auckland development committee agenda - may 15

8/9/2019 Auckland Development Committee Agenda - may 15

1/64

Note: The reports contained within this agenda are for consideration and should not be construed as Council policyunless and until adopted. Should Members require further information relating to any reports, please contactthe relevant manager, Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson.

I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Auckland Development Committee will be heldon:

Date:Time:Meeting Room:Venue:

Thursday, 14 May 2015 9.30am Reception LoungeAuckland Town Hall301-305 Queen StreetAuckland

Auckland Development Committee

OPEN AGENDA

MEMBERSHIP

Chairperson Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse Deputy Chairperson Cr Chris Darby Members Cr Anae Arthur Anae Cr Calum Penrose

Cr Cameron Brewer Cr Dick Quax

Mayor Len Brown, JP Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM Cr Dr Cathy Casey IMSB Member David Taipari Cr Bill Cashmore Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE Cr Ross Clow Cr Wayne Walker Cr Linda Cooper, JP Cr John Watson Cr Alf Filipaina Cr Penny Webster Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO Cr George Wood, CNZM Cr Denise KrumCr Mike LeeIMSB Member Liane Ngamane

(Quorum 11 members)

Rita Bento-AllpressDemocracy Advisor

8 May 2015

Contact Telephone: 09 890 8149Email: [email protected]: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz


2/64

TERMS OF REFERENCE

Responsibilities

This committee will lead the implementation of the Auckland Plan, including the integration ofeconomic, social, environmental and cultural objectives for Auckland for the next 30 years. It willguide the physical development and growth of Auckland through a focus on land use planning,housing and the appropriate provision of infrastructure and strategic projects associated with theseactivities. Key responsibilities include:

Unitary Plan

Plan changes to operative plans

Designation of Special Housing Areas

Housing policy and projects including Papakainga housing

Spatial Plans including Area Plans

City centre development (incl reporting of CBD advisory board) and city transformation projects

Tamaki regeneration projects

Built Heritage

Urban design

Powers

(i) All powers necessary to perform the committee’s responsibilities.

Except:

(a) powers that the Governing Body cannot delegate or has retained to itself (seeGoverning Body responsibilities)

(b) where the committee’s responsibility is explicitly limited to making a recommendationonly

(ii) Approval of a submission to an external body

(iii) Powers belonging to another committee, where it is necessary to make a decision prior to thenext meeting of that other committee.

(iv) Power to establish subcommittees.


3/64

EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC – WHO NEEDS TO LEAVE THE MEETING

Members of the public

All members of the public must leave the meeting when the public are excluded unless a resolutionis passed permitting a person to remain because their knowledge will assist the meeting.

Those who are not members of the public

General principles

Access to confidential information is managed on a “need to know” basis where access to theinformation is required in order for a person to perform their role.

Those who are not members of the meeting (see list below) must leave unless it is necessary forthem to remain and hear the debate in order to perform their role.

Those who need to be present for one confidential item can remain only for that item and mustleave the room for any other confidential items.

In any case of doubt, the ruling of the chairperson is final.

Members of the meeting

The members of the meeting remain (all Governing Body members if the meeting is a GoverningBody meeting; all members of the committee if the meeting is a committee meeting).

However, standing orders require that a councillor who has a pecuniary conflict of interest leavethe room.

All councillors have the right to attend any meeting of a committee and councillors who are notmembers of a committee may remain, subject to any limitations in standing orders.

Staff

All staff supporting the meeting (administrative, senior management) remain. Only staff who need to because of their role may remain.

Local Board members

Local Board members who need to hear the matter being discussed in order to perform their rolemay remain. This will usually be if the matter affects, or is relevant to, a particular Local Boardarea.

IMSB

Members of the IMSB who are appointed members of the meeting remain. Other IMSB members and IMSB staff remain if this is necessary in order for them to perform

their role.

CCOs

Representatives of a CCO can remain only if required to for discussion of a matter relevant tothe CCO.


4/64


5/64


14 May 2015

Page 5

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 Apologies 7

2 Declaration of Interest 7

3 Confirmation of Minutes 7

4 Petitions 7

5 Public Input 7

5.1 Public Input - Karen Wilson, on behalf of Te Akitai Waiohua - Update

on the Puhinui Structure Plan 7

6 Local Board Input 8

7 Extraordinary Business 8

8 Notices of Motion 8

9 Private Plan Change 315 (1370-1378 Dominion Road) to be made

Operative 9

10 Private Plan Change 209 (178 Balmoral Road and 16 Rocklands Avenue,

Balmoral) to be made operative 15

11 Update on the Puhinui Structure Plan 25

12 Auckland 30 Year Infrastructure Strategy 33

13 Review of the Resource Consent Processes for development of sites at

40 and 42 Paturoa Road, Titirangi 39

14 Port Future Study: Design Proposals 43

15 Reports Pending Status Update 57

16 Summary of information memos and briefings - 14 May 2015 61

17 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

18 Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public 63

C1 Port Future Study: Appointment of Independent Chair 63

C2 Special Housing Areas: Deferred Request

C3 Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan submissions - Zoning Principles 64

C4 Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan - Interim Guidance from the IndependentHearings Panel 64

C5 Confidential Reports Pending Status Update 64


6/64


7/64


14 May 2015

Page 7

1 Apologies

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

2 Declaration of Interest

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

3 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 16 April 2015,including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

4 Petitions

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

5 Public Input

Standing Order 3.21 provides for Public Input. Applications to speak must be made to theCommittee Secretary, in writing, no later than two (2) working days prior to the meetingand must include the subject matter. The meeting Chairperson has the discretion todecline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders. Amaximum of thirty (30) minutes is allocated to the period for public input with five (5) minutes speaking time for each speaker.

5.1 Public Input - Karen Wilson, on behalf of Te Akitai Waiohua - Update on thePuhinui Structure Plan

Purpose

1. To provide an opportunity for Karen Wilson to speak to the Auckland DevelopmentCommittee, on behalf of Te Akitai Waiohua, regarding the Update on the PuhinuiStructure Plan.

Executive Summary

2. The Chair of the Auckland Development Committee has approved the request fromKaren Wilson to speak in public input, on behalf of Te Akitai Waiohua, regarding theUpdate on the Puhinui Structure Plan.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) thank Karen Wilson, speaking on behalf of Te Akitai Waiohua, for her public inputregarding the Update on the Puhinui Structure Plan.


8/64


14 May 2015

Page 8

6 Local Board Input

Standing Order 3.22 provides for Local Board Input. The Chairperson (or nominee of thatChairperson) is entitled to speak for up to five (5) minutes during this time. TheChairperson of the Local Board (or nominee of that Chairperson) shall wherever practical,give two (2) days notice of their wish to speak. The meeting Chairperson has the

discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of StandingOrders.

This right is in addition to the right under Standing Order 3.9.14 to speak to matters on theagenda.

7 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

amended) states:

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

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

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

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

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

8 Notices of Motion

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


9/64

I t e m 9


14 May 2015

Private Plan Change 315 (1370-1378 Dominion Road) to be made Operative Page 9

Private Plan Change 315 (1370-1378 Dominion Road) to be madeOperative

File No.: CP2015/06055

Purpose1. To make Private Plan Change 315 (PC315) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Isthmus

Section) 1999 (the District Plan) operative.

Executive Summary2. PC315 is a privately initiated plan change by the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA)

that seeks to rezone the land at 1370-1378 Dominion Road, Mt Roskill from a mix of SpecialPurpose 3 (transport corridor) and Residential 6b (medium intensity) zones, to Residential6b in its entirety. PC315 was publicly notified on 26 June 2013 with two submissionsreceived.

3. On 17 February 2015, a Hearing Panel of Independent Commissioners appointed todetermine the plan change released its decision to approve the plan change. A copy of theapproved plan change is provided in Attachment A. No appeals were received on thatdecision.

4. The Council is now required to amend the District Plan to give effect to the Hearing Panel’sdecision and make PC315 operative.

Recommendation/sThat the Auckland Development Committee:

a) approve Private Plan Change 315 to the Auckland Council District Plan (IsthmusSection) 1999 in accordance with Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the ResourceManagement Act 1991.

b) authorise the Manager, Planning – Central and Islands to complete the necessarystatutory processes required to make Plan Change 315 to the Auckland CouncilDistrict Plan (Isthmus Section) 1999 operative in accordance with Clause 20 of theFirst Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Comments5. PC315 relates to a request by NZTA for a private plan change to the District Plan. The

purpose of the plan change is to change the zoning of an area of surplus motorway landfronting 1370-1378 Dominion Road, Mt Roskill which is no longer required for transportpurposes. The land is to be rezoned from a mix of Special Purpose 3 and Residential 6bzones, to Residential 6b in its entirety (Refer Attachment A).

6. The plan change requires a change to Sheet 1 of Planning Map G06 of the District Plan. Noother amendments or additions to the District Plan are required.

7. The plan change was publicly notified on 26 June 2013 with two submissions receivedraising matters on water infrastructure and cultural values. Council’s noise expert alsoidentified a potential concern regarding noise and reverse sensitivity for future residentialuses adjacent to State Highway 20. In response, NZTA undertook to place an encumbranceon the affected properties at 1370-1376 Dominion Road at the time of disposal requiring the

construction of an acoustic fence and the use of appropriate construction techniques andmechanical ventilation.


10/64

Item 9


14 May 2015


8. A Hearing Panel of Independent Commissioners was appointed to determine the planchange. At the request of NZTA, the panel agreed a hearing was not required as neither ofthe submitters had requested to be heard and all outstanding issues had been resolved. On17 February 2015, the panel released its decision to approve the plan change. No appealswere received on that decision.

9. The Council is now required to amend the District Plan giving effect to the Hearing Panel’s

decision and make PC315 operative.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

10. This report addresses a procedural matter in making PC315 operative. This stage does notrequire input from the Puketapapa Local Board. Notwithstanding, the Puketapapa LocalBoard will be notified once the plan change becomes operative.

Māori impact statement

11. All relevant iwi were notified of the Plan Change including:

Huakina Development Trust

Ki Tamaki Tribal Trust

Nga Puhi

Ngaati Te Ata (Awaroa Environment)

Ngati Maru Runanga

Nagti Paoa Trust

Ngati Rehua-Ngatiwai Ki Aotea Trust Board Ngati Wai Trust

Ngati Whatua O Orakei Maori Trust Board

Te Kawerau A Maki Trust

Te Uri o Hau



12. Ngati Whatua o Orakei was a submitter to PC315 and noted the proximity of the sites toPuketapapa/ Mt Roskill, a significant maunga for mana whenua and which has a history ofMaori use and occupation. In response to the submission, NZTA engaged Rod Clough toprepare an archaeological assessment which indicated little likelihood of archaeologicalevidence being present. NZTA also engaged Ngati Whatua o Orakei to provide a culturalvalues assessment which recommended consideration of reduced height controls tomaintain views to the maunga. The Hearing Panel determined the matters raised in thesubmission had been satisfactorily addressed and noted the existing District Plan volcanicviewshaft provisions, which seek to protect views to the volcanic cone, would apply to thesubject sites. No appeal was received from Ngati Whatua o Orakei and they will be advisedwhen PC315 is made operative. No other iwi group has expressed an interest in PC315.


11/64

I t e m 9


14 May 2015


Implementation13. Pursuant to Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the RMA, the Auckland Development

Committee can now approve PC315 and once approved, notify the plan change as operativeunder Clause 20 of the First Schedule of the RMA.

14. As this is a private plan change, any administrative costs associated in making PC315

operative and consequential updating of the District Plan will be met by the plan changerequester, NZTA.

Attachments

No. Title Page

A Decision on Private Plan Change 315 13

Signatories

Authors Kate McKessar - Principal Planner

Authorisers Penny Pirrit - GM - Plans & Places

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer


12/64


13/64

A t t a c h m e n t A

I t e m 9


14 May 2015



14/64


15/64

I t e m 1

0


14 May 2015

Private Plan Change 209 (178 Balmoral Road and 16 Rocklands Avenue, Balmoral) to be madeoperative

Page 15

Private Plan Change 209 (178 Balmoral Road and 16 Rocklands Avenue,Balmoral) to be made operative

File No.: CP2015/07407

Purpose1. To make Private Plan Change 209 (PC209) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Isthmus

Section 1999) (The District Plan) operative.

Executive Summary2. PC209 is a privately initiated plan change by Eldamos Investments Limited and The

Warehouse Limited that seeks to rezone land at 16 Rocklands Avenue and part of 178Balmoral Road, Balmoral from Residential 6a and Residential 6b to Business 2 under theDistrict Plan.

3. On 24 February 2015, a Hearing Panel of Independent Commissioner appointed to

determine the plan change released their decision to approve the plan change, withamendments. A copy of PC 209 as amended by the Independent Commissioners isincluded as Attachment A.

4. No appeals were received on this decision.

5. The Council is now required to amend the District Plan and make the plan change operative.


a) approve Private Plan Change 209 in the Auckland Council District Plan (IsthmusSection 1999), in accordance with Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the ResourceManagement Act 1991.

b) authorise the Manager, Planning – Central and Islands to complete the necessarystatutory processes required to make Private Plan Change 209 to the AucklandCouncil District Plan (Isthmus Section 1999) operative in accordance with Clause 20of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Comments6. PC209 is a private plan change requested by Eldamos Investments Limited and TheWarehouse Limited. The purpose of the plan change is to rezone 16 Rocklands Avenue andpart of 178 Balmoral Road, Balmoral from Residential 6a and Residential 6b to Business 2zone.

7. Council’s consultant planner recommended that the plan change be approved in part (as itrelates to 178 Balmoral Road) and declined in part (as it relates to 16 Rocklands Avenue).

8. During the hearing, the independent commissioners requested the Council’s consultantplanner and the applicant’s consultant planner to draft additional controls on 16 Rocklands Avenue. The purpose of these controls is to restrict uses and future developments that canoccur on the site, should the commissioners decide to approve the plan change in its

entirety. While the planners from both sides agreed on the wording of the additional controlsin their joint statement, Council’s consultant planner retained her opposition to the rezoningof 16 Rocklands Avenue.


16/64

Item 10


14 May 2015


Page 16

9. On 24 February 2015, the Hearing Panel released their decision to approve PC209, subjectto the imposition of additional controls that restrict the activities and future developments thatcan occur on 16 Rocklands Avenue.

10. This decision requires amendment to: Sheet 1 and 2 of Planning Map E07; Appendix A tothe Planning Maps, and Appendix B – Additional Limitations controls and diagrams(Planning Maps) of the District Plan.

11. No appeals were received on the decision.

12. The Council is now required to amend the District Plan, giving effect to the Hearing Panel’sdecision and make PC209 operative.

Consideration


13. This report addresses a procedural matter in making PC209 operative. This stage does notrequire input from the Albert-Eden Local Board. Notwithstanding, the Local Board will benotified once the plan change becomes operative.


14. All relevant iwi were notified of the Plan Change including:

Huakina Development Trust

Ki Tamaki Tribal Trust

Nga Puhi

Ngaati Te Ata (Awaroa Environment) Ngati Maru Runanga

Nagti Paoa Trust

Ngati Rehua-Ngatiwai Ki Aotea Trust Board

Ngati Wai Trust



Te Uri o Hau



15. No submissions were received from any iwi groups.

Implementation16. Pursuant to Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA),

the Auckland Development Committee can now approve PC209 and once approved, notify

the plan change as operative under Clause 20 of the First Schedule of the RMA.


17/64


18/64


19/64


I t e m 1

0


14 May 2015


Page 19


20/64

AttachmentA

Item 10


14 May 2015


Page 20


21/64


I t e m 1

0


14 May 2015


Page 21


22/64

AttachmentA

Item 10


14 May 2015


Page 22


23/64


I t e m 1

0


14 May 2015


Page 23


24/64


25/64

I t e m 1

1


14 May 2015

Update on the Puhinui Structure Plan Page 25

Update on the Puhinui Structure Plan

File No.: CP2015/05883

Purpose1. To receive an update on the Puhinui structure plan.

2. To note the need to urgently address planning for major capital investments to upgradeState Highway 20 (Puhinui Road), which is a key part of the strategic roading network in thePuhinui area and a strategic route to Auckland International Airport.

3. To confirm that the council will present an integrated response to address matters raised insubmissions to the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan regarding the Rural Urban Boundaryand land use provisions in the Puhinui area to the Proposed Auckland Unitary PlanIndependent Hearings Panel.

Executive Summary

4. The Puhinui structure plan area comprises approximately 1100 hectares of land located inclose proximity to the Auckland International Airport to the north-west, between the ManukauHarbour in the west and the South Western Motorway in the east (refer Attachment A).

5. The area currently lies outside the Metropolitan Urban Limits (MUL) identified in theoperative Auckland Regional Policy Statement (ARPS), and the proposed Rural UrbanBoundary (RUB) identified in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP). There aresubmissions to the PAUP seeking an extension of the RUB to include some or all of thePuhinui structure plan area. Submissions also seek a Future Urban Zone (FUZ) or “live”urban zones to parts of the Puhinui structure plan area.

6. Part of the area is also subject to a notified private plan change request to the operative Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) from the Southern Gateway Consortium(SGC) to rezone 150 hectares of land from rural zoning to business zoning. Council staffhave requested further information from SGC on cultural, ecology and stormwater mattersarising from the plan change. A hearing date for the plan change has not yet been setdown.

7. Since reporting to this Committee in October 2014 (refer to Attachment B for resolutionsfrom this meeting), Council staff have been working closely with Auckland Transport (AT) toprogress transport modelling to inform the planning for the strategic and local roadingnetwork, in order to support staged future development in the Puhinui area.

8. Auckland International Airport Ltd (AIAL) and New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) haveparticipated in discussions to advance this work. The existing limitations of the strategic

roading capacity, challenges to provide additional connections to the South WesternMotorway system, and the timing of NZTA’s business case investigation for capital worksimprovements to Puhinui Road remain a concern.

9. The Puhinui structure plan area has significant cultural, historic heritage and landscapevalues. One of the core components of the Puhinui structure plan work is the interpretationand integration of these values into plan provisions to manage future development. Councilstaff have worked in partnership with Te Atikai Waiohua to progress this work stream.

10. Further consultation with Mana Whenua and stakeholders is planned for June 2015 to begininitial discussions on the draft Puhinui structure plan provisions on a without prejudice, andwithout commitment basis prior to completing the work for the PAUP hearing process.


26/64

Item 11


14 May 2015



a) endorse the following principles and approach to advance planning for futuredevelopment in the Puhinui structure plan area:

i) work with New Zealand Transport Agency to urgently address planning formajor capital investments to upgrade State Highway 20 (Puhinui Road) whichis a key part of the strategic roading network in the Puhinui area and a strategicroute to Auckland International Airport.

ii) continue to work in partnership with Te Akitai Waihoua to complete the PuhinuiStructure Plan provisions.

iii) undertake further consultation with Mana Whenua and stakeholders in June2015 to commence discussions on the draft Puhinui structure plan provisionson a without prejudice and without commitment basis prior to completing thework for the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan hearing process.

iv) present an integrated response to address matters raised in submissions to theProposed Auckland Unitary Plan regarding the Rural Urban Boundary and landuse provisions in the Puhinui area to the Proposed Auckland Unitary PlanIndependent Hearings Panel.

Comments

Background

11. The committee resolved in February 2014 to approve the development of the Puhinuistructure plan to guide the council’s position on the future land use and development of the

wider Puhinui area in response to a private plan change initiated by the Southern GatewayConsortium. This change proposes rezoning approximately 150 hectares of land from ruralto business within the structure plan area.

12. The committee also directed that any decision to initiate a change to the MUL in response tothe private plan change request should not occur until the Puhinui structure plan wascompleted.

13. Progress on the Puhinui structure plan was reported back to the committee on 16 October2014, where a number of resolutions were adopted, including the resolution that anyproposal to shift the RUB boundary to include parts of the Puhinui structure plan area beconsidered through the PAUP hearings process.

14. This approach will enable the planning provisions for the Puhinui structure plan, and thesubmissions to the PAUP on Puhinui to be considered and heard together by the AucklandUnitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel.

Transport modelling

15. In partnership with Auckland Transport, transport modelling is underway to determine whichsections of the State Highways and regional road networks will need to be improved to caterfor the future development of the Puhinui structure plan area. AIAL, NZTA and the SouthernGateway Consortium have been involved in discussions to advance the modelling work.

16. Initial modelling work focussed on agreeing modelling parameters, including the refinementof the extent of the possible development area (i.e. development area net of constraints,local roads, esplanade reserves and with application of airport height restrictions) to arrive ata more robust and feasible trip generation to test the network capacity.


27/64

I t e m 1

1


14 May 2015


17. Possible transport links to be investigated as part of the modelling include:

a new road link connecting McLaughlins Road with Kiwi Tamaki Road

a new road bridge over State Highway 20, connecting to Noel Burnside Road.

18. There are physical constraints to the feasibility of these new links which will require furtherinvestigation, and has reinforced the need to model staged development of the Puhinui

structure plan area.

19. Auckland Transport has advised that NZTA will need to complete a strategic case identifyingoptions to improve Puhinui Road, in order for the modelling to be completed. However, workto investigate the strategic long term future of State Highway 20 (Puhinui Road) is currentlynot in NZTA’s work programme or a funding priority.

20. In the interim, Auckland Transport are modelling roading solutions to support the first stageof development of the Puhinui structure plan area.

21. The results from the modelling will inform the development of triggers for the implementationof improvements and/or upgrades to the roading network needed to support the staging ofthe future development within the structure plan area. An example of this approach is the

servicing and development sequencing provisions of the operative Drury South Plan Changeto the Auckland Council District Plan (Papakura and Franklin sections).

Consultation

22. Council staff intend to meet with Mana Whenua and stakeholders in June 2015 to begindiscussions on the draft Puhinui structure plan provisions on a without prejudice and withoutcommitment basis prior to completing the work for the PAUP hearing process. This processprovides opportunity for these parties to provide feedback on council’s initial response tomatters raised in submissions to the PAUP.

23. It is envisaged, that the planning provisions will show new urban zones from the PAUP forthose parts of the structure plan area that may be urbanised, and include special provisions

to recognise, maintain and where possible, enhance cultural and natural landscape values,and controls around servicing and sequencing of development.

24. Council staff have sent a letter to the submitters to the private plan change by the SGC andthe key stakeholders within the Puhinui structure plan area, updating them on the planchange and structure plan process.

Consideration


25. The Puhinui structure plan area is within the boundaries of the Otara-Papatoetoe and theMangere-Otahuhu Local Boards. To date, council staff have informed both local boards on

progress on the structure plan work, and intend meeting with the Chairs of both these twolocal boards to provide them an update on the matters outlined in this report. The LocalBoards will be invited to provide feedback on the draft structure plan provisions after themeeting with Mana Whenua and stakeholders in June 2015.


26. The rohe of Puhinui is a place of deep cultural and spiritual significance to Mana Whenuaand in particular to Te Akitai Waiohua. The policy framework of the PAUP seeks to enableMana Whenua to identify, articulate and integrate their values in the resource managementprocesses affecting ancestral lands.

27. A cultural heritage assessment for the Puhinui peninsula has been prepared by Te Akitai

Waiohua, which identifies a series of key sites of significance that connect the people of Te Akitai Waiohua to the Puhinui peninsula.


28/64

Item 11


14 May 2015


28. Council staff have worked with Te Akitai Waiohua to better recognise and provide forPuhinui’s unique identity and cultural landscape values within the draft structure planprovisions for the PAUP. Council staff will continue to work with Te Akitai Waiohua toachieve the best outcomes.

Implementation

29. Adopting the planning provisions for the Puhinui structure plan will be by way of the PAUPhearings process. Significant investment in new and upgrades to existing infrastructure,especially the transport network will be required for future development of the structure planarea to occur.

30. An infrastructure funding agreement will be required to ensure that development is co-ordinated with the provision of infrastructure in progressive stages. The agreement will needto be developed in collaboration with key stakeholders and land owners to determine a fairand equitable contribution for the upgrading of infrastructure, and investment in newinfrastructure.

AttachmentsNo. Title Page

A Map of Puhinui Structure Plan Area 29

B Minutes from the Auckland Development Committee 16 October 2014 31

Signatories

Authors David Wong - Principal Planner




29/64


I t e m 1

1


14 May 2015



30/64


31/64

A t t a c h m e n t B

I t e m 1

1


14 May 2015



32/64


33/64

I t e m 1

2


14 May 2015

Auckland 30 Year Infrastructure Strategy Page 33

Auckland 30 Year Infrastructure Strategy

File No.: CP2015/08056

Purpose1. To receive an outline of the feedback on the Draft Auckland 30 Year Infrastructure Strategy

(the ‘strategy’) as part of consultation on the Long-term Plan (LTP) 2015-25, including thesubsequent changes that are recommended to the strategy.

2. To recommend the strategy to the Governing Body for approval as part of the Long-termPlan 2015-2025.

Executive Summary3. The strategy forms part of the LTP, setting out how the council intends to manage its

infrastructure assets, what significant decisions it expects to make about infrastructure, and

outlines a 30 year summary of infrastructure investment.4. Councils are required to address water supply, wastewater, stormwater drainage, flood

protection and control works, and road and footpath infrastructure assets in their strategies. Auckland Council has also included open space and community facilities to recognise theirimportant roles. While privately owned infrastructure is not covered in the strategy, thesignalling of council’s long-term intentions does provide direction for other infrastructureproviders and the wider community.

5. The strategy illustrates the importance of infrastructure as a foundation of society and itspotential role in transforming Auckland as it grows, to help reach the Auckland Plan vision ofbeing the world’s most liveable city. The strategy highlights the significant pressures oninfrastructure demand in Auckland over the next three decades, council’s funding constraints

and a package of coordinated mechanisms that the council will deploy in response.6. Proposed changes to the strategy as a result of feedback from the LTP 2015-25 consultation

introduce an additional mechanism to recognise the application of sustainability andresilience principles to infrastructure planning, delivery and operations, and strengtheningthe framework around future infrastructure needs in greenfield areas.


a) recommend the Auckland 30 Year Infrastructure Strategy, with changes incorporatedas proposed in this report, to the Governing Body for approval as part of the Long-

term Plan 2015-2025.

Comments7. The completion of an infrastructure strategy as part of the LTP is a new requirement

introduced by the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Act 2014. Councils are requiredto identify the significant infrastructure issues over the next 30 years, the significantdecisions it expects to make to respond to those issues, and the principal options for thedecisions.

8. Water supply, wastewater, stormwater drainage, flood protection and control works, and

road and footpath infrastructure assets are required to be included in the strategy. Councilshave the discretion to include other infrastructure groups and Auckland Council has alsoincorporated public transport, community facilities and public open space assets within itsstrategy.


34/64

Item 12


14 May 2015


9. In developing the strategy council took into account the matters outlined in section 101B(3)of the Local Government Act 2002. These are the need to:

i) renew or replace existing assets

ii) respond to growth or decline in the demand for services reliant on those assets

iii) allow for planned increases or decreases in levels of service provided through those

assets

iv) maintain or improve public health and environmental outcomes or mitigate adverseeffects on them

v) provide for the resilience of infrastructure assets by identifying and managing risksrelating to natural hazards and by making appropriate financial provision for thoserisks.

10. The draft strategy identified the significant pressures on infrastructure led by the demandfrom Auckland’s future growth, demographic change, service level expectations,sustainability, resilience and the condition of existing assets.

11. There is a gap between the demand for infrastructure and the funding sources currently

available to the council. The draft strategy set out council’s approach to planning, deliveringand managing infrastructure, ensuring investment in projects that have the potential to betransformative and which allow for the significant trade-offs between costs, risk and servicelevels to be considered and safely managed.

12. In response to the infrastructure demands and funding constraints that Auckland faces thedraft strategy provided a package of seven mechanisms which comprised:

i) The Auckland Plan Development Strategy Implementation and Spatial Prioritisation

ii) Management of the demand for infrastructure

iii) Smart investment / transformative infrastructure investment

iv) Strategic long-term network and systems planningv) Efficient and innovative asset management

vi) New funding and delivery mechanisms

vii) Monitoring programme for growth.

13. The strategy also lists the significant decisions council expects to make in the next 30 years.

Feedback on Draft Infrastructure Strategy14. Material to be incorporated into the council’s draft strategy was presented to the Auckland

Development Committee at its December 2014 meeting.

15. The strategy was included as section 1.2 within the Draft LTP 2015-2025 and elements ofthe strategy were also incorporated in the LTP consultation document.

16. There were relatively few submission points directly on the draft strategy received as part ofthe consultation on the Draft LTP 2015-25. However, there was a high level of feedback oninfrastructure generally - in total, over 939 feedback points were received in relation tocouncil’s proposed infrastructure investments. This included feedback on the lack ofinfrastructure in areas of growth and the issue of timing between new development beingbuilt and infrastructure being completed. Lack of transport infrastructure (both publictransport and roading) across Auckland was a key matter raised in submissions.

17. Investment in infrastructure was supported with feedback that investment is required torenew ageing infrastructure, improve services and provide for growth. The role of

infrastructure in achieving improved environmental outcomes was also recognised, withsupport by mana whenua and other submitters for increased investment in stormwaterassets. Submissions highlighted the inherent tensions between the investment levels in


35/64

I t e m 1

2


14 May 2015


different types of infrastructure over the same timeframe, with investment in transport,stormwater, water and wastewater most strongly supported.

18. Feedback on the strategy itself endorsed the proposed approach as a suitable foundation fordriving infrastructure investment in Auckland. The issues identified in the strategy werenoted as also relevant for services delivered by other organisations, including in thetelecommunications and health sectors. This is in line with the intention to use the strategy in

council’s engagement with other infrastructure providers about Auckland’s futureinfrastructure needs.

19. The New Zealand Council for Infrastructure Development called for clearer pathways withinthe strategy that demonstrate how Auckland Council is responding to issues, the inclusion ofan infrastructure gap analysis targeted by investment, and objective monitoring that holdsthe council accountable for delivering on the strategy.

20. Respondents generally supported increased funding contribution by government for coreinfrastructure in Auckland, disposal of non-strategic surplus assets and pursuit of alternativefunding sources, including private sector capital. Ngati Paoa proposed that specificinfrastructure investment be allocated toward sites owned by mana whenua.

21. Submissions from individuals and partner agencies, such as the New Zealand Transport Agency and Waikato Regional Council, supported the need to align planning for growth andthe need to target investment. There was clear support to focus resources in areasprioritised for development and sequence delivery of infrastructure with staged release ofgreenfield land. Where an area is zoned for development it was considered important thatinfrastructure providers lead and meet the demands of growth.

22. Feedback highlighted the need for investment in renewals and to address gaps in provision,particularly within the existing open space and community facilities networks. The strategy tomaximise the ensuing benefits and utilisation of existing assets was endorsed. There wasalso consistent support for the demand management measures within the strategy that havethe potential to defer investment in new infrastructure, such as harvesting, storing and use ofrainwater to reduce demand for water.

Changes to the final version of the Infrastructure Strategy

23. The following key changes to the strategy are proposed arising from the feedback.

Smart /transformative infrastructure investment (section 5.3)

24. This section has been broadened to include reference to using robust methodologies forbetter decision making and to guide planning, investment and project development. Thisaligns with a collaborative, cross-agency approach to decision making.

Monitoring and review programme (section 5.7)

25. The draft strategy focused on monitoring growth. The updated strategy recognises thatthere is a need to have wider monitoring of the strategy, of which growth will be an importantcomponent, and for the results of monitoring to inform future strategy review processes.

Application of sustainability and resilience principles (section 5.8)

26. An eighth mechanism to respond to infrastructure demand and funding constraints has beenadded, recognising that sustainability and resilience principles are woven throughout the

strategy, these include consideration of water sensitive design and achieving resilience bymanaging risks and building adaptive capacity within communities, businesses andinfrastructure.


36/64

Item 12


14 May 2015


Future infrastructure needs in greenfield areas (section 6.8)

27. Providing infrastructure for greenfield areas will be a major challenge in Auckland over thenext 30 years. As part of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan development, a number ofgreenfield areas have been identified in the south, north-west and north of Auckland. Thisland, within the Rural Urban Boundary, is currently in rural use and lacks infrastructure toenable an urban scale of development. Tables have been added to the strategy that provide

a snapshot of the possible future infrastructure needs in these greenfield areas, principaloptions for managing the issues and the associated collaborative processes and decisionmaking requirements around what infrastructure the council will need to deliver, where andwhen.

Assumptions (Appendix 1)

28. Appendix 1 of the strategy document will contain additional information about the levels ofservice, demand and asset lifecycle assumptions which underpin the strategy.

Capital works programmes (Sections 6.2 – 6.7)

29. These sections are now being amended by separating out projects that are at the planningstage from those being implemented for each infrastructure type in the most likely scenario

of infrastructure investment. More information has also been provided about the options andassociated implications for stopping, delaying or scaling back projects in the most likelyscenario of infrastructure investment.

Alignment with the financial strategy

30. The strategy is being aligned to the financial strategy in the LTP. Transport infrastructureinvestment in the draft strategy was based on the Basic Transport Network included in theDraft LTP 2015-2025. The final strategy will be updated to reflect the council’s decisionsthough the LTP regarding transport and other investment over the next 10 years.

Consideration


31. Presentations on the strategy were made to the local board cluster meetings duringSeptember and October 2014. The comments received at these meetings were used toinform the development of the draft strategy.


32. The Auckland Plan outcome, a Māori identity that is Auckland’s point of difference in theworld, and the Māori responsiveness framework provide the lenses through which torecognise and understand the importance of infrastructure management and investment forMāori. Infrastructure planning, investment, delivery and maintenance impacts can enable

Māori outcomes. Preservation of the mauri or life essence of the flora and fauna, land,water and waterways is a matter of great importance to Māori and is an issue that is centralto many infrastructure projects.

33. In developing the strategy mana whenua submissions to the Unitary Plan were analysed tounderstand mana whenua interests, needs and aspirations. The Independent MāoriStatutory Board secretariat also provided comment. Their views were taken into account inthe development of the strategy.

34. There was no specific feedback on the strategy from Māori through the LTP consultationprocess. However, the council did receive str ong feedback on marae and papakāingadevelopment and the role of mana whenua as kaitiaki in partnering with and influencingcouncil processes. Both of these are acknowledged and can be enabled through the

infrastructure strategy. Further, the strategy acknowledges Māori rights and interests, needsand aspirations and the council’s role in leading and influencing better outcomes with Māori.Further work is required through implementation to ensure that these are woven throughplanning and management.


37/64

I t e m 1

2


14 May 2015


Implementation35. The strategy is part of the LTP 2015-25 and will be reported to the Governing Body on 25

June 2015 for approval.

36. This is the first time Auckland Council will have a 30-year infrastructure strategy. It providesa basis for infrastructure providers across the council group to coordinate future planning,

including their response to the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy, currently underdevelopment, that will set out the sequencing and timing of future urban areas.

37. The strategy will also pr ovide an opportunity to signal council’s longer -term view anddirection to the wider community, including other infrastructure providers, which will informand support their long-term planning. It is anticipated that this will enable dialogue withothers involved in infrastructure provision and skills and labour market development on anongoing basis.

AttachmentsThere are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors Dawne Mackay – Team Leader Growth and Infrastructure Strategy

Authorisers Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research



38/64


39/64

I t e m 1

3


14 May 2015

Review of the Resource Consent Processes for development of sites at 40 and 42 Paturoa Road,Titirangi

Page 39

Review of the Resource Consent Processes for development of sites at40 and 42 Paturoa Road, Titirangi

File No.: CP2015/08220

Purpose1. To report back to the Auckland Development Committee on the review led by the Chief

Planning Officer on the process by which resource consents were granted for thedevelopment of residential sites at 40 and 42 Paturoa Road, Titirangi.

Executive Summary2. A review has been completed of the processes followed to grant resource consents at 40

and 42 Paturoa Road on a non-notified basis for land use for residential dwellings, garagingand vegetation clearance including the removal of a 22 metre Kauri tree. A copy of thereview’s Terms of Reference is included as Schedule 1 in the attached report. The focus of

the report has been on reviewing the process followed rather than commenting on thedecision itself.

3. The review sets out the Resource Management Act decision making context which takesinto account the Operative District Plan and the relevant provisions of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. It also includes consideration of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act, biosecurity matters raised by the presence of Kauri dieback, and Council resourceconsent procedures. Engagement with the Waitakere Ranges Local Board and with relevantiwi groups together with their responses are also assessed.

4. The report finds that the procedures followed by resource consent staff to process and,Independent Commissioners to grant, the resource consents on a non-notified basis was inline with the provisions of relevant Council plans and procedures. It concludes with a

number of recommendations for improving resource consent processing practice.5. The review has not raised any specific recommendations for submissions to central

government on its current review of the Resource Management Act 1991.


a) agree to the implementation of the following recommendations of the report:

Resource Consents Team

i) review how resource consent applications are summarised and provided to

Local Boards and iwi – clearer language that better describes the nature of theproposal, include activity status, aerial photograph of site, ensure that allrelevant information (such as ecologist and arborist reports) are provided, andestablish a process to provide feedback to Local Boards and iwi onapplications that they have made comment on.

ii) for the West Resource Consents team, provide regular training and refresherson the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area (WRHA), its Act, and how activities inthe WRHA are managed, and the iwi statements within the operative DistrictPlan.

iii) relevant conditions to Auckland Council Resource Consent Conditions Manualwhich will apply standard controls on developments relating to PTA (Kauri

dieback disease) e.g. involving earthworks or vegetation / tree clearance.


40/64

Item 13


14 May 2015


Page 40

iv) continue relationship building and develop a service level agreement withBiodiversity Operations and Biosecurity Teams in relation to the managementof PTA, including consideration of whether testing for PTA as part of resourceconsent applications is appropriate.

Local Board Services

v) offer training to Local Board members about the resource consents process,legal issues associated with resource consent applications and the LocalBoards’ role and how the delegations to commissioners from the HearingsCommittee operates (possibly at the time of their induction).

vi) work with Local Boards, after each election, to review the triggers that eachLocal Board has established to confirm that those triggers identify the mattersthe Local Board has an interest in.

Cultural Impact Assessment Project Working Group

vii) refer this report on the process of these resource consents to the CulturalImpact Assessment (CIA) project working group for their information.

Comments6. At its meeting of 12 March 2015, the Auckland Development Committee resolved as follows

(Resolution no. AUC/2015/34):

a) request that officers undertake a review of the process involved in assessing andgranting the consent applications to undertake development on sites at 40 and 42Paturoa Road, with the specific and sole purpose of identifying matters that could beimproved in future council processes and to be included in Auckland Council’ssubmissions to central government on its current review of the Resource Management Act 1991, and report back to the Auckland Development Committee on Thursday 16

April 2015.b) direct the Chief Planning Officer of Auckland Council, being independent of the

operational part of Council, to lead the review to be undertaken of the process.

c) edorse Council to continue to work with the landowners of 40 and 42 Paturoa Road, andthe community, to seek a resolution to current concerns.

7. An additional month giving time to complete the review and engage with iwi and local boardwas agreed with the Deputy Mayor.

8. The resource consent applications for each site requested approval for a residentialdwelling, associated garaging, vegetation clearance, work within the drip-line of trees,installation of services and stormwater management. A particular issue of concern was the

proposal to remove a 22 metre Kauri tree at 40 Paturoa Road. The area is within theWaitakere Ranges Heritage Area and has specific district planning provisions as set out inthe attached report to manage both residential living and ecological considerations. None ofthese provisions preclude the granting of a resource consent to remove a Kauri tree.

9. These applications have highlighted the inherent conflict between a landowner’s reasonableright to construct a home on a vacant lot in a Bush Living zone and the protection ofsignificant indigenous vegetation. It is clear that such a right is provided for in the operativeDistrict Plan, provided that the selected location of the house site has the least adverseeffects.

10. The review outlines the process taken to decide whether or not to publicly notify theapplications and the use of independent Planning Commissioners to make the decisions.

For both applications, ecological reports were prepared to assess alternative locations forthe houses within the sites. It was concluded that the house sites proposed by thelandowner, reasonably close to the road would cause less damage than a site at other


41/64

I t e m 1

3


14 May 2015


Page 41

locations, for example at the rear of the properties. The applications were thereforeapproved with conditions; (refer to attachment).

11. Issues were also raised through the process in regard to the presence of Kauri diebackwhich is widely prevalent through the Waitakere Ranges. Hundreds of trees in the Titirangiarea have been lost to Kauri dieback in the last five years. Appropriate conditions weretherefore included in the consents to avoid the spread of the disease.

12. The Waitakere Ranges Local Board has suggested that within this area where Kauri diebackis prevalent, non-infected trees are more important, and the absence of the disease wouldbe a relevant consideration in protecting the tree. It is known that tests are available toassess whether a specific tree is infected with Kauri dieback. However there is no test toconfirm that a living tree is resistant to Kauri dieback and the fact that a tree does not showexternal signs of Kauri dieback does not mean that it is resistant or uninfected. In addition, aSignificant Ecological Area (SEA) is not defined simply by the presence of Kauri, ratherrelating to the high ecological quality of the bush as a whole which includes a range ofspecies and habitats.

13. Further work will therefore need to be carried out on the value of requiring such a test aspart of the resource consent process.

14. The role of the Local Board in the resource consent processes was also considered as partof the review. The Council’s Governing Body has not delegated any of its decision-makingpowers under the RMA to local boards. However the Council has developed a process bywhich local boards can provide comments on individual applications and these commentswill be included in the planner’s report. The decision-maker will then consider thesecomments when making the decision. In both cases, summaries of the applications wereprovided to the Waitakere Ranges Local Board. However the descriptions did not clearlyidentify the effects of the proposals (for example, the removal of a Kauri tree) and the timefor raising queries and providing responses is short in order to comply with legislative timeframes.

15. Similar concerns about the lack of detail and clarity of the resource consent summaries sentto iwi groups were also raised. While letters were sent by the applicant to seven iwi groups(in relation to the proposal which included the removal of a 22 metre Kauri tree), of whichfive responses were received, the description of the development work proposed and itseffects was too vague to raise concerns.

16. The report recommends that clearer and more meaningful summaries be sent to both localboards and iwi.

17. The Waitakere Ranges Local Board has further requested an additional planner resource toreview the resource consent applications received. Instead it is considered that theprovision of clearer summaries from the Resource Consents Department and a regularreview of the types of consent applications sent to each local board should reduce the

amount of time that local boards need to spend on reviewing applications.

Consideration


18. During the course of this review, local boards have had several opportunities to provide theirviews.

19. A meeting was held with the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Waitakere Ranges Local Boardat the beginning of the review process to ascertain their views on the scope of the review;and a further meeting later in the process to discuss the interim conclusions reached. Bothmeetings were valuable in understanding concerns and receiving comments to improve the

report.


42/64

Item 13


14 May 2015


Page 42

20. In addition a workshop was held to which all Local Board chairs were invited, specifically todiscuss the role of local boards in the resource consent process and to suggest possibleimprovements.


21. The matter of iwi involvement in these resource consent applications has been outlined in

the attached review report, together with recommendations for improving the process ofproviding resource consent summaries to iwi so they can more easily respond in a timelyway.

22. During the course of this review, a meeting was held with a representative of Te Kawerau aMaki. The results of the review will be shared with Te Kawerau a Maki and the report willalso be referred to the CIA project working group.

Implementation23. In large part, the recommendations of this review will be implemented by staff of the

Resource Consents Department who have reviewed the report and concur with therecommendations. It will also be important to work with local boards and iwi to ensure that

their ability to respond to the steady flow of resource consent applications is improved.

Attachments

No. Title Page

A Review of the Process for Resource Consents for 40 and 42 PaturoaRoad, Titirangi (Under Separate Cover)

B Schedule 8 - Ecologist Reports (1) (Under Separate Cover)

C Schedule 8 - Ecologist Reports (2) (Under Separate Cover)

D Schedule 9 - Resource Consent Conditions (1) (Under Separate Cover)

E Schedule 9 - Resource Consent Conditions (2) (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Authors Penny Pirrit - GM - Plans & Places

Katherine Anderson - General Counsel


Katherine Anderson - General Counsel



43/64

I t e m 1

4


14 May 2015

Port Future Study: Design Proposals Page 43

Port Future Study: Design Proposals

File No.: CP2015/07793

Purpose1. This report outlines the proposed stakeholder engagement process and draft scope of the

Port Future Study as directed by the Auckland Development Committee on 3 April 2015.

Executive Summary


a) endorse the collaborative Māori and stakeholder process, the establishment of theStakeholder Reference Group and Consensus Working group, the role and tasks

allocated to these groups, and the resources required to support them, as set out inthe agenda report.

b) endorse the list (Attachment A of the agenda report) of identified stakeholders to beinvited to participate in the collaborative process, and delegate to the Chief Executiveof Auckland Council the authority to extend this list as additional stakeholders areidentified.

c) endorse the draft study scope as set out in the agenda report, for referral to theConsensus Working Group.

d) note that the project will be funded from the Mayoral Office budget, over the 2014/15and 2015/16 financial years.

Comments2. On 1 April 2015 the Auckland Development Committee resolved to commence the Port

Future Study (Resolution No. AUC/2015/61), and directed the Chief Executive to report backon the study design as soon as possible. The committee noted that the study should includecollaborative stakeholder input at each critical stage, including the study’s scope.

3. This report gives effect to the committee’s resolutions by proposing the following:

i) a collaborative stakeholder process and groups to be established as part of thisprocess;

ii) a draft study scope and process by which it is finalised and procured. Note that, oncefinalised, the study scope will be formatted into an appropriate Request for Proposal(RFP) for procurement purposes;

iii) the resources required to support the project and its processes;

iv) a broad expected timeline for the project.


44/64

Item 14


14 May 2015


Collaborative Stakeholder Process4. The 1 April 2015 Auckland Development Committee resolution states that the project must

be based on collaborative stakeholder input. It is helpful to reflect on the following principlesof collaboration when considering collaborative processes for this project.

Participation – participation of stakeholders from all perspectives need to be included.

This will require developing strategies to work with individuals who don’t act collaboratively. Collective – collaboration may require broadening participant’s per spectives so that they

are able to understand and respect the range of views within the group. The group needsto reach a consensus and then take action collectively on the decisions they make.

Transparency – feedback and trust are essential elements of collaboration. Beingtransparent with information is crucial if that is to be achieved.

Independence – collaboration requires independent thought, not group-thinking. Anenvironment where people can think for themselves needs to be maintained.

Emergence – the point of collaboration is to achieve great results. Focus must be on theend goal rather than worrying about how that is achieved. The collaborative group needs toset their own goals and objectives.

Persistence – these principles need to be applied persistently throughout the process.

5. Given these principles, the proposal is that the project essentially be ‘handed-over’ tostakeholders; that they work through and understand the study findings; and that they makerecommendations to the council on the best way forward from their consensus viewpoint.Council will then make decisions on matters arising from the Port Future Study with theserecommendations in mind.

6. It is proposed that two groups be established – a larger Stakeholder Reference Group(SRG) and a smaller Consensus Working Group (CWG). There are essentially two driversfor this:

i) there is wide interest in the study and many stakeholders that need to beaccommodated – hence the larger SRG,

ii) it is generally accepted that a collaborative group, or any working group for that matter,becomes dysfunctional once it is larger than around 12 to 15 people – hence thesmaller CWG. The CWG is to be self-selected from the SRG.

Stakeholder Reference Group

7. The SRG is made up of a number of ‘sectors’ under which stakeholders are grouped. Theproposed sectors are:

i) Māori

ii) Business associated with the port – both direct and indirect

iii) community groups e.g. residents, heritage

iv) environmental groups

v) recreational marine users

vi) specialist interest groups

vii) specialist professional groups

viii) specialist commercial groups.

8. Attachment A contains a list of organisations under each sector that will be invited toparticipate. It is noted that many of the specialist groups also represent general communityviews. This list needs to be as inclusive as possible and is not exhaustive at this stage.Delegation is sought for the Chief Executive to expand this list over the next two weeks.


45/64

I t e m 1

4


14 May 2015


9. Each sector would have a number of representatives, who together constitute the SRG. Therepresentatives are identified through a facilitated self-selection process. The SRG wouldideally have between around 40 to 50 representatives (feasibly around 5 per sector). POALwould be represented on the SRG, though with fewer representatives than the varioussectors.

10. The role of the SRG is to:

i) represent stakeholders and communicate back to organisations within the sector

ii) engage with and provide feedback / input to the CWG as needed

iii) undertake work requested by CWG as needed

iv) receive updates and report-backs from the CWG.

Consensus Working Group

11. The CWG will be a smaller group of around 15 people. This group will not be sector based,but selected through a facilitated self-selection process from within the SRG. The two

exceptions are Maori and POAL (one representative) who have automatic representation onthe group. The CWG will be chaired by an Independent Chair.

12. The role of the CWG is to:

i) finalise and agree the study scope

ii) receive progress updates during the study

iii) provide direction / decisions as required

iv) identify and request additional critical information / work to be undertaken

v) receive the final study report

vi) make recommendations to the Auckland Council on the way forward

vii) engage with the SRG during the process.

13. The CWG is where the bulk of the work will be done. It is considered appropriate thatmembers be remunerated.

Independent Chair

14. The CWG needs to be expertly chaired to ensure the principles of collaboration are appliedand the group works towards consensus building and recommendations to the council. Therole of the Independent Chair is to:

i) chair the CWG

ii) engage with the SRG

iii) engage with consultants and technical experts\

iv) liaise with the project manager

v) stakeholder management and communication

vi) be a spokesperson for the project.

15. There are three feasible options by which the Independent Chair can be selected:

i) selected and appointed by the council

ii) selected by the SRG

iii) selected by the CWG – either from within or outside the CWG.


46/64

Item 14


14 May 2015


16. It is recommended that the council selects and appoints an appropriate chair. Proposals inthis regard are captured in a report, titled “Port Future Study: Appointment of IndependentChair”, under separate cover.

17. Chairing the CWG would be time demanding. It is therefore appropriate that the chair beremunerated.

18. Figure 1 illustrates the broad proposed process for establishing the SRG and CWG.

19. The proposal does not include any general community consultation during the study. This isbecause:

i) it would be unreasonable to expect the community to keep up to date and informed onwhat is likely to be a highly technical study

ii) it would be more reasonable to engage the community on specific proposals that thecouncil may wish to put forward once the study is completed.

20. Based on this, there is no immediate need for a decision on general community consultation.This is something the council can consider once it has a better understanding of potentialproposals itself.

21. The SRG does not include a central government sector, and there is thus no centralgovernment representation on the CWG either. It is considered more appropriate that centralgovernment be involved at an officer level. This will include agencies such as the MoT,NZTA, MBIE, Treasury, NZ Navy and Kiwirail.

AC administers

AC administers

CWG Establishment

Stakeholder Plenary Meeting

(facilitated) Purpose and timeframe of study Role and task of SRG and SWG Request for sector representation on SRG

Stakeholder Reference Group Establishment(facilitated)

Agreement on role of SRG and CWG Agreement on size of CWG Requests for nominations for CWG

Consensus Working Group Nominee Session(facilitated)

Self-selection process to finalise CWG membership

Broad-based Invitation to Participate

Sector Sector Sector Maori POAL

AC administers

Figure 1: Process for establishing SRG and CWG


47/64

I t e m 1

4


14 May 2015


22. The same approach applies to council CCOs. Involvement of Waterfront Auckland and Auckland Council Property Ltd (or Development Auckland should it be established) and Auckland Transport will be at an officer level. This also applies to other relevant councilgroups, such as CCI, and affected partners, such as UNISA partners.

23. Lastly, neither group includes political representation. This governance function will beexpressed through decisions made by the council at the conclusion of the study.

Study Scope24. The objective of the Port Future Study is to provide Auckland Council, as the port company’s

owner, with recommendations about a long-term strategy for the provision of facilities toaccommodate sea-based imports and exports (and the cruise industry) flowing to and from Auckland. In doing this, the study will consider the economic, social, environmental andcultural costs and benefits, and the feasibility, of a range of options that will include:

i) relocating part or all of the port, or the port’s functions, within the Auckland region

ii) closing Auckland’s ports, thus requiring imports and exports to and from Auckland toarrive by sea at other ports and be freighted to Auckland by land

iii) constraining the port to its current footprint, while planning for future development ofadditional facilities at another location(s)

iv) enabling limited growth within the existing port precinct, while planning for futuredevelopment of additional facilities at another location(s).

25. For clarity purposes, all options need to consider how port activities could be reconfigured(both current and future), and therefore also consider the wider impacts on and requirementsof the waterfront and its surrounds, for example the central wharfs and cruise shiprequirements. The study is therefore not restricted to the current ‘port precinct’.

26. In considering the costs and benefits of the various options, consideration will be given tothe full spectrum of costs and benefits, such as:

Economic Investment needed foroption:

for POAL for others e.g. government, other local

authorities, other port companies cost of supporting infrastructure cost of reconfiguration options

Opportunity costs: of land with the port in its currentlocation

of rail-line utilisation

of other transport infrastructure Market impacts on

road / rail / motorways/ waterways

investment choices value of travel time

Cost impacts: to supply chain to customers

Economic benefits &impacts for Auckland:

GDP import / export sector cruise industry tourism industry

Economic benefits &impacts for NZ:

GDP import / export sector capacity of other Upper North Island

ports freight distribution and movements


48/64

Item 14


14 May 2015


POAL business profitability size of dividend POAL ownership (in context of North

Island port operations and freightdistribution)

Maori: impact of Te Ao Maori

Environmental Marine ecology:

marine mammals fish and benthic organisms

Hydrodynamic: tidal flows channel depths / dredging sediment loads sea level rise harbour capacity

Natural values: water coastal access

Carbon footprint: land based sea based

Pollution:

air quality land based sea based

Impacts other: visual noise light

Social Employment: port core - job gains, losses andrelocation

wider e.g. supply chain - job gains,losses and relocation

access to employment (equity) employment opportunities for future

generations including employment opportunities for

Maori

Public access: to and from the harbour and the gulf

Recreational use: of the harbour and gulf of the waterfront

Cultural Maori: historical grievances cultural values

Heritage: port or maritime history related city related

Urban form & amenity: waterfront as gateway to the city

how the port and city integrates how a growing & denser city and port

relate / exist side-by-side transport impacts

27. In addition, the study will also assess the opportunities that the range of options affordsMāori.

28. As the study looks at both current and future freight projections and requirements, the term‘future’ is defined as follows:

i) for the purposes of future locational options, it must project forward 50 years or more

ii) for the purposes of freight estimations, it must project forward no less than 30 years .


49/64

I t e m 1

4


14 May 2015


29. It is proposed that, once options are developed, a high-level assessment of all options isundertaken. Viable options then proceed to a more detailed analysis. This is to maintainmomentum and ensure resources are not spent on non-viable options or scenarios.

30. It should be noted that the study, and recommendations made by the CWG are likely toresult in direction on the future footprint of the port (if it finds that the some, or all, of the portshould remain in its current location). It is, however, unlikely to provide absolute answers on

detailed matters within that footprint such as the extension, or not, of a specific wharf. Thiswould be more appropriately addressed through the resource consenting process. Thefindings may, however, lead to recommendations for Unitary Plan changes.

31. The draft scope endorsed by committee will be considered by the CWG and amended asnecessary. The group will be made aware of funding limitations. Final approval of the scopewill be the responsibility of the CWG.

32. Lastly, it is proposed that matters such as organisational arrangements and culture of POALbe excluded from the study. The council can at any time use other processes to considersuch matters.

Study Procurement33. The Committee is requested to endorse the draft study scope as set out in the previoussection. This section sets out the process for finalising the scope. Once finalised, the scopewill be formatted into an appropriate Request for Proposal (RFP) for formal procurementpurposes.

34. Given the complexity of the study and the need for the successful tendered to engageextensively with the CWG, it is suggested that the RFP requires a detailed studymethodology to be proposed, rather than prescribing it in the RFP. That is, it should be left totender parties to develop a tailored methodology that is both cost efficient and best servesthe needs of the CWG. However, all parties will be required to adhere to:

i) the framework of economic, environmental, social and cultural impacts, and

opportunities for Maori,

ii) a methodology that targets viable options for further detailed analysis as soon as isfeasible.

35. Various pieces of legislation are relevant to the study scope. The Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 is one example. All such legislation will be required to be accounted for in thestudy.

36. Figure 2 illustrates the proposed process for finalising and commissioning the study. It isnoted that figure 2 shows a simplified process and that in reality the tendering and selectionprocess may consist of two stages, rather than a single stage as shown.


50/64


51/64

I t e m 1

4


14 May 2015


Communication support as needed

Independent technical advice peer review of technical information & study findings independent resource to CWG as may be required

40. The estimated cost of all of the above, including remuneration of the chair and CWGmembers, is $543,000.

41. In addition to the above there would also be other costs not directly attributed to the scope,CWG or SRG work, which can be funded internally and is not included in the project costsindicated.

42. The total cost estimate for the project is between $1,043 million and $1,143 million, whichneeds to be funded over two years – 2014/15 and 2015/16. The project will be funded fromthe Mayoral Office budget.

Project Timeline

43. It is estimated that the project will take 52 weeks to complete, as indicated in figure 3.Subject to the committee’s resolutions on the proposals in this report, the project willeffectively start in early June this year, with completion at the end of June 2016.

EstablishSRG & CWG

Finalise studyscope, RFP &

procureservices

Port study and CWG work

CWG preprecommendations

10 weeks

20 weeks

12 weeks

10 weeks

52 weeks

June ‘15 June ‘16

Figure 3: Broad project timeline


52/64

Item 14


14 May 2015


Consideration


44. The views of Local Boards have not specifically been taken into account for the purposes ofthis report, other than the extent they were accounted for in previous committee resolutions.

45. The proposals in this report suggest that, given the governance role Local Boards have, theynot be directly involved in the collaborative process. Rather, that Local Boards exercise theirgovernance responsibility at the time when recommendations and/or concrete proposals areto be considered.


46. The views of neither Māori nor the Independent Māori Statutory Board have specificallybeen elicited for the purposes of this report, other than the extent they were accounted for inprevious committee resolutions.

47. The port sits within a cultural, economic, environmental and social context for Maori, due toits relationship to the Waitemata Harbour which is a taonga and source of identity for Maori,

as well as a source of economic and social well-being. The Waitemata is also seen as a keygateway into Auckland by the Ngati Whatua, Waiohua -Tamaki and Marutuahu tribes. Also,the port

auckland development committee agenda - may 15

Documents