at the 3 August 2023 Planning, Environment And Parks Committee meeting.
Table 2: Regional capital work programme
Programme |
2023/2024 Budget ($) |
Regional Renewals and Development |
16,372,455 |
Residential Leasing |
1,594,471 |
Slips Prevention and Remediation |
950,000 |
Seismic Strengthening |
4,750,485 |
Local and Sports Park Development (Growth) |
10,910,322 |
Public Art |
3,770,000 |
Coastal Renewals |
11,503,342 |
TOTAL |
49,851,075 |
Summary of work proposed in each component work programme
Regional renewals and development programme
37. This programme is made up of component programmes for which the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee has responsibility both in terms of budget approval and activity oversight. The work programme is set out in Attachment B. Pressures facing this programme include:
· balancing demands across the regional portfolio
· increasing visitation/use and changing visitor profile and expectations
· addressing the impact of historic deferred maintenance
· accounting for the work required to remediate assets affected by the January and February weather events.
Regional Parks
38. The Regional Parks programme includes the renewal of existing assets across the region, with a focus on park infrastructure, such as the renewal of toilets, carparks, workshop facilities and the track network. A range of upgrade works are proposed and remedial work is already underway in response to major storm damage in a number of regional parks.
Farming
39. Farming activities occur on both regional and local parks. The proposed work programme for the 2023/2024 financial year includes the seasonal purchase of livestock, with the remaining budget spent on renewing machinery and infrastructure, such as sheep yards, fencing and water lines.
40. The Regional Parks Management Plan (RPMP) states that farming on regional parks will follow sustainable land management practices and ensure the protection of park values for public enjoyment. A review of pastoral management on regional parks to ensure alignment to the RPMP is underway as part of the work programme.
Auckland Botanic Gardens
41. The Auckland Botanic Gardens sustained less storm damage than other areas and the work programme for the 2023/2024 financial year will largely focus on renewing the nursery’s irrigation system, installation of an electrical transformer, and interpretation signage. The work programme also includes replacing the structure over the events area and upgrading the pest plant and biocontrol shade house, which is in poor condition and no longer fit-for-purpose. The renewal is necessary to meet the requirements of the Biosecurity Act 1999 and $100,000 will come from the I&ES directorate’s budget for this work.
Pukekawa Auckland Domain
42. The Pukekawa Auckland Domain programme includes significant investment to complete the refurbishment of the Winter Garden greenhouses and existing paths, renew the wastewater pipes and water features, and improve sports field drainage. The work programme also includes new projects to create new walkways and refurbishing the Fernery pergola. Some work is already underway to address relatively minor storm damage to trees at the Domain.
43. Auckland Transport is contributing $270,200 in 2023/2024 and $704,2020 in 2024/2025 to the new path connections.
Holiday Parks
45. The Cemeteries work programme, set out in Attachment C, encompasses the renewal and provision of new assets in Auckland’s active cemeteries. It does not include funding for potential cemetery land acquisition.
46. Proposed projects include the construction of berms and memorial walls across the Auckland cemeteries network, as well as renewing assets such as cremators, roading, heritage assets, footpaths, furniture, fixtures and fittings. Programme delivery is becoming increasingly challenging within the modest budget provided due to growing demand for burial plots, berms and walls.
47. Renewal priorities in the cemeteries programme include developing burial areas and associated infrastructure at Waikumete and North Shore cemeteries, and the refurbishment of the Manukau Memorial Gardens administration building and function lounge.
48. The Regional Renewals and Development work programme budget and proposed allocations are summarised in Table 3 below. A portion of budget in 2023/2024 and 2024/2025 is left unallocated as a programme contingency, so that regional renewals and development can still proceed even if delivery costs rise.
49. Due to deferrals in the prior LTP, the allocation of budget in 2025/2026 is significantly higher than prior years. This budget will be confirmed through the upcoming LTP process, at which point prioritisation of future regional renewal and development projects will be presented for approval.
Table 3: Regional Renewals and Development programme budget and allocation
Regional Renewals and Development |
2023/2024 |
2024/2025 |
2025/2026 |
Regional renewal budget |
$10,785,670 |
$6,956,244 |
$8,600,000 |
Regional development budget |
$5,586,785 |
$6,706,805 |
$27,824,846 |
Total consolidated budget |
$16,372,455 |
$13,663,049 |
$36,424,846 |
Proposed allocation – Regional Parks |
$6,794,239 |
$5,539,962 |
$8,360,658 |
Proposed allocation - Farming |
$722,450 |
$265,000 |
$275,000 |
Proposed allocation – Holiday Parks |
$839,635 |
$855,200 |
$2,078,842 |
Proposed allocation – Auckland Botanic Gardens |
$2,251,480 |
$350,519 |
$290,000 |
Proposed allocation Pukekawa / Auckland Domain |
$1,389,130 |
$1,376,901 |
$2,153,500 |
Proposed allocation - Cemeteries |
$4,299,546 |
$4,502,763 |
$4,307,000 |
Total proposed funding |
$16,372,455 |
$12,890,346 |
$17,465,000 |
Unallocated funding |
$75,975 |
$772,704 |
$18,959,846 |
Residential Leasing programme
50. The Residential Leasing programme (Attachment D) covers council-owned properties that are situated on either regional or local parks and have a residential lease. The programme primarily enables refurbishment work, necessary to maintain the buildings and to meet the Healthy Homes Standards 2019.
51. Currently the approved budget in 2024/2025 and 2025/2026 is insufficient to meet the Healthy Homes Standards. Staff will seek to reprioritise or request additional budget in 2024/2025 and 2025/2026 via the upcoming Long-term Plan process.
Table 4: Residential Leasing programme budget and allocation
Residential Leasing |
2023/2024 |
2024/2025 |
2025/2026 |
Residential Leasing Renewals budget |
$1,594,471 |
$400,000 |
$0 |
Proposed Residential Lease Renewals |
$1,594,471 |
$798,000 |
$857,000 |
Funding required |
$0 |
-$398,000 |
-$857,000 |
Slip Prevention and Remediation programme
52. Work in the Slip Prevention and Remediation programme (Attachment E) focuses on completing existing priority projects arising from previous storm events and reported land slips. The severe storms in January and May led to new slips and coastal erosion across Auckland. Staff will work with the geotech subject matter experts in the Resilient Land and Coasts department to complete assessments of these areas to identify risk and inform any reprioritisation within the programme.
53. A portion of budget in 2024/2025 and 2025/2026 is left unallocated as a programme contingency, so that slip prevention and remediation can still proceed even if delivery costs rise.
Table 5: Slip Prevention and Remediation programme budget and allocation
Slip Prevention and remediation |
2023/2024 |
2024/2025 |
2025/2026 |
Slip Remediation budget |
$950,000 |
$3,518,407 |
$3,019,970 |
Proposed Slip Prevention and Remediation work programme |
$950,000 |
$3,318,567 |
$2,798,808 |
Unallocated funding |
$0 |
$199,840 |
$221,162 |
Seismic strengthening programme
54. The Planning, Environment And Parks Committee allocates funding for seismic strengthening and staff prioritise assets according to occupancy and importance level, as well as the probability of seismic risk. The work programme is set out in Attachment F.
55. The Project Specialisation Office within Parks and Community Facilities has completed Initial Seismic Assessments for 247 buildings, and Detailed Seismic Assessments for 112 buildings. These buildings have been prioritised for assessment due to their risk profile.
56. From those that have been assessed, there are 161 Earthquake Prone Buildings (EPBs), to which 157 EPB Notices have been attached. The programme is developed with local board input on proposed community asset upgrades as they typically require additional funding from local board budgets, to meet local board service outcomes.
57. Table 6 sets out the proposed work programme allocation. Currently the approved budget in 2025/2026 is nil. Further investment required based on assessments and timing of when works are required to be completed will form part of considerations through the upcoming LTP.
Table 6: Seismic Strengthening programme budget allocation
Seismic Strengthening |
2023/2024 |
2024/2025 |
2025/2026 |
Seismic budget |
$4,750,485 |
$15,161,652 |
$0 |
Proposed Seismic Strengthening work programme |
$4,750,485 |
$14,216,009 |
$5,362,945 |
Unallocated funding |
$0 |
$945,643 |
-$5,362,945 |
Local Parks and Sports Field Development (growth) programme
59. Staff have considered the focus areas identified in the Long-term Plan 2021-2031, such as large-scale development projects relating to population growth in and around:
· Auckland Housing Programme Areas: Mt Roskill, Oranga, Māngere, Northcote, Tāmaki
· North-western growth areas: Red Hills, Whenuapai, Westgate
· Southern growth area: Drury
· CRL Stations: Mt Eden and Karangahape.
60. For 2023/2024, significant funding is proposed for park developments in Māngere (David Lange Park and Aorere Park), in Tāmaki (Boundary Reserve, Dunkirk Reserve, East View Reserve) and in the north and north-west (MetroWest Park, Scott Point, Observation Green, Huapai Triangle and Riverhead War Memorial Park).
61. To determine the timing of growth programme projects and how much budget should be allocated, staff assess the following factors:
· the areas in which residential growth is occurring
· planning and design requirements to meet the needs of new and future communities
· delivery dependencies e.g. third-party development, other funding sources
· project readiness
· overall budget availability.
62. Projects that don’t align with the above criteria can be considered for investment as part of the growth programme for the 2024/2025 financial year, once investment priorities and principles are identified and agreed through the 2024-2034 LTP.
63. Pressures on this programme include:
· the scale and phasing of the budget in the short to medium term, which limits the number and extent of projects that can be proposed
· the expectation for growth investment by developers, local boards and the community
· the challenge of adequately meeting additional need generated by dispersed growth
· the ability to develop new open space in an appropriate timeframe following its acquisition.
Local Board Feedback on the Growth Programme Projects
64. The Governing Body determines the funding envelope for the Local Parks and Sports Field Development (Growth) programme and the PEP Committee provides the strategic direction for how growth projects are to be identified and prioritised. Local boards have governance over the outcomes that the approved growth projects should deliver in their local area.
65. In developing draft local board work programmes, staff workshopped proposed growth projects with each local board in May 2023 and collated feedback. Local boards acknowledged that the Governing Body’s decision on the 2023/2024 Annual Budget could affect their three-year programme of regionally-funded projects.
66. Local boards commonly express concern when growth-funded projects are deferred as a result of changes to the growth budget envelope and/or the prioritisation framework. Feedback typically highlights:
· support for those projects included in the programme
· concern that deferring growth projects does not align with changing community needs in areas sustaining significant amounts of growth
· specific needs or details regarding certain projects and requests that the committee prioritise these in the next three years
· that new projects should be added to the programme, or that the budget be increased for some projects.
67. Local boards have provided their formal feedback relating to the growth programme at their July 2023 business meetings. A copy of the relevant resolutions will be tabled at this meeting.
68. The Local Parks and Sports Field Development (Growth) budget and proposed allocation is summarised in Table 7. A portion of budget in 2023/2024 and 2024/2025 is left unallocated so that park development can still proceed even if delivery costs rise.
69. Due to deferrals in the prior LTP, the allocation of budget in 2025/2026 is significantly higher than prior years. This budget will be confirmed through the upcoming LTP process, at which point prioritisation of future growth projects will be presented for approval.
Table 7: Local and Sports Park Development (Growth) programme budget and allocation
Local parks and sports field development |
2023/2024 $ |
2024/2025 $ |
2025/2026 $ |
Budget |
10,910,322 |
21,282, 090 |
59,738,356 |
Proposed allocation |
6,811,348 |
20,936,983 |
27,486,860 |
Advanced Delivery RAP |
4,000,000 |
0 |
0 |
Balance available |
98,974 |
345,107 |
32,251,496 |
70. The Auckland Council Public Art Policy supports the goals of Toi Whītiki Arts and Culture Strategic Action Plan, which emphasises the role of public art in placemaking. Among the strategic goals of Toi Whītiki is that all Aucklanders can access and participate in arts and culture, which means that the Public Art work programme is considered from a regional perspective.
71. Public art is provided by a variety of entities in Auckland. For example, for the City Rail Link (CRL) public art projects are being delivered by CRL and will be maintained by Auckland Transport once completed. The work programme, subject to this report, refers to the works which are funded by the regional budgets and the City Centre Targeted Rate. There are four focused workstreams in the 2023/2024 Public Art Regional Work Programme. Refer to Attachment H.
Renewals
72. Public art renewals investment has been prioritised for the restoration of collection works such as Waharoa (Selwyn Muru) in Aotea Square. Investment in public art renewals has been prioritized for the 2023/2024 work programme and includes restoration of collection works such as Waharoa (Selwyn Muru) in Aotea Square.
Semi-permanent artworks
73. This workstream supports the development and delivery of a semi-permanent artwork by an emerging artist. This activity is in partnership with mana whenua, who have worked with staff to select an artist to deliver a work for a predetermined site in Manurewa. In three to five years the work will be retired, and another semi-permanent work will be installed on the same foundation.
74. Digital/moving image commissions This workstream offers new partnership opportunities with artists and organisations specialising in digital artworks, as well as collaborations with other council groups such as Auckland Live (Tātaki Auckland Unlimited). It also offers a more responsive and flexible way to bring public art experiences to Aucklanders than through a more traditional fixed asset method.
City Centre Targeted Rate
75. The Public Art team is also utilising City Centre Targeted Rate (CCTR) funding to progress projects in the city centre. This totals $3,000,000 over the 2022/2023 to 2024/2025 financial years, including $1,098,000 for the 2023/2024 financial year.
76. Table 8 below provides a summary of proposed regional investment for the programme.
Table 8: Public Art Regional Work Programme investment summary
City Centre Targeted Rate funding |
2023/2024 Budget - CAPEX |
City Centre Targeted Rate (CCTR) Public Art projects (not requiring approval) |
$1,098,000 |
Regional funding |
2023/2024 Budget - CAPEX |
Public Art Regional Work Programme |
$2,600,000 |
Public art collections and asset management functions |
$1,170,000 |
TOTAL |
$3,770,000 |
Other Initiatives
77. Additionally, a diversified investment approach continues through strategic partnerships with Eke Panuku and Watercare, with others being explored or progressed. Scoping will continue with the intention of incorporating these collaborative opportunities into future programmes.
78. As part of the diversified investment approach, capital investment will be applied to enable new artworks to be developed for locations identified through site scoping work undertaken by Ōrākei Local Board.
79. Frank Womble’s Oblivion Express III (1980), formerly sited at Railside Avenue, Henderson, is a candidate for disposal. This is in line with the Public Art Policy, whereby removal and disposal of a public artwork may be considered if one or more of the policy removal criteria apply. Staff are seeking approval to dispose as per Attachment H.
80. A memorandum of understanding with Auckland Art Gallery Toi o Tāmaki to acquire two iconic outdoor sculptures currently in their collection is also underway. The two artworks, Chris Booth’s Gateway (1986-1990) and Neil Dawson’s Throwback (1992) are both located in Albert Park.
Coastal renewals work programme
81. The Coastal Renewals work programme (Attachment I) includes projects to renew or undertake significant maintenance works of coastal structures which are managed by Parks and Community Facilities.
82. The programme is regionally funded to enable decisions to be made on an Auckland-wide basis in a consistent and co-ordinated manner. The programme is risk-adjusted to enable high risk projects (including storm responses) to be prioritised.
83. Staff delivered a total of 16 projects last year. This year’s work programme has a confirmed budget of $11,503,342 for the 2023/2024 financial year.
84. Coastal Renewals projects will renew physical assets within the coastal margin, including coastal defences such as seawalls and rock revetments, and coastal amenity structures, such as boat ramps, jetties and wharves. Renewals are undertaken when an existing asset is near the end of its useful life and when maintenance is no longer sufficient to keep it in a serviceable and safe condition. Staff also consider risks to health and safety, asset criticality and levels of service.
85. This year’s programme focuses on completing 36 projects carried over from last year and which sustained delays following the January storm events. Eight of these projects are under construction or near completion.
86. Staff have added three new projects to this year’s work programme in response to Cyclone Gabrielle storm damage, including repair works at Murrays Bay and Snells Beach. New priority projects that will also be initiated are the construction of the Maraetai seawall and wharves at Omaha and Port Albert.
Capital investment programme delivery
Cost estimates subject to change
87. Budget allocations within the component work programmes are best estimates only. Project costings are subject to change and refinement as projects progress through the design, procurement and delivery process. As staff define the specific work required for each project, the costs of delivery are determined with more precision.
88. Staff aim to deliver the individual projects within the overall work programme budget. However, sometimes there are changes to project budgets due to unforeseen circumstances, such as supplier or contractor shortages, or delays in consenting processes. In these situations, or when new projects are needed, changes to the work programme may be required and projects reprioritised as the year progresses. Overall, capital delivery is strong despite challenges such as weather events.
Risk Adjusted Programme
89. The Risk Adjusted Programme is designed to mitigate programme delivery risk associated with unanticipated delays to specific projects. This helps support the delivery of the full capital budget available in any given year.
90. This approach has been applied to this regional work programme and staff have identified several capital projects in the 2023/2024 and 2024/2025 as part of the Risk Adjusted Programme.
91. Approval in-principle is sought for the commencement of these projects in the 2023/2024 financial year, so that they can replace delayed projects that may not be delivered for unforeseen reasons.
Delegation for approval of changes to the work programme
92. The delivery of the proposed work programme in an efficient and timely manner may require amendments to be made to the agreed work programme throughout the year. Such amendments could include:
· changes to project scope, budgets, timing
· addition of new projects within available budgets
· cancelling or putting approved projects on hold.
93. Any changes to the approved work programme would normally require approval from the committee by resolution at a business meeting. However, the committee can delegate authority to approve some or all amendments to the work programme to the chairperson, to another member of the committee, or to staff. Such delegation allows changes to be made without the timeframes required to provide formal reports and supports the efficient delivery of the work programme.
94. It is requested that the Planning, Environment And Parks Committee delegate authority to the General Manager Resilient Land and Coasts for the Coastal Renewals work programme, to the Manager, Public Art for the Public Art work programme, and to the General Manager Parks and Community Facilities for the remaining regional component work programmes addressed in this report.
Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi
Climate impact statement
95. The work programme includes actions, consistent with Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri, to halve Auckland Council’s operational greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030 and to adapt to a changing climate.
96. The work programme will mitigate GHG emissions and improve climate resilience through delivering tree planting programmes across the region. This includes the transitioning of unproductive farmland on regional parks to permanent native forest and delivering ecological restoration projects with community groups.
97. Recent significant weather events have influenced criteria for renewing assets. Each renewal project will be assessed as to its risk of being damaged by flooding, as well as other known consequences that the council has experienced due to extreme weather conditions.
98. Coastal assets will be adversely affected by climate change. The programme is risk-adjusted to allow for flexibility should projects need to reprioritised due to adverse weather effects.
99. Staff continue to build on the above actions and embed climate change considerations into investment decision-making, planning, and corporate policies, including asset management plans and local board plans.
100. As approved through the 10-year Budget 2021-2031, the council’s mandated approach to ‘deliver differently’ is also anticipated to help reduce the council carbon footprint by creating a sustainable service network. This may include a shift to digital service models or the consolidation of services into a smaller footprint.
101. Projects within the work programme provide opportunities to contribute towards climate change adaptation. Activities that are considered include:
· maximum upcycling and recycling of old materials
· installation of energy efficiency measures
· building design to ensure the maximum lifetime and efficiency of the building is obtained
· lifecycle impacts of construction materials (embodied emissions)
· exposure of building location to climate change hazards (sea level rise, flooding (floodplains), drought, heat island effect)
· anticipated increase in carbon emissions from construction, including contractor emissions
· lifecycle impacts of construction materials.
102. Each activity in the work programme has been assessed to identify whether it will have a positive, negative or neutral impact on greenhouse gas emissions, and affect Auckland’s resilience to climate change.
103. Climate impacts will continue to be assessed as projects progress and will be discussed at future reporting opportunities.
Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera
Council group impacts and views
104. The 2023/2024 regional capital work programme is the culmination of work programmes from several departments within the Customer & Community Services and Infrastructure & Environmental Services directorates.
105. The directorates also work closely with several council-controlled organisations and external agencies, such as Watercare, Eke Panuku, Auckland Transport, Kāinga Ora and Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency with the aim of integrating work programmes as much as possible.
Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe
Local impacts and local board views
106. Community facilities and open spaces, both locally and regionally, contribute to building strong, healthy and vibrant communities by providing spaces where Aucklanders can participate in a wide range of social, cultural, art and recreational activities. These activities improve lifestyles, foster a sense of belonging and pride amongst residents, and support community safety initiatives.
107. Consultation on the draft 2023/2024 Annual Plan occurred from February to March 2023. Aucklanders provided a large amount of feedback which has been analysed and considered in the proposed 2023/2024 work programmes.
108. Components of the regional work programmes have been considered by the local boards in a series of workshops from November 2022 to May 2023. Local board views expressed during the workshops, especially following the Annual Plan consultation, have informed the recommended work programme.
109. Where relevant to individual local boards, projects in the Growth, Seismic Strengthening, Slips Remediation and Prevention and Growth regional work programme projects have been included in local board work programmes for feedback. Local boards provided their formal feedback on the regional work programmes in July. A copy of all feedback resolved by local boards will be tabled at the meeting.
Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori
Māori impact statement
110. Auckland Council is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its broader statutory obligations to Māori. The commitments are articulated in the council’s key strategic planning documents, the Auckland Plan, the Long-term Plan 2021-2031, the Unitary Plan, Whiria Te Muka Tangata Māori Responsiveness Framework, Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau - Māori Outcomes Performance Measurement Framework and Local Board Plans.
111. When developing and delivering work programme projects, project managers consider how the activities contribute to Māori wellbeing, values, culture and traditions. In managing land and water, staff recognise integral links with the mauri of the environment and concepts of kaitiakitanga.
112. The projects in the attached work programmes will benefit Māori and the wider community. Benefits will be realised through the provision and continued maintenance of quality facilities and open spaces that promote good health, the fostering of whānau and community relationships and connection to the natural environment. Many projects will require consultation with mana whenua and partnering opportunities will be identified.
113. Where aspects of the work programme are anticipated to have an impact on an activity, facility or location important to Māori, appropriate and meaningful engagement will be undertaken.
114. Council staff are also working with Amotai, the council’s supplier diversity intermediary, to improve the council’s engagement with Māori and Pasifika-owned businesses, and to support targeted economic activity.
Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea
Financial implications
115. The proposed budgets are based on the budget allocations from the approved 2023/2024 Annual Budget process totalling $49.9 million.
116. The proposed work programmes can be accommodated within the available budgets. Approval of the work programme does not have significant financial implications, unless projects experience a significant overspend or underspend. Table 2 sets out the overall budget summary.
117. Any 2022/2023 capital budget unspent on 30 June 2023 will be assessed for carrying forward to a future year in accordance with the council’s Capital Deferral Guidelines, noting that this may require reprioritisation of some projects to remain within the allocated budget envelope.
118. Where an activity is cancelled or no longer required, this budget can be reallocated to an existing work programme activity or to a new activity within that financial year.
119. The major storm and flooding events that occurred earlier in 2023 have led to delays to and changes in delivery of the 2022/2023 work programme. There is considerable cost to remedy damaged assets which will likely affect prioritisation of the 2023/2024 work programme.
120. Investigations for damage that is more extensive is underway; however the damage is widespread and these investigations will take months to complete. This information will assist staff to provide an estimate of damage costs and proposed solutions to major repairs or rebuilds.
121. Aside from taking an increasingly integrated approach to work programme planning, to realise efficiencies in work programme delivery, collaboration with the council’s procurement team has also resulted in several initiatives to ensure value for money across the delivery of the programme. These include:
· establishment of specialised panels to identify industry expertise to deliver great outputs
· the Diverse Supplier initiative, where area delivery teams support local suppliers in delivering more projects
· enhanced quantity surveyor services to support value for money decisions across our complete contractor base through training in cost management and assessments across our delivery programme
· consistency in delivery enables continued learnings which provide opportunities to deliver a great outcome across the delivery programme.
· co-ordination on key projects with a number of council-controlled organisations, central government and external agencies, such as Eke Panuku, Auckland Transport, Kainga Ora and Waka Kotahi NZTA, and integrating as much as possible with their work programmes to realise cost efficiencies.
Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga
Risks and mitigations
122. If the work programme is not approved on 3 August, there is significant risk that the activities will be delayed or not delivered within proposed timeframes. As the work programmes are usually approved in July of the new financial year, staff are already delayed in starting some projects.
123. Increasing costs in the construction sector and the need to address storm and flood damage has compounded budget and resource implications. Staff will complete assessments of most of the storm-damaged assets to understand insurance and budget implications.
124. Using the RAP approach to programme management enables flexibility in the delivery of projects and mitigates unforeseen delays with projects.
125. While further reprioritisation of projects may be required, staff believe that the proposed work programme can be delivered within existing resources and are working closely with contractors and suppliers to optimise delivery and manage any risks should they arise. Progress will be monitored through the year.
Ngā koringa ā-muri
Next steps
126. Delivery of the activities in the approved work programme will commence once approved and continue until 30 June 2024.
127. Further opportunities to align and integrate projects and activities will be identified in preparation of the next LTP.
Attachments
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇨ |
Regional Work Programme Descriptions |
|
b⇨ |
Regional Parks Renewals and Development work programme |
|
c⇨ |
Auckland Cemeteries work programme |
|
d⇨ |
Residential Leasing work programme |
|
e⇨ |
Slip Prevention and Remediation work programme |
|
f⇨ |
Seismic Strengthening work programme |
|
g⇨ |
Local Parks and Sports Field Development work programme |
|
h⇨ |
Regional Public Art work programme |
|
i⇨ |
Coastal Renewals work programme |
|
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
Author |
Suzanne Weld - Principal Integration Specialist |
Authorisers |
Taryn Crewe - General Manager Parks and Community Facilities Justine Haves - General Manager Regional Services & Strategy Claudia Wyss - Director Customer and Community Services Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy |
Planning, Environment and Parks Committee 03 August 2023 |
|
Cultural Initiatives Fund FY 2023-2024 Marae and Papakāinga Development Applications
File No.: CP2023/10018
Te take mō te pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To review and approve Cultural Initiatives Funding grants for marae development and papakāinga/Māori housing for the 2023/2024 financial year.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. Marae offer a range of services that contribute to and support whānau and community well-being. They are critical cultural connection hubs for mana whenua and Māori communities.
3. In recognition of the role marae provide in the community and the wide range of unmet needs of marae, a funding envelope for contestable grants for marae and papakāinga/Māori housing is included in the Long-term Plan 2021-2031 (LTP). This is known as the Cultural Initiatives Fund (CIF) and is part of the $150 million Māori Outcomes LTP Fund.
4. The Cultural Initiatives Fund for financial year 2023/2024 opened for applications for six weeks from 3 April to 14 May 2023.
5. Auckland Council received fourteen grant applications for the 2023/2024 funding round. Ten for marae development and four for papakāinga/Māori housing. The total funding requested across the fourteen applications was $2,258,740.23. The available budget is $1,200,000.
6. It is recommended that nine applicants receive part funding, and that five are declined. The main rationale for part funding is the oversubscription of the fund overall. The reasons for recommending that five applications are declined are due to:
a. insufficient information provided
b. not meeting core criteria of funding guidelines (Attachments A and B).
Further information is detailed in the body of the report and Attachment C.
Recommendation/s
That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:
a) whakaae / approve the following 2023/2024 Cultural Initiatives Fund grants, at a total value of $1,200,000 for marae and papakāinga/Māori housing development:
CIF Marae Development |
|
Ngaa Hau E Whaa o Pukekohe |
$110,500 |
Parish of Waipipi Lot 369a Trust (Rereteewhioi Marae) |
$142,500 |
Te Kia Ora Marae Trust |
$142,500 |
Ruapōtaka Marae |
$142,500 |
Pāpatūānuku Kōkiri Marae |
$124,500 |
Ngāti Wai o Aotea Kawa Marae Trust |
$125,500 |
Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Housing Trust |
$142,500 |
Te Kawerau Iwi Tiaki Trust |
$142,500 |
Te Motu a Hiroa Charitable Trust |
$127,000 |
Total amount: |
$1,200,000 |
b) tono / request that the Director Customer and Community Services set appropriate conditions, including timing for releasing funds, for each of the grants identified in clause a).
Horopaki
Context
7. The Auckland Plan identifies “investment in marae to be self-sustaining and prosperous” as a priority. Marae are hubs for the Māori community with many marae supporting the community as a whole. They physically and spiritually anchor Māori identity, and function as focal points for Māori social, economic, and cultural wellbeing. Hapū and iwi marae provide the tūrangawaewae (right of residence and belonging) for their people.
8. Marae manaaki (host/welcome) the wider community in times of need. As Auckland grows and we look to build a more resilient region, marae are playing an increasing role as community hubs and centres of refuge clearly evidenced by the role they played during the Covid-19 period and during the recent flood and cyclone events.
9. The Auckland Plan also identifies the need to “grow intergenerational wealth”. The Auckland Plan identifies ways that this can be done including whānau-centric housing models (such as papakāinga which grow hapū and iwi asset bases) and improving regulatory processes and collaboration for Māori land development.
10. The LTP established a funding envelope to enable thriving and self-sustaining marae and to support establishment of papakāinga/Māori housing across Auckland. This is known as the Cultural Initiatives Fund (CIF) and is part of the $150 million Māori Outcomes LTP Fund. CIF is a contestable grant fund administered on an annual basis.
11. In 2022/2023 financial year, eight marae and two papakāinga/Māori housing grants were approved.
12. The funding round for 2023/2024 opened for applications for six weeks from 3 April to 14 May 2023.
13. Applicants submitted their applications using the SmartyGrants website, which is the platform used for council community grants. The Marae Advisor and Senior Māori Housing Advisors provided guidance and support to applicants throughout the application period.
14. The applications were assessed under the CIF interim funding guidelines. These guidelines are included as Attachments A and B. A summary is included here:
· Marae or papakāinga/Māori housing applicants must be a trust, authority, or other formally recognised body or gazetted or set apart as a Māori Reservation
· The maximum grant value is $170,000
· For marae applications, a marae must be one of the 32 included in the guidelines or be a new marae where they meet the criteria
15. Marae development grants support:
· capital works (including purchase of small assets and mahi toi/artwork)
· maintenance (including materials and labour)
· project management (contractor or marae staff) up to $20,000
· feasibility and concept design reports
· strategic, financial, or business planning
· first year of audited accounts
· governance and asset management planning
16. Papakāinga/Māori housing grants support:
· planning and regulatory costs
· development costs (development contributions and infrastructure growth charges)
· feasibility and concept design
· project management
· strategic planning
Grants assessment panel and process
17. The assessment panel, who have put forward the recommendations in this report, is made up of three members. Two of the panel are staff members and the third is an independent contractor and qualified quantity surveyor.
18. The Marae Advisor, Senior Māori Housing Advisors, and the Programme Principal Marae Development did not assess the applications but provided subject matter expertise to the panel where needed. This separation of roles enables these specialist staff to be independent of the assessment panel and to continue to support applicants through the grant application process.
Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu
Analysis and advice
19. There were fourteen grant applications for the 2023/2024 funding round. Ten for marae development and four for papakāinga/Māori housing. The total funding requested across the twelve applications was $2,258,740.23. The available budget is $1,200,000.
20. Each assessment panel member assessed each application individually in SmartyGrants before the panel came together to agree on final recommendations. The panel were able to reach a consensus on the recommendations for funding which are included in this report.
21. It is recommended that nine applications are supported, all in part. Members of the Grant Assessment Panel considered that reducing the value across all nine applications was practical and preferable to declining more applications noting the fund was significantly oversubscribed. There are also a few instances where applications exceeded the maximum allowance in the guidelines for specific funded items, for example project management and non-fixed assets so this is reflected in the recommended grant total.
22. It is recommended that five applicants are declined based on either insufficient information provided, or the application did not meet the guideline criteria. A summary of declined applications can be found in Attachment C.
23. Recommendations seek to support as many projects as possible, distribute funds as widely as possible, and favour applications where there is a higher likelihood of fully completing the works quoted within the current financial year.
Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi
Climate impact statement
24. The CIF grant is a contestable fund intended to enable marae to have the capacity to realise their own vision. Application and assessment criteria include consideration of sustainability. This section of the application is about ensuring that any council investment has an enduring effect, and it also supports the principles of reducing emissions and adapting to climate change, which are goals of Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri; Auckland’s Climate Plan.
25. Examples of applications received this year that support sustainable outcomes include funding for solar panels and water storage. However, most applications were for future planning, maintenance, equipment, and replacement of existing assets.
Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera
Council group impacts and views
26. Auckland Transport and Watercare both work with marae to support the upgrade of infrastructure from time to time. These are more reactive programmes of work undertaken when marae request support from the council group. These works focus on compliance, safety and ensuring current infrastructure is fit for purpose. There is ongoing communication between the teams running these programmes to ensure a coordinated effort.
27. There are no other council group impacts.
Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe
Local impacts and local board views
28. Applicants are encouraged to engage with local boards and to provide evidence of local board support in their application.
29. If marae have a lease agreement on council land, permission must be gained from the relevant local board for any substantial works or changes in land use in line with lease terms and conditions.
30. As noted earlier, many marae play a vital role as community hubs and have a range of positive local community impacts.
Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori
Māori impact statement
31. Marae play a critical role in all communities. This was strongly demonstrated over the Covid-19 period and more recently during the flood and cyclone events where marae supported communities with a range of essential welfare services.
32. Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau, the Māori Outcomes Performance Framework, includes Kia Ora te Marae and Kia Ora te Kainga as priority outcomes. This framework has had input from mana whenua and mataawaka. The scope and intent of the CIF grants align closely with these outcomes.
33. The scope of this grant is very targeted to deliver on these outcomes. Given the scope is very specific only Māori organisations apply for CIF grants. This means that the funding is directly benefiting Māori and a key contributor to the Māori Outcomes work programme.
Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea
Financial implications
34. The LTP includes a Māori Outcomes Fund budget of $150m across the 10-year life of the plan. A total of $1.2 million has been ringfenced annually from this budget for the contestable Cultural Initiatives Fund.
35. A parallel programme, called the Marae Infrastructure Programme, is also part of the $150 million Māori Outcomes LTP fund with $60 million ringfenced across the 10 years. This is a non-contestable programme that seeks to deliver safe, healthy, and warm marae as part of the wider council focus area of marae being self-sustaining and prosperous. The programme supports the physical infrastructure development of marae. These two funds complement each other since CIF is available annually to all marae to meet their current needs (slightly wider scope) while it will take up to 10 years before investment reaches all marae included in the Marae Infrastructure Programme.
36. Within the $1.2 million annual funding for the CIF grants there is no set split between papakāinga/Māori housing and marae development. It is the role of the assessment panel to recommend to the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee the split between these two outcomes based on the applications received.
37. The value of grant funding sought in 2023/2024 versus the recommended value is detailed in the table below:
Funding requested |
Recommendation |
|
Ngaa Hau E Whaa o Pukekohe |
$138,000 |
$110,500 |
Parish of Waipipi Lot 369a Trust (Rereteewhioi Marae) |
$170,000 |
$142,500 |
Te Kia Ora Marae Trust |
$170,000 |
$142,500 |
Ruapōtaka Marae |
$170,000 |
$142,500 |
Pāpatūānuku Kōkiri Marae |
$166,915 |
$124,500 |
Ngāti Wai o Aotea Kawa Marae Trust |
$170,000 |
$125,500 |
Sub-total |
$984,915 |
$788,000 |
Papakāinga/Māori Housing |
Funding requested |
Recommendation |
Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Housing Trust |
$170,000 |
$142,500 |
Te Kawerau Iwi Tiaki Trust |
$170,000 |
$142,500 |
Te Motu a Hiroa Charitable Trust |
$154,592.50 |
$127,000 |
Sub-total |
$494 592.50 |
$412,000 |
ALL TOTALS |
$1,479,507.50 |
$1,200,000 |
Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga
Risks and mitigations
Ngā koringa ā-muri
Next steps
39. Following the funding decisions made by this committee, staff will provide an update to relevant elected members and notify all applicants of the outcome.
40. Funding agreements will be prepared for all successful applicants. Recipients must provide council with regular updated reports including photos. Payments will be made on receipt of invoices from third party suppliers in line with applicant’s funding agreements. This will occur throughout the year as work is completed.
41. The funding agreement requires recipients to acknowledge Auckland Council’s support.
Attachments
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇨ |
CIF Guidelines for Marae Development 2023 |
|
b⇨ |
CIF guidelines Papakāinga and Māori Housing Development 2023 |
|
c⇨ |
CIF Summary and Recommendations 2023-2024 |
|
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
Authors |
Peter Caccioppoli - Māori Outcomes Lead Ashley Walker - Principal Advisor - Maori Outcomes Ani Makea - Marae Advisor |
Authorisers |
Claudia Wyss - Director Customer and Community Services Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy |
Planning, Environment and Parks Committee 03 August 2023 |
|
Auckland Foundation Funding Agreement Review
File No.: CP2023/09880
Te take mō te pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To approve a three-year funding agreement for Auckland Foundation, that builds on the success of the interim agreement to grow long-term funds to support regional development targets.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. Auckland Council has provided funding support to enable the establishment of the Auckland Foundation (the Foundation) in one form or another since 2008. This was initially in the form of a loan, since repaid. From 2016 support has been by way of annual funding, to contribute to operational expenses of the Foundation.
3. The interim funding period (financial year 2022/2023) provided the opportunity to redefine council’s investment in the Foundation, allowing for alignment to more specific community outcomes and achieving priorities identified in the Long-term Plan (LTP) 2021-2031, and wider outcomes across council.
4. During this interim period the Foundation has:
a) identified emerging opportunities in the philanthropic sector,
b) repositioned itself to respond to those opportunities,
c) developed a strategy to work towards financial independence from council.
5. It is recommended that the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee approve a 3-year funding agreement with Auckland Foundation, that continues investment in building a fund that allows for regional community development in perpetuity.
6. In April 2022, the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee requested a review of the funding agreement in February 2023 (resolution number PAC/2022/26). This report responds to that resolution.
7. This option best responds to the current fiscal environment to leverage the greatest potential returns on council investment whilst generating non-rates revenue for community investment. Alternative options to this recommended approach include:
· a reduced funding investment
· a heavily reduced funding investment
· discontinuing funding.
8. The Long-term Plan 2021-2031 includes provision to support operational funding for the Auckland Foundation of $250,000 each year until 2031, aligned to performance outcomes.
9. Performance outcomes are being developed by both partners in alignment with the Auckland Plan 2050, Long-term Plan and Thriving Communities Implementation Plan. The Foundation will report on these performance measures on an annual basis.
Recommendation/s
That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:
a) whakaae / approve a 3-year agreement to continue funding the Auckland Foundation from August 2023-June 2026, with performance measures aligned to council priorities including the Parks and Community 10-year budget priorities.
b) whakaae / approve funding of up to $250,000 per annum ($750,000 in total), from the Long-Term Plan budget, based on expenses submitted by the Auckland Foundation, for operational costs associated with continued strategy development, fundraising, delivery, awarding of grants and reporting of the Auckland Together Fund.
c) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note that the partnership performance will be reviewed on an annual basis, to help assess the potential value of renewal of the contract for a further three-year term.
Horopaki
Context
New Zealand Philanthropic Sector
10. The New Zealand giving sector continues to grow significantly as the country is experiencing the biggest period of inter-generational wealth transfer in history. This is important in an era of growing needs and increasing demand on government services and resources, charities and not-for-profit organisations and volunteers.
11. The major trends of the philanthropic sector provide an opportunity for the Auckland Foundation/Auckland Council partnership to leverage their resources and deliver targeted community funding.
Community Foundations
12. Auckland Foundation is one of 17 Community Foundation members across New Zealand, offering place-based philanthropy. It was launched in New Zealand in 2003 and is connected to a global network of foundations established early last century.
13. Auckland Foundation distributed $1.2 million in financial year 2021/2022, $1.43 million in financial year 2022/2023 and has already secured more than $1 million to be granted to organisations working across Tāmaki Makaurau in financial year 2023-2024.
14. Community Foundations continue to be increasingly popular as charitable trusts, with low administration fees and no political affiliation.
Auckland Council’s partnership with the Auckland Foundation
15. Auckland Foundation has evolved from the Manukau Foundation (established in 2003), which was absorbed into the Auckland Communities Foundation (established in 2010). In 2015 this was renamed Auckland Foundation in a brand refresh.
16. Auckland Foundation aims to attract charitable donations and distribute these by way of community grants throughout Tāmaki Makaurau. The previous report to the PACE Committee in April 2022, summarised the partnership activity and associated funding agreements since 2015 (resolution number PAC/2022/26).
Third Funding Agreement (2022-2023)
17. In April 2022, the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee approved an interim agreement to transition the way council invests in the Foundation, with the aim of capitalising on the emerging trends of the philanthropic sector and to align with council priorities.
18. The 12-month funding agreement provided time to develop an aligned fundraising strategy, hire a new fundraising specialist and launch a strategic community fund.
19. The table below summarises the resolutions of the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee and achievements during the interim agreement.
Resolutions |
Action/Intervention |
Resolution number PAC/2022/26 for PACE Committee meeting held remotely on Thursday, 7 April 2022. |
|
Approve a 12-month agreement to continue funding Auckland Foundation from July 2022-June 2023 with more targeted expectations aligned to Parks and Community 10-year budget priorities. |
The interim agreement set targeted expectations, including establishing annual measurements and analysis of the donations and bequests received, listed under sub-sectors that are comparable to the national philanthropic sector reports. Through a partnership approach, the parties developed joint vision and mission statements that align to wider council priorities. These include and went beyond the Parks and Community budget priorities, while still reflecting the scope of the Foundation. |
Approve funding of up to $250,000, based on expenses submitted by Auckland Foundation, for operational costs associated with the establishment of a new community fund, including contributions towards the salary of an executive fundraiser, administrative and general manager support and marketing budget. |
The funding was split into two tranches ($125,000 per tranche), subject to 6-monthly reports that achieved expected outputs. The outputs included capturing and reporting on the agreed indicators that measure the Foundation’s financial growth, alongside the partnership interventions, activities, and results.
|
Agree to receive a review and recommendations in February 2023, with a view to approving the extension of the agreement for a further 3 years. |
The timing of the council elections and establishment of new governing committees, followed by the aftermath of the January floods and Cyclone Gabrielle, has meant that this report was delayed in reaching the new Planning, Environment and Parks (PEP) Committee. This has not affected the achievements of the partnership. The Foundation were able to launch the new community fund in response to the floods and cyclone, by leveraging the existing Mayoral funds with the Auckland Foundation. The success of the interim agreement, and subsequent partnership review in June 2023, has led to the recommendation within this report to extend the agreement for a further 3 years. |
Support the definition of more targeted expectations, aligned to the council’s 10 Year Budget priorities, within the new agreement, including the establishment of a new community fund. |
In developing the new community fund (Auckland Together Fund) the partnership incorporated 6 pillars that directly align to the Auckland Plan 2050, the Parks and Community 10-Year Budget Priorities, and the Thriving Communities Implementation Plan 2022-2025. This broader approach to the partnership alignment will bring greater returns across council. Grants awarded from the new community fund will commence in late August 2023. This will involve open-contestable funding for organisations supporting their community’s medium-to-long term response to the January floods and Cyclone Gabrielle. |
Auckland Together Fund (ATF) – Community Fund
20. This fund is one of the key outputs of the 2022-2023 funding agreement. It was established and launched by the Foundation in February 2023, with advice and endorsement from council through this partnership.
21. The fund has an umbrella structure, with six pillars that address specific council-aligned outcomes, outlined in the table below.
22. The ATF aims to raise donations or bequests that contribute to one of the pillars. Specific fundraising campaigns and subsequent grants rounds will be launched dependent on either:
a) an increased or sudden priority e.g. responding to a regional disaster, or
b) enough funds raised for this pillar to launch a contestable grants round.
23. The Foundation and council partnership representatives will together decide on launching a specific fundraising campaign or grants round for either option.
Auckland Together Fund |
|||||
Pillars align to either Auckland Plan 2050, LTP Budget Priorities 2022-2032 or an existing partnership priority |
|||||
Belonging and Participation |
Māori outcomes |
Environment and cultural heritage |
Opportunity and prosperity |
Pacific Relief |
|
The specific objectives are under development, but align to the Thriving Communities Implementation Plan 2022-2025 |
24. In April 2023, the Right Honourable Helen Clark, ONZ, was appointed as the ATF ambassador. She is involved in a series of fundraising events that will continue throughout 2023.
25. Between February and June 2023, more than $1.3 million has been donated to the Auckland Together Fund for the January floods and Cyclone Gabrielle recovery campaign.
26. The first round of open, contestable grants for this pillar is on track to be launched at the end of August 2023. This will be available for community groups, with on-going programmes that respond to the evolving needs of the worst affected communities and environments in Auckland.
27. Future fundraising campaigns will continue to require dedicated fundraising resources and promotion. The Foundation Philanthropy Director, in conjunction with the General Manager and Board, will promote the fund and pillars in a way that is appealing to potential donors, wanting to support regional development priorities or leave a legacy.
Mayoral Funds
28. In partnership with Auckland Council, two Mayoral Funds were set up in 2013. The Mayoral Fund for the Pacific was established to collect donations and grant funds to charities responding to disaster planning, mitigation and response in the Pacific. The Auckland Mayoral Relief Fund is aimed at supporting charities responding to civil defence emergencies across Tāmaki Makaurau. These are known as pass-through funds, in which the Foundation receives donations and passes them directly to specific relief activities.
29. As part of the interim agreement, council and the Foundation undertook a review of both Mayoral funds from late 2022 until early 2023, with the intention of restructuring them in a way that established a more dynamic response to regional and Pacific disasters or emergencies.
30. The partners agreed to relaunch the Fund for the Pacific as a public fund, for Aucklanders to be able to donate to at any time and build an endowment. This will include a dedicated page and donation link on the Foundation’s website.
31. During an emergency, the Foundation will further promote the fund for a specific campaign (e.g. the Tongan tsunami), and use some of the endowment donations in addition to funds donated to this campaign. Council will publicly endorse the fund during these campaigns to further encourage donations.
32. A summary of both funds is provided in the table below.
Fund |
Total donations received |
Current fund balance |
Comments |
Future state |
Mayoral Fund for the Pacific |
$49,731 |
$12,000 |
Donations from this fund were used to support the relief efforts in Tonga, February 2022. Previously, $15,000 was granted for relief in Tonga after the major cyclone in 2018. Four small grants ($5,000 and less) were distributed for cyclone relief from 2014-2016. |
The fund will be publicly available to receive donations at any time through a dedicated page on the Foundation’s website. Donations will be invested in endowment until the next significant disaster. |
Auckland Mayoral Relief Fund |
$15,000 |
$0 |
This fund was inactive for the five years leading up to February 2023. Previously, $10,000 was granted for the Motairehe Marae Water Project on Great Barrier. The remaining $5,000 was used to seed grant the launch of the Auckland Together Fund. |
The fund has now been superseded by the Auckland Together Fund. Accordingly, this Mayoral Fund was closed out in June 2023. |
Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu
Analysis and advice
Auckland Foundation performance in current funding term
33. The table below provides an overview of the latest financial and operational results and achievements from 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023. It should be noted that the Foundation’s financial year runs from 1 April to 31 March. The funding agreements have followed council’s financial year from 1 July to 30 June.
Auckland Foundation results 1 April 2022 – 31 March 2023 |
Growth since previous financial year |
Comments |
|
Total revenue to date (since inception in 2010) |
$22,926,051 |
$2,079,294 |
Revenue includes grants, donations, sponsorship, and management fees.[1] |
Total distributions made to date (since 2010) |
$12,703,147 |
$1,431,547 |
|
Revenue for FY 2022/2023 |
$2,079,294 |
-$622,865 |
The difference from previous FY is not a loss in revenue but reflects the investment returns that are not reported this year. |
Distributions made in 2022-2023 |
$1,431,547 |
$212,101 |
Annual grants and distributions increased by more than $200,000 from the previous FY. |
Total number of funds currently managed |
66 |
10 |
|
Total funds under management ($) |
$8,802,275 |
$74,854 |
New funds do not always receive their establishment donation in the same financial year that they are opened. Hence the low increase in total funds managed compared to the previous FY. |
Total bequests ($) pledged |
$60 million |
$17 million |
Growth of $17 million in the last year. The average dollar value of each bequest is $1,394,737 million. Some pledges are percentages of estates, and therefore the dollar value will fluctuate, but likely increase over time. |
Total costs per annum (2022-2023) |
$520,000 |
$160,000 |
Includes costs for salaries, launch of the new fund, rent, marketing, events, administrative fees, memberships and subscriptions and insurances. It does not include grant distributions. |
Total number of staff |
3.8 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) |
1 FTE |
Philanthropy Director was recruited in the last year. |
Total average salaries per annum |
$410,000 |
$186,000 |
This reflects the increase in FTE. |
Average salaries per annum as a % of total costs |
79% |
17% |
$410,000 salaries of $520,000 total costs. |
34. The results show that the Foundation has established a stable operating model, which is growing at a consistent rate.
35. The Foundation’s Statement of Investment Policy and Objectives include a focus on responsible investing using Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) considerations in the decision-making process. The Foundation’s benchmark for ESG good practice is the United Nation’s Principles of Responsible Investment.
Options and recommendations
36. The interim funding agreement provided both partners with an opportunity to leverage new opportunities and establish a long-term sustainable funding source for the region that will align to both council and the Foundation’s priorities.
37. The Auckland Together Fund has achieved financial growth, improved brand recognition and increased positioning of the Foundation since its launch.
38. Continued support of the Foundation affords advantages to council in providing a trusted and independent neutral fund manager who is able to access the philanthropic generosity of Aucklanders.
39. By investing in the growth of the Foundation, this enables the organisation’s resilience and promotes an expectation of financial independence, thus reducing its long-term reliance on council funding.
40. A new 3-year funding agreement provides time to continue building and strengthening the new community fund towards maturity.
41. Building trust and support from major donors requires developing long-term stable relationships with the Foundation before donations are confirmed.
42. Withdrawing from the partnership now, would disrupt the returns on council’s investment at a time when there are beginning to be significant benefits to the region.
43. The table below summarises four options, all of which were developed in collaboration with the Auckland Foundation. The options identify realistic and achievable targets and outcomes for different levels of investment.
44. A detailed analysis of the options is included in Attachment A.
45. The projected returns on investment identify potential achievements but are not guaranteed.
Summary of the options analysis for extending the partnership with Auckland Foundation beyond 2023 |
||||
Funding options |
1. Extended funding |
2. Reduced (light) funding |
3. Reduced (heavy) funding |
4. No funding |
Council’s financial commitment |
High |
Moderate |
Moderate |
Low |
Expected return on investment |
High |
Moderate |
Low |
Low |
Service support to council |
High |
Moderate |
Low |
Low |
Option 1 is recommended because it supports the Foundation’s continuation of growth, to leverage opportunities in the philanthropic sector that will bring the highest returns for council and the region. |
Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi
Climate impact statement
46. Over the past six months Tāmaki Makaurau has experienced extreme weather events that caused significant environmental, financial, social and wellbeing damage to our communities.
47. The umbrella structure of the Auckland Together Fund includes a pillar of targeted support to Climate Action Projects and regional disaster response. The ongoing partnership development of this strategic outcome could incorporate key climate impact policies.
48. The Foundation launched the first campaign of the Auckland Together Fund to respond to the January floods and Cyclone Gabrielle. To date, this campaign has raised over $1.3 million, which will be awarded to community organisations responding to the medium and long-term impacts (e.g. building community resilience) of these events.
49. If the funding agreement is extended in line with options 1 or 2 the partners will continue to develop and build financial support towards the regional disaster response and climate action projects pillar, in alignment with council’s strategic outcome.
50. Options 1 and 2 also offer the opportunity for other council partnerships that promote climate impact policies to be supported with project-specific funds that raise donations towards these initiatives.
51. Option 3 could provide limited support to climate action projects through granting of funds over the long term. Option 4 does not offer the opportunity to support this strategic outcome.
52. The climate change benefits of existing Auckland Foundation funds, like the Hauraki Gulf Fund, will be increasingly affected by options 2, 3 or 4. Reduced funding will reduce the Foundation’s capacity to promote some funds over others. It will not have the capacity to meet with as many prospective donors as they currently do.
Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera
Council group impacts and views
53. During the interim agreement, discussions across council were initiated to identify projects and initiatives that could be considered in the types of open-contestable funding from the Auckland Together Fund.
54. Options 1 and 2 would support the continuation of these efforts.
Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe
Local impacts and local board views
55. Auckland Foundation has provided feedback on the options. They prefer option 1 as the best outcome to achieve greater returns for council, the region and the Foundation.
56. With options 1 and 2 outputs of the Auckland Together Fund will present significant opportunities to align with other investment sources including those prioritised by local boards.
Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori
Māori impact statement
57. In September 2022, the partners held a workshop to discuss Auckland Council’s commitments to Te Tiriti o Waitangi to achieve better outcomes as strategic priorities for Māori, as guided through the Kia Ora Tāmaki Makaurau framework.
58. Following the workshop, the Auckland Foundation sought to better understand and honour their commitments to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. This provided the Foundation with significant opportunities to achieve better outcomes for Māori, and to lift Māori economic, social and cultural wellbeing.
59. During the interim agreement period, Māori and Pacific representation on the Auckland Foundation Board have both increased.
60. The Board is developing policy that integrates Māori outcomes as strategic priorities across the organisation, and more specifically as a strategic pillar of the Auckland Together Fund.
61. Both options 1 and 2 will allow time and resources to continue building and incorporating the work to date into all aspects of the Foundation’s operations and priorities. Under option 1, building the long-term funding and grants to Māori outcomes would remain on track. Under option 2, funding to support Māori outcomes would take longer, but remain on track.
62. Options 3 and 4 will reduce capacity for the Foundation to realise their commitments broadly across the organisation and more specifically, it will significantly reduce opportunities to attract and grant donations that respond to regional Māori outcomes.
Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea
Financial implications
63. The Long-term Plan 2021-2031 includes provision for ongoing funding of:
· $250,000 until 2028
· $255,000 in 2029
· $261,100 in 2030
· $265,302 in 2031.
64. The three-year agreement would allocate up to $750,000 over three financial years at a maximum of $250,000 per financial year, commencing in 2022/2023 and ending in financial year 2025/2026. This would be used for operational expenses that are specific to the development of the Auckland Together Fund, including a granting advisor/manager, a dedicated fundraiser, marketing budget, administration and general manager support.
Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga
Risks and mitigations
65. A summary of the key risks and mitigation strategies are listed below.
Risk |
Mitigation |
Auckland Foundation fundraising targets may be inflated or unachieveable. |
The six-monthly and annual review of the partnership performance against the agreed outcomes will provide a chance to identify and take early action for any concerns. The fundraising plan is developed by the Foundation’s General Manager and Chair. It is based on previous acheivements and financial projections, cross-checked by the Philanthropy Director and approved by the Board of Trustees. It will be monitored through bi-monthly updates to their Board and annual review by their Fundraising Committee. |
Ngā koringa ā-muri
Next steps
66. Council staff prepare a new funding agreement with Auckland Foundation that details the terms and conditions agreed by the committee and sets out new performance indicators.
67. Staff continue to monitor the performance measures through half year and end of year reports from Auckland Foundation.
Attachments
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇨ |
Detailed analysis of the funding options |
|
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
Author |
Lucy Petheram - Partnerships Specialist |
Authorisers |
Justine Haves - General Manager Regional Services & Strategy Claudia Wyss - Director Customer and Community Services Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy |
Planning, Environment and Parks Committee 03 August 2023 |
|
File No.: CP2023/08108
Te take mō te pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To provide an update on the opening of the Hūnua Traverse.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. Franklin Local Board has been supporting the development of a walking and cycling trail through the Hūnua Ranges. Now known as the Hūnua Traverse (the trail), it is recognised as a Ngā Haeranga New Zealand Cycle Trails - Heartland Trail.
3. The initiative is in partnership with Watercare, Tātaki Auckland Unlimited, Clevedon Community Business Association and Ngā Haeranga New Zealand Cycle Trails.
4. Franklin Local Board has funded the development of the initiative to date from its Local Development Initiatives (LDI) operational expenditure (OPEX) and capital expenditure (CAPEX) budgets.
5. The opening of the Hūnua Traverse has been delayed over the last three years, for a number of reasons, including the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, delays in Kauri Dieback bike station manufacturing, logging operations and, most recently, this year’s extreme weather events.
6. A range of infrastructure development projects, together with operational and marketing aspects of the trail, were completed and the trail was set for a trial opening. However, the weather events earlier this year caused two major slips, which adversely impacted the trail.
7. One major slip still limits access to the full Hūnua Traverse, possibly until the end of the year. However, a preview of the Hūnua Traverse cycle trail opened on 1 July, providing access to the trail in two sections, from the north and from the south, enabling public access to up to 38km of the new 44km Ngā Haerenga Heartland trail.
Recommendation/s
That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:
a) tūtohi / receive the update on the opening of the Hūnua Traverse
b) ohia / endorse the continued work of council staff with trail partners (Watercare, Tātaki Auckland Unlimited, Clevedon Community Business Association and Ngā Haeranga New Zealand Cycle Trails) in progressing the full opening and ongoing operation of the Hūnua Traverse cycle trail.
Horopaki
Context
8. Franklin Local Board has been advancing the development of the Hūnua trail for many years as a recreational resource for Tāmaki Makaurau. It also recognises the initiative as an opportunity to maximise potential economic benefits, associated with having a nationally significant walking and cycling trail in the local board area for both visitors and local residents.
9. Development of the trail is provided for within the Hūnua Ranges Regional Parks Management Plan 2022.
10. In July 2019, the Environment and Community Committee endorsed in principle, the development of a Heartland Trail through the Hūnua Ranges Regional Park. It also resolved that council staff could work with Franklin Local Board and other entities to continue investigation into the governance, management, maintenance, design and delivery of the trail, as outlined in the Hūnua Trail Aspirational Plan (ENV/2019/108).
11. The initiative is being progressed in partnership with Watercare, Tātaki Auckland Unlimited, Clevedon Community Business Association and Ngā Haeranga New Zealand Cycle Trails.
12. The proposed 45km route from Clevedon to Kaiaua follows private Watercare access roads from the south-eastern side of the Hūnua Range (Mangatangi Dam) through the upper western section of the regional park.
13. New infrastructure has been put in place in preparation for the trail opening, such as bike gates, wash stations and noticeboards at the five regional park entry points. Staff have installed safety signage and trail way-finding signage and information.
14. The following operational mechanisms are in place:
· a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Watercare
· a management plan to mitigate the effects of forestry logging on the trail and cyclists
· a strategic marketing plan and activities to position and promote the trail to maximise economic benefits to the Clevedon area
· trail maps, elevations, and information signage
· a website providing key information.
15. In June 2022, Franklin Local Board allocated $80,000 Local Development Initiatives (LDI) OPEX budget to the Clevedon Community and Business Association (CCBA) to develop and deliver a marketing and local business leverage programme for the Hūnua Traverse. They appointed a programme manager, who is now leading implementation of the trail in conjunction with Parks and Community Facilities staff.
16. There have been significant challenges in progressing the trail’s implementation, including:
· the COVID-19 pandemic which led to restrictions on trial access and in the manufacturing, supply, and installation of key infrastructure
· delays in designing and manufacturing bike-specific cleaning stations to prevent the spread of the Kauri Dieback disease
· bad weather delayed the scheduled pest control programme (1080 drops), which then resulted in closure of the Hūnua Regional Park for an extended period last year
· periodic forestry logging compromised safe access to Otau Mountain Road for cyclists on the trail, and
· the heavy rainfall and severe storm events in January and February caused damage to the trail and access road.
Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu
Analysis and advice
Current state of the Hūnua Traverse
17. Over the 2022/2023 summer months, the Hūnua Traverse programme team worked to prepare for a beta launch (soft opening for registered riders) in February 2023. The significant weather events in January and February caused slips on the trail which further delayed the opening.
18. More recent delays to opening the trail are a result of two major slips:
· Otau Mountain Road had a major under slip that has now been repaired.
· Keeney Road has a large under-slip (slumping) that is still moving and at risk of further deterioration. Geotechnical specialists recommend that the slip be monitored over winter and for up to six months before repair work is initiated. Due to the terrain in this slip's location, there are no obvious routes to divert users around the area.
19. While the full Hūnua Traverse is inaccessible for the foreseeable months, two sections of the trail were opened on 1 July, providing cyclists with access to a northern section of 14km and the southern section of 24km. Riders are now enjoying 38km of the Hūnua Traverse.
20. A comprehensive Kauri Dieback survey is underway across the Hūnua Ranges Regional Park, neighboring Department of Conservation (DOC) estate and private land. While it is hoped no sign of Kauri Dieback is found, there is a possibility that the disease will be detected.
21. The detection of the disease may limit recreational and operational activities. Working groups are already looking at potential scenarios and mitigation options, but until there are more detailed facts, staff cannot determine the appropriate strategies to implement. The first of the survey results are expected later this year.
22. Once known and understood, and if Keeney Road is still closed, the project team will also look at opening an additional section from Moumoukai Valley (Upper Mangatawhiri Campground) through to Workman Road.
23. Logging operations will affect the Hūnua Traverse over the next six to ten years. The Greenridge Block is currently being harvested and the Watercare Hūnua Regeneration Project is expected to commence in early 2025.
24. Management plans are in place to manage recreational access when logging occurs and to provide alternative options for trail access, such as weekend-only access and entry from Moumoukai Hill Road. The northern section of the Hūnua Traverse Preview will only be open in the weekends.
Design, marketing, and promotion of the Hūnua Traverse
25. Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki artist, Tessa Harris, has designed the trail’s logo. She has expressed her preference for the rauponga design (representing guardianship) not be used as a commercial branding element, but to be used when referencing the protection of the ngahere /forest and the maunga /mountains.
26. A further logo has been developed which retains the double maunga form and provides the required versatility and legibility to use for promotional products. The addition of blue to the logo is a reference to the role of the Hūnua as a water catchment, and to the Hūnua Traverse linking the land to the ocean. It is intended that the logo and the rauponga design will be used together.
27. Signage and branding also incorporates recognition of the Ngā Haeranga New Zealand Cycle Trails - Heartland Trail status and the directional signage was provided by Ngā Haeranga.
28. A dedicated Hūnua Traverse website has been developed www.hunuatraverse.co.nz along with a Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/hunuatraverse. These will be the main sites for information around the Hūnua Traverse and will be managed externally and independently of the other council managed information website pages. The website is part funded through Local Board LDI operating funding.
Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi
Climate impact statement
29. 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 and
· to prepare the region for the adverse impacts of climate change.
30. The trail aligns with the Hūnua Ranges Regional Park Management Plan and its climate change mitigation and adaptation initiatives.
31. The Hūnua Traverse will provide increased walking and cycling activity in the area which have low greenhouse gas emissions.
Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera
Council group impacts and views
32. The Hūnua Traverse programme demonstrates strong cross-council collaboration. Parks and Community Facilities staff and the Franklin Local Board have been working together with Tātaki Auckland Unlimited staff to co-ordinate the capital and operational elements of the development, promotion, and management of the trail.
33. All parties will continue to work closely together with the project partners and external stakeholders to launch, promote and manage the trail.
34. The maintenance and operations of the trail will continue to be managed through the Regional Parks team in conjunction with Watercare. The marketing and promotion of the Hūnua Traverse is managed by the Clevedon Community and Business Association (CCBA) and guided by the funding agreement with the Franklin Local Board.
Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe
Local impacts and local board views
35. Franklin Local Board has driven the development of the Hūnua Traverse as a potential visitor attraction and economic development opportunity for a number of years.
36. The proposed project aligns with the Franklin Local Board Plan 2020 outcomes that specifically reference the area’s natural attractions that have the potential to generate local economic benefits. The Local Board Plan specifically identifies the Hūnua Traverse from Clevedon through the Hūnua Ranges to the Firth of Thames.
37. The Local Board Plan also includes the development of the Hūnua Ranges as a visitor destination, offering recreational and cultural experiences, and education about the environment and Auckland’s water supply story.
38. The Franklin Local Board Chair will attend the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee meeting on 3 August 2023.
Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori
Māori impact statement
39. Auckland Council is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its statutory obligations and relationship commitments to Māori. These commitments are articulated in the council’s key strategic planning documents, the Auckland Plan, the Long-term Plan 2021-2031, the Unitary Plan, Whiria Te Muka Tangata Māori Responsiveness Framework and Local Board Plans.
40. The Hūnua Ranges are of significant value to local iwi, Ngaati Whanaunga, Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki, Ngāti Pāoa and Ngāti Tamaoho.
41. Iwi representatives have been invited to engage and provide feedback throughout the development of the trail. Representatives from Ngāi Tai ki Tamaki attended the most recent hui in September 2022 and provided input into the Hūnua Traverse e-mountain bike (e-MTB) report.
42. They have expressed interest in the economic opportunities the trail will bring and supported the test ride of the trail by providing e-bikes for the cyclists. Staff will continue to provide email updates and offers to meet with all iwi.
Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea
Financial implications
43. Franklin Local Board has funded the programme to date. This includes Local Development Initiatives (LDI) operational expenditure (OPEX) for the initial concept development stage through to the development of the Hūnua Trail Aspirational Plan and the Marketing and Economic benefit report.
44. In June 2022, the Franklin Local Board allocated a further $80,000 (LDI OPEX) budget to fund the Clevedon Community and Business Association (CCBA) to launch and market the Hūnua Traverse.
45. Franklin Local Board allocated $540,000 LDI CAPEX budget towards the capital works programme to support the trail development. To date, $180,000 has been spent on project costs, including the design of signage plans and schedules, gate design options, geotech investigations, signage and noticeboard construction, and bike squeeze bars.
46. The balance of the capital works programme ($360,000 LDI CAPEX budget remaining) will be confirmed once the trail has opened and future needs determined by users, but could include, drinking water stations, bike wash stations, improved cell coverage, access gates, upgraded toilet facilities.
47. Watercare currently maintain all of the roads within the Hunua Ranges that the Traverse follows. That includes grading and side-arm mowing the vegetation.
48. Consequential opex for the new infrastructure which is mainly gates, signage and kauri dieback stations is considered minimal and will be covered by the existing regional parks operational budget for their track networks.
Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga
Risks and mitigations
49. Forestry logging represents a risk to the opening of the full trail. A management plan and route options have been provided to mitigate the effects of logging on the trail and rider safety.
50. The spread of Kauri Dieback is a key risk to the Hūnua Ranges and the opening of the Hūnua Trail. A study is underway to assess if any Kauri Dieback Disease is present. New bike-specific cleaning stations exist at five entrances to the park and an educational video has been produced that will be promoted.
51. Data currently indicates there is low compliance in using Kauri Dieback hygiene stations within the cycling community. Continued efforts to increase compliance will be required to mitigate the risk of spreading the disease into and around the park.
52. The continual effects of climate change on remote park land and future weather events causing slips or trail damage could further affect the project, project costs and the functioning of the trail longer term.
53. Further infrastructure requirements to support the trail may exceed the existing LDI CAPEX budget available and further capital funding may need to be secured.
Ngā koringa ā-muri
Next steps
54. The Hūnua Traverse programme team will continue to progress options for an alternative trail experience while access to Keeney Road is unavailable and logging activity restricts access.
55. Operational aspects of the trail will continue, including:
· brand management
· marketing
· concessions
· stakeholder and iwi engagement
· monitoring feedback on trail experience to inform required facility and infrastructure improvements.
Attachments
There are no attachments for this report.
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
Author |
Sharon Rimmer - Senior Partnerships Specialist |
Authorisers |
Taryn Crewe - General Manager Parks and Community Facilities Claudia Wyss - Director Customer and Community Services Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy |
Planning, Environment and Parks Committee 03 August 2023 |
|
Auckland Unitary Plan - Private plan change from Wellsford Welding Club Limited for land located at State Highway 1 and Monowai Street, Wellsford
File No.: CP2023/09299
Te take mō te pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To decide how to process the private plan change request to the Auckland Unitary Plan from Wellsford Welding Club Limited for land located at State Highway 1 (Rodney Street) and Monowai Street, Wellsford.
Whakarāpopototanga matua
Executive summary
2. Auckland Council must decide how a private plan change request (Request) is processed. Under the Resource Management Act 1991[2] the council may:
a) adopt the request as if it were a proposed plan change made by the council, or
b) accept the private plan change request in whole or in part, or
c) reject the private plan change request in whole or in part, if one of the limited grounds for rejection is satisfied, or
d) deal with the request as if it were an application for a resource consent.
3. It is recommended that the private plan change request is accepted under clause 25(2)(b) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).
4. Wellsford Welding Club Limited (WWC) seeks to rezone approximately 72 hectares of land from a combination of Future Urban, Residential – Single House, Rural – Countryside Living and Rural Production zoned land in Wellsford North to a combination of residential zones (Residential – Large Lot, Residential – Single House and Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban zones) with a small Neighbourhood Centre (zoned Business – Neighbourhood Centre) and an area of Rural – Countryside Living in the north.
5. The Request proposes to urbanise some land outside the FUZ in the south (land currently zoned Countryside Living) and a small area in the north (land currently zoned Rural Production).
6. The Request also proposes a precinct which details the indicative collector road network, stormwater quality management, amended minimum net site areas within the Single House and Large Lot zones and seeks to ensure that development capacity is staged with the release of infrastructure.
7. The rezoning proposal would provide capacity for approximately 650 to 800 dwellings supported by a small (0.9ha) neighbourhood centre servicing the day to day needs of this part of the local Wellsford community.
8. The private plan change relates to the district plan provisions of the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) (Unitary Plan). A copy of the private plan change (maps and proposed precinct) and the section 32 assessment is included as Attachment A to this report.
9. To date there has been no Council initiated structure planning process showing the future land use and infrastructure pattern on the Future Urban zoned part of the site. Therefore, the Request is accompanied by a draft structure plan prepared by the Requestor (see Appendix 3 of the Request).
10. The Request notes that this Future Urban zoned area of Wellsford has been identified in the Council’s Future Urban Land Supply Strategy (FULSS) as appropriate and ready for future residential activity. The Requester states that the detailed site and context analysis completed as part of the Request as well as the draft Wellsford North Structure Plan, demonstrates that the proposed use will be an efficient and effective method for achieving the sustainable management purpose of the RMA and the Auckland Regional Policy Statement (RPS).
11. It is noted that the Requestor has also applied to the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) for a resource consent under the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 to implement a first stage of the proposed residential development. While (at the time of writing this report) this application has been accepted by the MfE for processing, it has not been lodged.
Recommendation/s
That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee:
a) whakaae / agree not to reject the private plan change request under clause 25(4) of Schedule 1 of the RMA as there are no grounds of rejection available, on the basis that:
i) the request is not frivolous. The Requestor has provided sufficient supporting technical information and the private plan change has a resource management purpose as it seeks to enable housing and some supporting business/retail activity to make efficient use of land identified by the council for future urban growth.
ii) the request is not vexatious. The Requestor is not acting in bad faith by lodging a private plan change request. The Requestor is not requiring council to consider matters in this process that have already been decided or that are the subject of extensive community engagement or investment.
iii) the substance of the Request has not been considered within the last two years.
iv) having regard to relevant caselaw, a coarse level of assessment the Request does not indicate that the private plan change is not in accordance with sound resource management practice. Whether the private plan change request’s objectives are the most appropriate way of achieving the promotion of sustainable management will be tested through the submission and hearing processes. While the infrastructure needs to support the plan change (transport, wastewater and stormwater) are significant, an initial assessment demonstrates that good progress has been made towards agreeing the funding and implementation of this infrastructure by the developer (in particular with Waka Kotahi and Watercare), which is supported by provisions in the proposed plan change that relate to the necessary upgrades.
v) a preliminary assessment indicates the private plan change request will not make the Auckland Unitary Plan inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA.
vi) the provisions of the Auckland Unitary Plan subject to the private plan change request have been operative for at least two years.
b) whakaae / accept the private plan change request for the following reasons:
i) accepting the private plan change request for notification will enable a range of matters to be considered on their merits during a public participatory process.
ii) it is inappropriate to adopt the private plan change. The council has no immediate intentions to rezone this area for development. A council plan change is not currently on the work programme. Therefore, the associated risks and costs of a plan change should be met by the developer rather than the council.
iii) it is not appropriate to deal with the private plan change as if it was resource consent application because the current Future Urban Zone that applies to the land is not suitable for residential subdivision and development (notwithstanding that the Requestor has sought resource consent under the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 for a first stage of development). In addition, if the private plan change was later approved, the Precinct would better enable the staged provision of infrastructure and integrated development of the site.
c) tautapa / delegate authority to the Manager Planning – Regional, North, West and Islands to undertake the required notification and other statutory processes associated with processing the private plan change request.
Horopaki
Context
Site and surrounding area
12. The plan change area comprises 72.06 hectares of land located to the north of the Wellsford township. The area includes land zoned Future Urban (FUZ), Residential – Single House, Rural – Countryside Living, and Rural – Rural Production (see Figure 1). The plan change area is bounded by Rodney Street / State Highway 1 (SH1) to the west, the existing Wellsford urban area to the south, the North Auckland Railway line to the east, and Bosher Road to the north. Figure 2 shows an aerial photo of the plan change area.
Figure 1: Current zoning of the plan change area
Source: Auckland Unitary Plan maps
Figure 2: Area photo of the plan change area
Source: Auckland Council GIS
13. The plan change area is largely comprised of pastoral land with a number of dwellings and rural buildings, mostly in the southern portion of the site. Residential properties adjoin the plan change area and formed access and farm tracks currently exist from SH1 and Monowai Street.
14. As a predominantly working farm, most of the site is in pasture with a number of mature exotic and native trees located near riparian areas. A stand of mature totara trees is located in the southern portion of the site. There is an area of exotic forest in the north of the site.
15. In terms of topography, the site slopes steeply downwards from SH1 towards the east via a series of gullies to a riparian stream that runs generally from the south to the north. A second stream system runs west to east in the north eastern section of the plan change area. The steepest parts of the plan change area are to the south and these areas flatten out towards the north and north eastern areas to rolling pasture.
16. The surrounding locality comprises the existing Wellsford township which is a small rural service town, located approximately 80 kilometres north of the Auckland CBD, 80 kilometres south of Whangārei and 20km north of Warkworth (Auckland’s northern satellite town). Like many townships located on SH1 north of Auckland, ribbon development dominates the urban form with the town centre primarily located either side of SH1. To a lesser extent ribbon development has also occurred along SH16 as the confluence of both these state highways meet near the centre of the township.
17. The residential areas have established to the east of SH1 and to the north west with some new subdivisions and developments comprising single dwellings occurring on land to the north west of School Road.
18. As set out in the section 32 assessment, the Wellsford Town Centre provides essential and support services to locals, with Warkworth providing for a wider range of goods, services and job opportunities including larger supermarkets. Wellsford is serviced by a local bus route (bus service 998) which connects to Warkworth. From Warkworth there are connections to other northern settlements and to the Hibiscus Coast bus station (which connects into the wider public transport network including the busway to the city).
19. Wellsford can be described as a “hill-top town”, being formed around the confluence of SH1 and SH16. SH1 is a spine along the main ridge, and side roads follow the radiating spurs (including SH16). As a consequence of the hilltop location, Wellsford enjoys wide views over the surrounding countryside, and the residential form that has developed follows the movement corridors of the ridges and spurs.
20. The existing settlement of Wellsford is largely zoned Residential – Single House Zone and is characterised by traditional single dwelling development with a density of 800m² to over 1,000m² being typical. In terms of educational facilities, Rodney College and Wellsford School (primary) are both located to the west of the proposed Plan Change area. The schools are across SH1 and can be accessed via the SH1 underpass south of the Plan Change area.
Policy Context
21. The Auckland Plan 2050 seeks that most of Auckland's anticipated population and dwelling growth over the next 30 years be within the existing urban area. This is reflected in Chapter B of the RPS in the Unitary Plan, which seeks a quality compact urban form where urban growth is primarily accommodated within the urban area 2016, providing sufficient development capacity that is integrated with the provision of appropriate infrastructure.[3]
22. Both the Auckland Plan and Unitary Plan anticipate some growth occurring in rural towns and villages. The Unitary Plan seeks that “growth and development of existing or new rural and coastal towns and villages is enabled”[4] subject to particular criteria being met. Whilst the Auckland Plan’s Development Strategy outlines that “residential growth in rural Auckland will be focused mainly in the towns which provide services for the wider rural area particularly the rural nodes of Pukekohe and Warkworth.”[5]
23. The principle of future growth being appropriate in Wellsford is recognised by the areas of Future Urban zoning on the town’s periphery. However, neither the Auckland Plan nor the Unitary Plan specifically anticipate significant growth beyond the currently zoned area.
24. The Auckland Plan’s Development Strategy and the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy 2017 (FULSS) indicate that the FUZ in Wellsford will be ‘development ready’ between 2023 and 2027. Development ready means that a structure plan and plan change have been completed and the bulk infrastructure has been provided.
Private plan change content
Proposed Zoning
25. The Request seeks to rezone 72.06 hectares of Future Urban, Residential – Single House, Rural – Countryside Living and Rural Production zoned land for urban development. The new urban development will comprise of:
· 5.87 ha Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban zone;
· 39.64 ha Residential – Single House zone;
· 17.04 ha Residential – Large Lot zone;
· 0.89 ha Business – Neighbourhood Centre zone; and
· 11.56 ha Rural – Countryside Living zone.
26. The proposed zoning pattern is shown in Figure 3 below, and in the plan change at Appendix 1. The Request states:
The intention of the proposed urban zoning is to provide for the establishment of a new residential community that logically extends the existing Wellsford settlement and offers a range of housing types and choice. The small Neighbourhood Centre zone is proposed to be located central to the future residential area, providing for the day-to-day needs for the future residential community in Wellsford North. The Mixed Housing Suburban zone is proposed to be applied around the Neighbourhood centre to provide for medium density residential development in areas within walking distance to the centre. The Single House zone is proposed to apply to the majority of the area proposed to be urbanised through the Plan Change, to ensure the character of the residential development is in keeping with the existing Wellsford settlement.
27. Due to recognised topographical constraints and existence of watercourses, the Request proposes to zone the majority of the southern portion of the land for low density development using the Residential – Large Lot Zone. In total, it is intended that the package of rezoning will enable between 650-800 new dwellings.
28. As a response to stormwater constraints on the land it is proposed to apply the Stormwater Management Area Control – Flow 1 (SMAF1) across the proposed urban zoned parts of the plan change area to manage the increase in stormwater discharge to sensitive stream environments. Additionally, the Council’s recently approved Network Discharge Consent includes requirements to prepare a Stormwater Management Plan (SMP) and meet defined outcomes. This requirement will be triggered as part of future resource consent processes.
Figure 3: Proposed Plan Change Zoning Plan
Proposed Precinct
29. The proposed precinct is shown outlined in red on Figure 3 and it applies to around 62ha of land. The only rezoning areas excluded from the precinct are the Countryside Living zone in the north and a small area of the Residential – Single House zone in the west. The Request states:
The purpose of the Wellsford North precinct is to provide for the development of a new, comprehensively planned residential community in Wellsford North that supports a quality compact urban form at Wellsford. The precinct provides for a range of residential densities, including medium residential densities enabled close to the Wellsford North Village Centre and State Highway 1 to provide for development up to two storeys in a variety of sizes and forms. Lower residential densities are enabled in the northern and eastern parts of the precinct, to integrate with the existing character of Wellsford. The precinct also provides for large lot zoning in the southern portion of the precinct, where the topography lends itself to lower density residential land use.
A small neighbourhood centre is provided for in the centre of the precinct adjacent to the proposed collector road, to provide for the local day-to-day needs of residents in a central and highly accessible location.
30. The proposed precinct includes a precinct description, objectives, policies, activity rules and development standards for subdivision and development, matters of discretion, and assessment criteria. A copy of the precinct provisions is in Attachment A.
Specialist Assessments
31. The Request has been accompanied with a number of specialist assessments, as follows:
· Integrated Transportation Assessment – Commute Transportation
· Ecological Impact – Bioresearches
· Stormwater Management Plan – Wood & Partners Consultants
· Geotechnical Assessment – Tonkin and Taylor
· Land Contamination – Environmental Management Solutions
· Soils (land use capability) assessment – Landsystems
· Engineering Assessment – Hutchison Consulting Engineers
· Archaeological Assessment – Clough and Associates
· Neighbourhood Design Statement – Barker and Associates / McIndoe Urban
· Soils Assessment – Landsystems
· Cultural Values Assessment – Ngati Manuhiri
· Aboricultural Assessment – GreensceneNZ
· Draft Structure Plan – Barker and Associates
Timeframes
32. The Request was lodged with the Council in May 2022 but was then put on hold by the Requester due to the Requestor having difficulty obtaining access to the land. This was resolved by the Requestor in December 2022 enabling the Council team to visit the site.
33. A formal request for additional information followed on 1 March 2023. A number of further requests for clarification followed and the last part of the further information requested was provided on 5 July 2023.
34. Council is required to decide how the private plan change request is processed by 17 August 2023 (within 30 working days of the receipt of all the information).
Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu
Analysis and advice
Transport
35. The Request is supported by an Integrated Transport Assessment (ITA). Access to the Plan Change area is proposed to be provided through a new intersection between the new collector road and Rodney Street (SH1) as well as a secondary access via a new connection through to Monowai Street.
36. The location of the new intersection on SH1 has been selected by the Requestor to optimise the sightlines available, taking into consideration the vertical geometry along SH1 in this location. Both the proposed new intersection and the Monowai Street intersection will be fed by a network of proposed roads, including one collector road through the site which will link the two accesses. The indicative road network is shown in Figure 4 below.
Figure 4: Indicative Road and Open Space Network
37. The Plan Change area is proposed to be serviced by a combination of a main collector road and local roads. The indicative location of the collector road and where this will intersect with the existing road network is shown indicatively on Figure 4. At this stage the Requestor has nominated the location of these roads on an indicative basis and it is not intended to be precise. It is expected that the location of these roads would be confirmed through the subdivision and development process if the plan change is approved.
38. The proposed Precinct also includes provisions to guide the location and layout of the road network to ensure these achieve a highly connected street layout that integrates with the surrounding transport network.
39. An assessment of the movement network in Wellsford North for people, cyclists and cars is included by way of assessment criteria with reference to the Precinct Plan. This is intended to ensure that a highly integrated, safe and accessible movement network for all transport modes is provided within the precinct.
40. Initial comments from the Council transportation planning expert have related to the location and design of main entry from SH1, the robustness of the modelling and the connectivity of the pedestrian and cycle network to the existing town centre. Auckland Transport (AT) have also commented on the proposed plan change and these comments have been incorporated in the Council requests for further information. The Requestor is also engaging with NZTA/Waka Kotahi with regard to the main entry into the Plan Change area from SH1. Both AT and NZTA/Waka Kotahi, as external organisations have the ability make submissions and further submissions on the proposal.
Wastewater
41. The existing wastewater network in Wellsford cannot currently cater for the entire Plan Change area. Watercare Services Limited (Watercare) have plans to upgrade the Wellsford wastewater treatment plant in stages. The upgrade has been identified as a listed project in the Watercare Asset Management Plan.
42. A Heads of Agreement signed between WWC and Watercare states that both parties are prepared to work together to enable an upgrade of the wastewater treatment plant to allow up to 200 dwellings of the proposed development to be connected. There is also agreement to identify funding solutions for the balance of the land when it is rezoned. This is discussed further later in this report.
43. Any local network upgrades required to service the development and connect to the treatment plant will be developer provided.
Water Supply
44. Watercare are currently in the process of securing a new water take resource consent which will secure the water resource for Wellsford. Watercare are also planning an upgrade to the Wellsford water treatment plant to provide water security to Wellsford, including the proposed Plan Change area.
45. The Requestor has identified several connection points into the public network that are readily available for the proposed plan change development. Watercare have confirmed that the existing water supply network can cater for the proposed plan change area.
46. Any local network upgrades required to service the proposed development will be developer provided.
Private Plan Change Requests
47. Any person may request a change to a district plan, a regional plan or a regional coastal plan.[6] The procedure for private plan change requests is set out in Part 2 of Schedule 1 in the RMA. The process council follows as a plan-maker is adapted,[7] and procedural steps added[8] including the opportunity to request information.
48. Council must decide under clause 25 which is the most appropriate processing option for each private plan change request. In making this decision council must have particular regard to the applicant’s section 32 evaluation report. The clause 25 decision is the subject of this report and clause 25 of Schedule 1 of the RMA is set out in full in Attachment B.
49. Having read the Request, visited the site and reviewed the requests and responses to further information, it is considered that the applicant has provided sufficient information for the request to be considered. Therefore, the ‘insufficient information’ grounds for rejection in clause 23(6) of Schedule 1 of the RMA are not available in this instance.
50. Through the clause 23 further information process, the Requestor has updated the plan change/section 32 report and other specialists’ reports.
51. The Council has four possible options available to it when making a decision on a private plan change request under clause 25 of Schedule 1 of the RMA. These options are discussed in the next sections of this report. Particular regard has been given to the applicant’s section 32 evaluation report in undertaking the assessment of clause 25 options.
Options available to the council
Option 1: Adopt the request, or part of the request, as if it were a proposed plan change made by the council itself
52. Council can decide to adopt the Request, or part of the Request. Council would then process it as though it were a council-initiated plan change.
53. A reason to adopt a Request could be to give immediate legal effect to a proposed rule dealing with either a natural or historical resource (specified in section 86B), or aquaculture. If there is a proposed rule of this kind, immediate legal effect could be desirable to prevent a “goldrush” of resource (over) use that could occur until the plan change is made operative. Only a council-initiated plan change or an adopted private plan change can give rules immediate legal effect.
54. However, this Plan Change does not include any proposed rule that would protect, or relate to, any natural or historical resource. The private plan change is also unrelated to aquaculture activities. Therefore, the Council should not adopt this Request to give any rules immediate legal effect.
55. Another reason to adopt the Request could be to address a ‘gap’ in the Unitary Plan’s planning provisions. While the plan change land is zoned FUZ and the FULSS identifies the land as being ‘development ready’ in 2023-2027, the Request does not address a gap in the Unitary Plan. The Plan Change is not currently a matter under consideration in council’s policy work programme.
56. Should Council adopt the Request then the Council meets all costs of processing the plan change. Council should not carry these costs if the request is primarily of direct benefit to the applicant, rather than the wider public, or have other public policy benefits. The request is also a site-specific proposal. Accordingly, it is assessed that the most immediate or direct benefit, if any, is to the Requestor.
57. It is also noted that the Requestor did not request that council adopt the private plan change request but rather has asked for it to be accepted.
58. It is recommended that the private plan change request not be adopted.
Option 2 – Reject the request, in whole or in part
59. Council has the power to reject a private plan change request, in whole or in part, in reliance on one of the limited grounds set out in clause 25(4). The grounds for rejection under clause 25(4) are as follows:
a) the request or part of the request is frivolous or vexatious; or
b) within the last two years, the substance of the request or part of the request;
i. has been considered, and given effect to, or rejected by, the local authority or the Environment Court; or
ii. has been given effect to by regulations made under section 360A; or
c) the request or part of the request is not in accordance with sound resource management practice; or
d) the request or part of the request would make the policy statement or plan inconsistent with Part 5; or
e) in the case of a proposed change to a policy statement or plan, the policy statement or plan has been operative for less than two years.
60. The Council can reject a private plan change request if one or more of the limited grounds of rejection in clause 25(4) of Schedule 1 are available. The Council does not have to reject the private plan change request in those circumstances and can exercise its discretion not to reject the request. If there are no grounds of rejection available, the Council cannot reject the private plan change request.
Is the request frivolous or vexatious?
61. The objective of the plan change is to enable and facilitate the comprehensive and integrated residential development of a large area of FUZ land adjoining Wellsford township. The Request includes a section 32 evaluation report which is supported by specialist assessments on relevant matters, including transport, infrastructure, urban design, landscape, ecology, stormwater management, geotechnical and archaeological matters.
62. It is considered that the Request is genuine and is not frivolous for the following reasons:
a) The Request is considered thoroughly in the application materials;
b) The Request is supported by expert independent opinion and a robust section 32 analysis; and
c) The Request cannot be said to have no reasonable chance of succeeding.
63. The applicant is not acting in bad faith by lodging a private plan change request as the land is zoned FUZ and is ready for consideration for rezoning under the FULSS. The applicant is not requiring council to consider matters in this process that have already been decided or have been the subject of extensive community engagement or investment. Accordingly, it is concluded that the private plan change request is not vexatious.
64. It is recommended that the private plan change request not be rejected on this ground.
Has the substance of the request been considered and been given effect, or rejected by the council within the last two years?
65. The land subject to the Request is zoned FUZ, Rural – Countryside Living, and Rural – Rural Production in the Unitary Plan. This zoning was proposed and confirmed as part of the Unitary Plan hearing process. There have been no plan changes notified that affect the zoning of this land since the Unitary Plan was declared operative in part.
66. It is noted that Wellsford has not been included in Plan Change 78 – Intensification. Wellsford is not required to incorporate the Medium Density Residential Standards on the grounds that it has a population under 5,000 persons (as of the 2018 census). The land in and adjacent to the Wellsford Town Centre has been considered under Policy 3(d) (intensification around ‘other’ centres) of the National Policy Statement – Urban Development. However, the Council has not proposed any changes to the density or heights in this area of Wellsford.
67. It is recommended that the private plan change request not be rejected on this ground.
Has the substance of the request been given effect to by regulations made under section 360A?
68. Section 360A relates to regulations amending regional coastal plans pertaining to aquaculture activities. The site is not within the coastal marine area, and does not involve aquaculture activities. Therefore the section 360A regulations are not relevant.
69. It is recommended that the private plan change request not be rejected on this ground.
Is the request in accordance with sound resource management?
70. The term ‘sound resource management practice’ is not defined in the RMA.
71. In the recent Environment Court decision Orakei Point Trustee v Auckland Council [2019] NZEnvC 117, the Court stated:
[13] What not in accordance with sound resource management practice means has been discussed by both the Environment Court and High Court in cases such as Malory Corporation Limited v Rodney District Council (CIV-2009-404-005572, dated 17 May 2010), Malory Corporation Limited v Rodney District Council (Malory Corporation Ltd v Rodney District Council [2010] NZRMA 1 (ENC)) and Kerikeri Falls Investments Limited v Far North District Council (KeriKeri Falls Investments Limited v Far North District Council, Decision No. A068/2009)
[14] Priestley J said in Malory Corporation Limited v Rodney District Council (CIV-2009-404-005572, dated 17 May 2010, at 95) that the words sound resource management practice should, if they are to be given any coherent meaning, be tied to the Act's purpose and principles. He agreed with the Environment Court's observation that the words should be limited to only a coarse scale merits assessment, and that a private plan change which does not accord with the Act's purposes and principles will not cross the threshold for acceptance or adoption (CIV-2009-404-005572, dated 17 May 2010, at 95)
[15] Where there is doubt as to whether the threshold has been reached, the cautious approach would suggest that the matter go through to the public and participatory process envisaged by a notified plan change (Malory Corporation Ltd v Rodney District Council [2010] NZRMA 1 (ENC), at para 22).
72. The consideration of this potential ground for rejection should involve a coarse assessment of the merits of the private plan change request - “at a threshold level” - and take into account the RMA’s purpose and principles. Should the Request be accepted or adopted, the full merits assessment will be undertaken when the Plan Change is determined. A coarse merits assessment of the Request is below.
A coarse merits assessment of the proposed Plan Change
73. The assessment of environmental effects provided by the Requestor indicates that any actual and potential adverse effects can be adequately mitigated. These conclusions are supported by qualified and experienced resource management experts who are advising the Requestor. The Requestor supplied a section 32 evaluation report in support of the private plan change request.
74. The purpose of the Request is to enable residential subdivision and development, including a small area for commercial activity, to make efficient use of a large area of FUZ land adjoining the existing township.
75. The plan change area adjoins the existing township of Wellsford and has direct access to SH1 as well as other local roads located further to the south. Opportunities for a connected network to the town centre exist and these include opportunities for pedestrian and cycle networks. The proposed Precinct includes provisions to achieve sustainable development outcomes including protecting ecological and riparian corridors, an existing stand of native trees (totara), riparian setbacks, energy/water efficient buildings, and water sensitive design.
76. The Requestor has undertaken engagement with all Mana Whenua groups with known customary interests in the Plan Change area. It is noted that there are no known identified sites of Significance or Value to Mana Whenua within the Plan Change area. Ngāti Manuhiri have prepared a Kaitiaki Report which is supportive of the proposed Plan Change.
77. The density of residential development proposed by the Request is more intensive than currently exists in Wellsford. Wellsford is exempt from having to apply the Medium Density Residential Standards. Therefore, the current zoning of predominately Residential – Single House will remain over the existing residential areas of the town.
78. The proposed Plan Change seeks a relatively small area (5.87 ha) of Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban zoning close to SH1 and surrounding the proposed Neighbourhood Centre (see Figure 3). This zone enables two storey detached and attached housing in a variety of types and sizes to provide housing choice.
79. The Wellsford North Precinct proposes to amend the minimum site size for the proposed large area (39.64 ha) of Residential – Single House zoning in the Request. The standard minimum site size for the zone in a greenfield area (with a parent site of 1 ha or more) is 480m2 with minimum average of 600m2. The precinct proposes to amend this to a minimum site size of 300m2 (with no minimum average) to make efficient use of the greenfield land, while still retaining the predominately standalone dwelling typology of Wellsford.
80. While the residential density proposed in the Request is more intensive than currently exists in Wellsford, this represents a more efficient use of greenfield land and it is not so intensive that it would become an issue of ‘sound resource management practice’. However, the matter of density in Wellsford can be further considered at the submissions and hearings stage.
81. There are two areas of the Request where it is proposed to urbanise land that is currently rural and outside the urban zoned extent of Wellsford. The first is an area to the north where around 4ha of Rural – Rural Production zoned land is proposed to be rezoned to Residential – Single House. This area contains a small area of Land Use Capability 3 or ‘prime’ land. This land is classified as being highly productive land under National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land (NPS-HPL). The second area proposed to be urbanised is around 17ha of existing Countryside Living zoned land in the southern part of the Request that is proposed to be rezoned to Residential – Large Lot.
82. Urbanisation of rural land outside of the Future Urban zone is generally not promoted under the RPS in the Unitary Plan. However, it is also not precluded from occurring and the RPS includes provisions on how to manage such expansions. In addition, while the NPS-HPL seeks to avoid urbanisation of highly productive land, it is not totally precluded and the NPS-HPL includes a sequential test to be met before urbanisation can occur. Therefore, it is not considered that the proposed urbanisation beyond the urban extent of Wellsford would breach the ‘sound resource management’ test. The issue of urbanising rural land can be further considered at the submissions and hearings stage.
83. The Plan Change area is identified on Council’s GIS mapping system as being subject to a relatively small flood plain area that follows the streams through the land. The flood plain areas are shown on Figure 5 below.
Figure 5: Flood plain areas in blue (subject site outlined in black)
84. The Requestor has prepared a Stormwater Management Plan (Appendix 8 of the Plan Change). The Stormwater Management Plan reports on the flood risk assessment carried out to identify any flooding effects associated with development of the Plan Change area and whether there is any need to provide flood mitigation measures.
85. Flood modelling has been undertaken including a preliminary analysis of the culvert on SH1. The modelling indicates that flooding is largely contained within existing water courses within existing flood extents and any increase to the existing flood effects on SH1 resulting from development within the Plan Change area will be less than minor. The council’s Healthy Water team have reviewed the Stormwater Management Plan (including the modelling) and are in general agreement with this finding. Therefore, in respect to flooding, at a coarse level, the Request is considered to be in accordance with sound resource management practice.
86. Integrating urban subdivision and development with the funding, financing and delivery of infrastructure is a fundamental element of good planning and ‘sound resource management’. It is therefore important to understand how the Plan Change request integrates with the provision of infrastructure.
87. The proposed Wellsford North Precinct provisions seek to integrate urban development with infrastructure. There are policies in the precinct that require the subdivision and development of the land is coordinated with the provision of sufficient transport, stormwater, wastewater, water supply, energy and telecommunications infrastructure. The proposed Plan Change also includes standards that act as ‘development triggers’, requiring infrastructure upgrades to be provided at the time of subdivision or development.
88. It is noted that the precinct proposes that breaches to the ‘development trigger’ standards are treated as Restricted Discretionary, Discretionary or Non-complying (depending on which standard is breached). The activity status of any non-compliance with triggers can be further considered at the submissions and hearings stage.
89. The Requestor has agreed in principle to fund and develop the necessary infrastructure to enable the residential development requested by the plan change. This would be achieved through a mix of developer agreements with infrastructure providers and provisions in the proposed precinct to require certain infrastructure to be in place at specific stages of development.
91. The proposed internal roads in the area of the Request would be local roads and therefore the responsibility of developers to provide these roads (and any related stormwater infrastructure) at the time of subdivision and development.
92. The Requestor is also in negotiations with Waka Kotahi regarding the construction of primary entry into the plan change area from SH1 and this would be funded by the developer. Initially, this intersection may consist of a new right turn bay on SH1 which would serve the first stage of development. A more significant upgrade to the intersection (Waka Kotahi have indicated a roundabout intersection) would be needed to service the full development.
93. It is Waka Kotahi’s preference that the full intersection upgrade occur at the start of the development to ensure the safe and efficient use of SH1 and to minimise ongoing disruption/temporary traffic management on SH1.
94. The proposed Wellsford North Precinct provisions include a ‘trigger’ that the SH1 intersection must be upgraded for a right hand turn before development of the land. However, there are no further triggers for when a further upgrade (e.g. roundabout – as seen as necessary by Waka Kotahi) would be required. This is a matter that could be further considered during the plan change process and it is noted that Waka Kohahi will have the ability to lodge a submission on the Plan Change to resolve this issue.
95. There is a designated route for the northern motorway that would extend it to Te Hana from the recently finished section to Warkworth. This route would bypass Wellsford and therefore the existing SH1 (Rodney Street) would not be the main route north. However, while the motorway route is designated there is no timeline for when construction of this route might occur. Therefore, any future reduction in traffic flows on SH1 cannot be considered when assessing this Plan Change.
96. Wastewater services are intended to be funded and delivered by the Requestor to service the proposed development. Watercare have plans to upgrade the current wastewater treatment plant to provide for the existing urban zoning of Wellsford. There is a signed Heads of Agreement between the Requestor and Watercare in which they agree to a cost sharing arrangement for servicing the first stage of the development of this proposed Plan Change.
97. Watercare also have longer term plans to upgrade the wastewater treatment plant to accommodate the wider urban growth of Wellsford, which would include the later stages of this proposed Plan Change. Development of the land is not enabled ahead of the upgrade because of the development standards in the precinct described below.
98. Watercare are currently in the process of upgrading the water supply for Wellsford from a surface take on the Hoteo River to a bore supply. The new water supply is being planned for the long-term urban growth of Wellsford, which includes the Future Urban zoned land subject to the Request.
99. The proposed Wellsford North Precinct provisions include a broadly worded standard (i.e. ‘trigger’) requiring that “adequate water supply and wastewater infrastructure must be provided at the time of subdivision or development”. If this is not met the activity status becomes Discretionary. Matters relating to wastewater and water infrastructure, including the activity status of any non-compliance with triggers, can be further considered at the submissions and hearings stage and Watercare will have the ability to lodge a submission on this matter.
100. Having reviewed the applicant's planning and specialist reports, undertaken a coarse scale merits assessment of the private plan change request, and taken the purpose and principles of RMA into account, it is considered that the private plan change request is in accordance with sound resource management practice for the purposes of consideration under Clause 25(4)(c), Schedule 1.
101. As quoted above, in the Orakei Point Trustee Limited decision, the Environment Court considered that where there is doubt as to whether the threshold has been reached, the cautious approach would suggest that the matter go through to the public and participatory process envisaged by a notified plan change.
102. Overall, it is recommended that the private plan change request not be rejected on this ground.
Would the request or part of the request make the policy statement or plan inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA?
103. Part 5 of the RMA sets out the role and purpose of planning documents created under the RMA, including that they must assist a local authority to give effect to the sustainable management purpose of the RMA. Regional and district plan provisions must give effect to the RPS and higher order RMA documents, plus not be inconsistent with any (other) regional plan.
104. The relevant sections in Part 5 are determined by the nature of the private plan change. The Plan Change proposes to amend district plan provisions, by way of introducing new urban and rural zoning and a new Precinct, with site specific subdivision and development provisions. The Request would also require amendments to the planning maps to identify zone changes, the new precinct, and other controls or overlays.
105. The most relevant part of the Unitary Plan in regard to this test is Chapter B2 Urban growth and form. It seeks to provide a quality compact urban form through residential intensification in appropriate locations within the Rural Urban Boundary. The Requestor has undertaken an assessment of the private plan change against the urban growth and form objectives and policies of Chapter B2 and concluded (at a course level) that the plan change can give effect to the RPS.
106. A preliminary assessment indicates the private plan change request will not make the Unitary Plan inconsistent with Part 5 of the RMA. The conclusions in the request documentation would be best evaluated via the submissions and hearing processes so that these matters can be considered in full.
107. It is recommended that the private plan change request not be rejected on this ground.
Has the plan to which the request relates been operative for less than two years?
108. The plan provisions of the Unitary Plan relevant to this request were made operative on 15 November 2016. The provisions have therefore been operative for more than two years.
109. It is recommended that the private plan change request not be rejected on this ground.
Option 3 – Decide to deal with the request as if it were an application for a resource consent
110. The council may decide to deal with the Request as if it were an application for a resource consent and the provisions of Part 6 of the RMA would then apply accordingly.
111. However, it is considered that the plan change process is the most appropriate process because the activities enabled through the request (i.e. urban subdivision and urban scale residential and business development) would be very complex to manage by way of a resource consent. In addition, the Unitary Plan anticipates that a plan change (either Council initiated or private) is the correct means to provide for the urbanisation of the land.
112. It is noted that a resource consent has been lodged for a residential subdivision and development under the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020. This application has been accepted as a referred project under the legislation and is awaiting formal lodgement. It is understood that the consent relates to a proposed first stage of subdivision and development of up to 200 dwellings.
113. Accordingly, while the COVID-19 fast track consent process may deliver a resource consent to enable some of the proposed development, it is recommended that the private plan change request that applies to the entirety of the land not be dealt with as if it were an application for a resource consent.
Option 4 - Accept the private plan change request, in whole or in part
114. Council can decide to accept the request in whole, or in part. If accepted, the plan change cannot have legal effect until it is operative. It is considered that the private plan change may be accepted as there is not a demonstrable need for any rule to have immediate legal effect (so adoption is not required).
115. The private plan change mechanism is an opportunity for a Requestor to have their proposal considered between a council’s ten-yearly District Plan review cycle. While the planning provisions that affect the land are unlikely to be altered by Plan Change 78, the site-specific subject matter of this private plan change request is not a priority matter in Plans and Places’ work programme and is not presently being considered. The private plan change process is a means by which this matter can be considered before the next plan review. This process would also allow Council to lodge a submission and participate in the process as a submitter.
116. If the private plan change is accepted the matters raised by the Requestor can be considered on their merits, during a public participatory planning process.
Conclusion: options assessment
117. The Request has been assessed against the options available and the relevant matters. These include clause 25 Schedule 1 matters, having particular regard to the applicant’s section 32 evaluation, and case law[9] that provides guidance on the statutory criteria for rejection of a private plan change request. It is recommended that the private plan change request is accepted for processing.
Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi
Climate impact statement
a) how the proposed decision will impact on greenhouse gas emissions and the approach to reduce emissions
b) what effect climate change could have over the lifetime of a proposed decision and how these effects are being taken into account.
119. The decision whether to adopt, accept, reject or deal with the private plan change request is a decision relative to those procedural options, rather than a substantive decision on the plan change request itself. The clause 25 decision is unrelated to any greenhouse gas emissions.
120. Climate impacts (e.g. increased terrestrial flooding or erosion, stress on infrastructure) can be considered in a future hearing report on the private plan change request, after any public submissions are received. At that time the potential impacts on Auckland’s overall greenhouse gas emissions may be considered (e.g. does it encourage car dependency, or enhance connections to public transit/walking/cycling or support quality compact urban form), and whether the request elevates or alleviates climate risks.
Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera
Council group impacts and views
121. Pre-lodgment meetings were held between the applicant and a number of Council departments including Plans and Places and Healthy Waters. Furthermore, Council Controlled Organisations: Auckland Transport and Watercare and have provided inputs into the clause 23 further information process or been directly consulted by the Requestor.
122. Watercare has advised that it has entered into a Heads of Agreement with the Requestor to achieve a mutually acceptable agreement which facilitates the construction of circa 200 dwellings as part of the separate application by the Requestor under the Covid19 (Fast Track) consenting legislation, with further consideration of a cost-sharing arrangement to fund infrastructure for the remaining plan change area.
123. Auckland Transport has provided feedback on the plan change proposal and the supporting transportation assessments provided. These comments informed the request for further information from the Council transportation expert. The key matters of interest for AT are the potential traffic effects on the operation of access into the plan change land and the adequacy of pedestrian and cycle facilities. AT has provided comment on the precinct provisions and the Stormwater Management Plan in the precinct as these also relate to the effectiveness of the road network.
124. AT have indicated there are no issues to prevent the Request from being accepted and publicly notified for submissions. It is noted that AT will have the ability to lodge a submission on the notified Plan Change if it wishes.
Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe
Local impacts and local board views
125. The views of local boards are important in Auckland Council’s co-governance framework. The views of the Rodney Local Board will be sought on the content of the private plan change request after the submission period closes. All formal local board feedback will be included in the hearing report and the local board will present its views to hearing commissioners, if it chooses to do so. These actions support the local board in its responsibility to identify and communicate the interests and preferences of people in its area, in relation to the content of Auckland Council plans.
126. Local board views have not been sought on the options to adopt, accept, reject or deal with the private plan change request as a resource consent application. Although council is required to consider local board views prior to making a regulatory decision, that requirement applies when the decision affects, or may affect, the responsibilities or operation of the local board or the well-being of communities within its local board area. The clause 25 decision does not affect the Rodney Local Board’s responsibilities or operation, nor the well-being of local communities.
Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori
Māori impact statement
Consequence of clause 25 options for future consultation
127. If council accepts a private plan change request, it is not required to complete pre-notification engagement with iwi authorities. If the Request is accepted and notified then iwi authorities have the opportunity to make submissions. No changes can be made to the private plan change prior to notification.
128. If council adopts a private plan change, the same consultation requirements apply as though the plan change was initiated by council. Consultation with iwi authorities is mandatory prior to notification.[10] Changes can be made to the plan change prior to notification. Iwi authorities have the opportunity to make submissions after notification.
129. None of the clause 25 options trigger any signed mana whakahono a rohe (iwi participation arrangement).
Substance of private plan change request
130. Many of the resources that can be afforded protection by a rule with immediate legal effect may be of interest to Māori (e.g. water, air or significant indigenous vegetation). The private plan change request does not include any proposed rules that should have immediate legal effect.
131. The proposed private plan change seeks the introduction of site-specific precinct provisions. The private plan change does not trigger an issue of significance as identified in the Schedule of Issues of Significance and Māori Plan 2017.[11]
Record of applicant’s consultation
132. An applicant should engage with iwi authorities in preparing a private plan change request, as a matter of best practice. It is also best practice for an applicant to document changes to the private plan change request and/or supporting technical information arising from iwi engagement.
133. The Requestor advises that it invited mana whenua to engage in December 2019. One iwi, Ngāti Manuhiri, confirmed their intertest in engaging. Ngāti Manuhiri prepared a Kaitiaki Report which concludes that there is low risk from the Request for most Te Taiao indicators. Two Te Taiao indicators (whenua/land, wai/water) are identified as being at medium risk from the Request. The kaitiaki report includes conditions and recommendations to manage these risks. Overall, Ngāti Manuhiri state that they are supportive of the proposed Plan Change.
134. The table below outlines the mana whenua groups contacted and the process that occurred.
Iwi authority |
Organisation |
Detail |
Ngati Wai |
Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Maru |
Correspondence sent on 20 July 2021 Representatives of these Iwi were met on the site on Wednesday 16 February 2022 |
Ngāti Manuhiri |
Ngāti Manuhiri Settlement Trust |
Correspondence sent on 20 July 2021 Representatives of these Iwi were met on the site on Wednesday 16 February 2022 Cultural Values Assessment provided (Appendix 15 of the request) |
Ngati Maru |
Ngātiwai Trust Board |
Correspondence sent on 20 July 2021 |
Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara |
Ngā Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara |
Correspondence sent on 20 July 2021 |
Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei |
Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Trust |
Correspondence sent on 20 July 2021 |
Te Kawerau ā Maki |
Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority |
Correspondence sent on 20 July 2021 |
Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua |
Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua |
Correspondence sent on 20 July 2021 |
Te Uri o Hau |
Te Uri o Hau Settlement Trust |
Correspondence sent on 20 July 2021 |
Ngāti Te Ata |
Ngāti Te Ata-Waiohua |
Correspondence sent on 20 July 2021 |
Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea
Financial implications
135. If the request is adopted (as a Council plan change), Council would pay all costs associated with processing it. Plans and Places department would be required to cover this unbudgeted expenditure; there would be less funding available to progress the department’s work programme.
136. If the request is accepted or, if the request is dealt with as a resource consent application, the applicant would pay all reasonable costs associated with processing it on a user-pays basis.
Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga
Risks and mitigations
137. An applicant may appeal to the Environment Court a decision to:
a) adopt the private plan change request in part only under clause 25(2)
b) accept the private plan change request in part only under clause 25(2)
c) reject the private plan change in whole or in part under clause 23(6)
d) deal with the private plan change request as if it were an application for a resource consent.[12]
138. It is recommended that the private plan change request is accepted. It is noted that the Requestor asked for the private plan change to be accepted (i.e. rather than it be adopted). The risk of a legal challenge by the Requestor utilising the clause 27 appeal rights is negligible.
139. No substantial changes can be made to the private plan change request following the clause 25 decision.
Ngā koringa ā-muri
Next steps
140. If accepted, the private plan change must be notified within four months of its acceptance.
141. When submissions close on this Plan Change council officers will seek the views and preferences of the Rodney Local Board for their inclusion in the section 42A hearing report.
142. Council will need to hold a hearing to consider any submissions, and local board views, and a decision would then be made on the private plan change request in accordance with Schedule 1 of the RMA.
Attachments
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇨ |
Proposed Plan Change and Section 32 Report |
|
b⇨ |
Clause 25 of the First Schedule of the RMA |
|
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
Author |
Ryan Bradley - Senior Policy Planner |
Authorisers |
John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy |
Planning, Environment and Parks Committee 03 August 2023 |
|
Summary of Planning, Environment and Parks Committee information memoranda, workshops and briefings (including the Forward Work Programme) - 3 August 2023
File No.: CP2023/08028
Te take mō te pūrongo
Purpose of the report
1. To tuhi ā-taipitopito / 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. As noted previously decisions on the Annual Budget may well affect the forward work programme. The work programme underpinning the long-term scope of work as a result of the flooding events will also mean that this work programme will need to be reprioritised and updated. Items raised at committee where work continues, as well as items from departmental work programmes, are being worked through and in coming iterations will be highlighted on the forward work programme as appropriate.
5. The following memoranda/information have been sent:
Date |
Subject |
26/6/2023 |
Draft Customer and Community Services Regional Capital Expenditure Work Programme for 2023/2024 |
7/7/2023 |
Information on Specified Development Projects under the Urban Development Act 2020 |
7/7/2023 |
Summary report on how groundwater and contaminants move through acquifers and connected surface water bodies in the Franklin area |
11/7/2023 |
FIFA Women’s World Cup 2023 – Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland Key Information |
11/7/2023 |
FIFA Women’s World Cup 2023 – Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland Marketing Information |
12/7/2023 |
2022/2023 Community Coordination and Facilitation Grant decisions |
20/7/2023 |
Resource Management system reform: report of the Environment Select Committee on the Natural and Built Environment Bill and the Spatial Planning Bill |
23/7/2023 |
Submission on proposed changes to national direction on renewable electricity generation and electricity transmission |
25/7/2023 |
Update on exotic Caulerpa and freshwater gold clam |
28/7/2023 |
Next steps regarding Governing Body decision and Auckland Citizens Advice Bureaux |
6. The following workshops/briefings have taken place for the committee:
Date |
Subject |
13/6/2023 |
Waste Political Advisory Group - Agenda |
13/6/2023 |
Waste Political Advisory Group – Minutes |
13/6/2023 |
Waste Political Advisory Group – Minutes Attachments |
27/6/2023 |
Open Space, Sport and Recreation Joint Political Working Group - Agenda |
27/6/2023 |
Open Space, Sport and Recreation Joint Political Working Group – Minutes |
27/6/2023 |
Open Space, Sport and Recreation Joint Political Working Group – Minutes Attachments |
17/7/2023 |
Open Space, Sport and Recreation Joint Political Working Group - Agenda |
17/7/2023 |
Open Space, Sport and Recreation Joint Political Working Group – Minutes |
17/7/2023 |
Open Space, Sport and Recreation Joint Political Working Group – Minutes Attachments |
17/7/2023 |
National Policy Statement – Freshwater Management Political Advisory Group - Agenda |
17/7/2023 |
National Policy Statement – Freshwater Management Political Advisory Group – Minutes |
17/7/2023 |
National Policy Statement – Freshwater Management Political Advisory Group – Minutes Attachments |
26/7/2023 |
Implementation of freshwater farm plan regulations within the Auckland Region Workshop |
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 “Governing Body” from the drop-down tab and click “View”;
o under ‘Attachments’, select either the HTML or PDF version of the document entitled ‘Extra Attachments’.
8. Note that, unlike an agenda report, staff will not be present to answer questions about the items referred to in this summary. Governing Body members should direct any questions to the authors.
Recommendation/s That the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee: a) tuhi ā-taipitopito / note the progress on the forward work programme appended as Attachment A of the agenda report b) whiwhi / receive the Summary of the Planning, Environment and Parks Committee information memoranda, workshops and briefings – 3 August 2023.
|
Attachments
No. |
Title |
Page |
a⇨ |
Planning, Environment and Parks Committee - Foward Work Programme |
|
b⇨ |
Memorandum - Draft Customer and Community Services Regional Capital Expenditure Work Programme for 2023/2024, 26 June 2023 (Under Separate Cover) |
|
c⇨ |
Memorandum - Information on Specified Development Projects under the Urban Development Act 2020, 7 July 2023 (Under Separate Cover) |
|
d⇨ |
Memorandum - Summary report on how groundwater and contaminants move through acquifers and connected surface water bodies in the Franklin area (Under Separate Cover) |
|
e⇨ |
Memorandum: Resource Management system reform: report of the Environment Select Committee on the Natural and Built Environment Bill and the Spatial Planning Bill (Under Separate Cover) |
|
f⇨ |
FIFA Women’s World Cup 2023 – Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland Key Information, 11 July 2023 (Under Separate Cover) |
|
g⇨ |
FIFA Women’s World Cup 2023 – Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland Marketing Information, 11 July 2023 (Under Separate Cover) |
|
h⇨ |
Memorandum 2022/2023 Community Coordination and Facilitation Grant decisions, 12 July 2023 (Under Separate Cover) |
|
i⇨ |
Memorandum - Resource Management system reform: report of the Environment Select Committee on the Natural and Built Environment Bill and the Spatial Planning Bill, 20 July 2023 (Under Separate Cover) |
|
j⇨ |
Memorandum - Submission on proposed changes to national direction on renewable electricity generation and electricity transmission, 23 July 2023 (Under Separate Cover) |
|
k⇨ |
Memorandum - Update on exotic Caulerpa and freshwater gold clam, 25 July 2023 (Under Separate Cover) |
|
l⇨ |
Memorandum - Next steps regarding Governing Body decision and Auckland Citizens Advice Bureaux, 28 July 2023 (Under Separate Cover) |
|
m⇨ |
Waste Political Advisory Group - Agenda, 13 June 2023 (Under Separate Cover) |
|
n⇨ |
Waste Political Advisory Group - Minutes, 13 June 2023 (Under Separate Cover) |
|
o⇨ |
Waste Political Advisory Group - Minutes Attachments, 13 June 2023 (Under Separate Cover) |
|
p⇨ |
Open Space, Sport and Recreation Joint Political Working Group - Agenda, 27 June 2023 (Under Separate Cover) |
|
q⇨ |
Open Space, Sport and Recreation Joint Political Working Group – Minutes, 27 June 2023 (Under Separate Cover) |
|
r⇨ |
Open Space, Sport and Recreation Joint Political Working Group – Minutes attachments, 27 June 2023 (Under Separate Cover) |
|
s⇨ |
Open Space, Sport and Recreation Joint Political Working Group - Agenda, 17 July 2023 (Under Separate Cover) |
|
t⇨ |
Open Space, Sport and Recreation Joint Political Working Group – Minutes, 17 July 2023 (Under Separate Cover) |
|
u⇨ |
Open Space, Sport and Recreation Joint Political Working Group – Minutes Attachments, 17 July 2023 |
|
v⇨ |
National Policy Statement – Freshwater Management Political Advisory Group - Agenda, 17 July 2023 (Under Separate Cover) |
|
w⇨ |
National Policy Statement – Freshwater Management Political Advisory Group – Minutes, 17 July 2023 (Under Separate Cover) |
|
x⇨ |
National Policy Statement – Freshwater Management Political Advisory Group – Minutes Attachments, 17 July 2023 (Under Separate Cover) |
|
y⇨ |
Implementation of freshwater farm plan regulations within the Auckland Region Workshop, 26 July 2023 (Under Separate Cover) |
|
Ngā kaihaina
Signatories
Author |
Sandra Gordon - Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere Matua / Senior Governance Advisor |
Authoriser |
Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy |
Planning, Environment and Parks Committee 03 August 2023 |
|
a) whakaae / agree to exclude the public from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting.
The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution follows.
This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 or section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public, as follows:
C1 CONFIDENTIAL: Auckland Unitary Plan - Environment Court appeal - Riverhead Landowner Group (Covering report)
Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter |
Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable) |
Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution |
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. |
s7(2)(g) - The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege. In particular, the report contains legaln and planning advice concerning an appeal before the Environment Court. |
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. |
[1] PACE Committee report last year included revenue from investment returns. This is not included in this report as it is not a fair representation of the Foundation’s growth.
[2] Clause 25, Schedule 1, Resource Management Act 1991.
[3] Objectives B2.2.1(1)-(5), Chapter B2 Urban Growth and Form of the Regional Policy Statement.
[4] Objective B2.6.1(1), Chapter B2 Urban Growth and form of the Regional Policy Statement.
[5] Development Strategy: Rural Areas https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/plans-projects-policies-reports-bylaws/our-plans-strategies/auckland-plan/development-strategy/Pages/rural-auckland.aspx.
[6] Clause 21, Schedule 1, Resource Management Act 1991.
[7] Part 1 Schedule 1 applies, as modified by clause 29 Part 2 Schedule 1, Resource Management Act 1991.
[8] Part 2 Schedule 1 Resource Management Act 1991.
[9] Malory Corporation Limited v Rodney District Council [2010] NZRMA 392 (HC)
[10] Clauses 3, 4A Schedule 1, Resource Management Act 1991.
[11] Schedule of Issues of Significance and Māori Plan 2017, Independent Māori Statutory Board
[12] Clause 27, Schedule 1 Resource Management Act 1991.