regional development & operations agenda 13 june, 2011 - auckland council

Note: The reports contained within this agenda are for consideration and should not be construed as Council policy

unless and until adopted. Should Members require further information relating to any reports, please contact the relevant manager, Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson.

I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Regional Development and Operations Committee will be held on: Date: Time: Meeting Room: Venue:

Thursday 16 June 2011 10.00am Reception Lounge Level 2 Auckland Town Hall 301-305 Queen Street Auckland

Regional Development and Operations Committee

OPEN AGENDA

MEMBERSHIP Chairperson Councillor Ann Hartley, JP Deputy Chairperson Councillor Sandra Coney, QSO Councillors Councillor Anae Arthur Anae Councillor Cameron Brewer Mayor Len Brown, JP Councillor Dr Cathy Casey Councillor Alf Filipaina Councillor Hon Chris Fletcher,

QSO Councillor Michael Goudie Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse Mr Wayne Knox Councillor Mike Lee Councillor Des Morrison Councillor Richard Northey, ONZM Councillor Calum Penrose Councillor Dick Quax Councillor Noelene Raffills, JP Councillor Sharon Stewart, QSM Councillor Sir John Walker,

KNZM, CBE Councillor Wayne Walker

Councillor Penny Webster Councillor George Wood, CNZM (Quorum 11 members) Barbara Watson

Committee Secretary 10 June 2011 Contact Telephone: (09) 307 7629 Email: [email protected] Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Regional Development and Operations Committee 16 June 2011

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

PROCEDURAL

1 Apologies 5

2 Declarations of Interest 5

3 Confirmation of minutes 5

4 Leave of absence 5

5 Acknowledgements 5

6 Petitions 5

7 Deputations 5

7.1 Te Arai Point Beach Preservation Society 5

7.2 New Zealand Peace Movement of Auckland City 6

8 Public Forum 6

9 Extraordinary Business 6

10 Notices of Motion 7

DECISION MAKING

Reports of Officers

11 Auckland as a City for Peace 9

12 Financial Assistance Scheme for Scheduled Trees 27

13 Update on Review of Auckland Council's International Relationships: Recommentation from Economic Forum 29

14 Establishment of the Orakei Basin Advisory Group - Recommendation from the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum 47

15 Establishment of a Heritage Advisory Panel - Recommendation from the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum 59

16 Draft Earthquake Prone, Dangerous & Insanitary Building Policy 2011 - 2016 69

17 Submission on Social Services Select Committee Inquiry into Boarding Houses 99

18 Adult Entertainment Programme - Policy and Planning to Promote Safe, Healthy and Strong Communities 107

19 Supplementary Order Paper for the Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill 115

20 Report and decision of the Board of Inquiry into the New Zealand Transport Agency Waterview Connection Proposal 125

Secretarial note: Due to the size and complexities of the attachments for items 21, 22, 23 and 24, these documents can be viewed on the Council’s website. Any queries can be directed to the Committee Secretary.

21 Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) – Chapters 3, 4, 9, 13 & 21 to be made Operative 131


22 Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) Plan Changes being made Operative - Noise; Warkworth Countryside Living; Heritage Schedule; Stockyard Falls - Designation 154 (Weiti) 135

23 Approval of Plan Change 30 - Urban Design Code - Auckland Council District Plan (North Shore City section 2002) 139

24 Proposed Plan Change 13 Hobsonville Airbase to the Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section) – to be approved and made Partially Operative 147

25 Proposed Plan Modification 54: Additions to the Heritage Schedule, Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Central Area Section 2004) - Operative 153

26 Classification of 19, 21, 23, 25 and 27 Tiraumea Drive, 10 and 12 Bolina Crescent and 13 Undine Street, Pakuranga 163

27 Private Plan Change 22: Smales Rd to the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) 169

28 WITHDRAWN 179 29 Consideration of Extraordinary Business Items

INFORMATION 30 Consideration of Extraordinary Information Items

PUBLIC EXCLUDED 31 Procedural motion to exclude the public 181

C1 Extension of Te Arai Regional Park 181

C2 Public Open Space Proposal 181


1 Apologies

Apologies have been received from His Worship the Mayor Len Brown and the Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse.

2 Declaration of interest

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as an elected representative and any private or other external interest they might have. At the close of the agenda no requests for declarations of interest had been received.

3 Confirmation of minutes

3.1 Meeting minutes Regional Development and Operations Committee, 11 May

2011 4 Leave of absence

At the close of the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received. 5 Acknowledgements

At the close of the agenda no requests for acknowledgements had been received. 6 Petitions

At the close of the agenda no requests for petitions had been received. 7 Deputations

7.1 Te Arai Point Beach Preservation Society

Executive Summary Te Arai Beach Preservation Society have respectively requested a deputation to the Regional Development and Operations Committee meeting. Formed in 2006, they represent the local community of Te Arai and would like an opportunity to present to the new council their local knowledge and their vision for the area.Te Arai's future is important to many people, with 3000 people signing a petition against development there and 1700 submissions presented to Rodney District Council hearings about its future. Te Arai is home to 18 threatened species and as such needs fully informed decisions made about its care and protection. This is an important time for their area and they wish to be heard before the Regional Development & Operations Committee to assist in creating a solution acceptable to all concerned. Recommendation/s a) That the deputation from the Te Arai Beach Preservation Society be received.

b) That the information provided by the Te Arai Beach Preservation Society be taken into account when considering item C1 of the confidential section of the agenda.


7.2 New Zealand Peace Movement of Auckland City

Executive Summary Ms Laurie Ross and members of the NZ Peace Movement of Auckland City wish to address the Regional Development and Operations Committee in support of an item on the agenda considering Auckland as a City for Peace. Both the respected elders and visionary youth will help convey the meaning, purpose and value of the Peace City Declaration.

This item was also considered by the Social and Community Forum at its meeting held on 23 November 2010, to which the Peace Foundation were then asked to assist in developing the action plan to put this in motion.

Recommendation/s a) That the representatives of the NZ Peace Movement of Auckland City be thanked

for their presentation.

b) That the information presented by the NZ Peace Movement of Auckland City be taken into consideration with Item 11 in the agenda.

8 Public Forum

A period of time (approximately 30 minutes) is set aside for members of the public to address the meeting on matters within its delegated authority. A maximum of 5 minutes per item is allowed, following which there may be questions from members.

9 Extraordinary business

Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states: “An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if- (a) The local authority by resolution so decides; and (b) The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the

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

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

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states: “Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,- (a) That item may be discussed at that meeting if-

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


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

(b) no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item

except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of he local authority for further discussion.”

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

10 Notices of Motion

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

Item

11


Auckland as a City for Peace

Auckland as a City for Peace File No.: CP2011/03145

Executive Summary The Social and Community Development Forum considered a report ‘Auckland as a City of Peace’ in November 2010 and resolved: a) That the information be received.

b) That it be recommended that the information be forwarded to the Regional Development and Operations Committee for consideration of the following:

i) that the Auckland Council confirms itself as a “City for Peace”

ii) that officers consult with local peace and other relevant organisations and develop an action plan and declaration for presentation to the committee in April 2011

iii) that officers get an authorisation letter from the President of the United Nations Association of New Zealand requesting that Auckland Council become a ‘City for Peace’.

(Resolution number SCD/2010/7)

In response to these resolutions, officers have been working with representatives of the peace community to develop a draft declaration of Auckland as a City for Peace and proposals for peace related activities, in line with the four legacy councils’ approaches and within existing budget allocation. A workshop with a broad range of organisations focusing on peace identified the key elements of a draft declaration and a potential range of activities that would reflect a peace theme. A “City for Peace” declaration is an expression of principle, leadership and intent. The draft declaration commits Council to a set of high level principles that underpin the theme of peace. A declaration is also a response to United Nations resolutions on disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation, in particular those promoting education and raising of awareness. The draft declaration also includes a commitment for Council to develop an action plan, renewable every three years, to put the principles of the declaration into practice. It is, therefore, proposed that a three-year action plan of activities reflecting the City for Peace theme be developed for consideration as part of deliberations on the Long Term Plan 2012-2022. The range of potential initiatives and events that could reflect a “City for Peace” theme is extensive. The working group proposes a limited range of projects for 2011/2012 including adding value to existing initiatives, such as the Auckland Heritage Walk developed by the Civic Trust Auckland. Other activities proposed a ceremony to launch Auckland as a City for Peace, a celebration in June 2012 to acknowledge the 25th anniversary of New Zealand’s nuclear free status, along with appropriate communications, including web presence.

Item

11



Recommendation/s a) That the report be received.

b) That the Regional Development and Operations Committee notes the resolutions from the Social and Community Development Forum of 23 November 2010, namely:

a) That it be recommended that the information be forwarded to the Regional Development and Operations Committee for consideration of the following: i) that the Auckland Council confirms itself as a “City for Peace” ii) that officers consult with local peace and other relevant organisations and

develop an action plan and declaration for presentation to the committee in April 2011

iii) that officers get an authorisation letter from the President of the United Nations Association of New Zealand requesting that Auckland Council become a ‘City for Peace’.

c) That the Regional Development and Operations Committee:

i) adopts the draft declaration for Auckland Council as a City for Peace ii) approves the City for Peace activities proposed for 2011/2012 by reprioritising

existing funding for a ceremony to launch Auckland as a City for Peace and a celebration of the 25th anniversary of New Zealand’s nuclear free status, along with appropriate communications, including web presence

iv) approves the development of a draft three-year City for Peace Action Plan to be considered for adoption as part of the Long Term Plan 2012-2022.

Background The Origin of Peace Cities In August 1945, atomic bombs were dropped on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, reducing them to rubble and taking many lives. On June 24, 1982, the Mayor of Hiroshima announced a ‘Programme to Promote Solidarity of Cities Toward the Total Abolition of Nuclear Weapons’ at the 2nd Special Session on Disarmament held at the United Nations Headquarters in New York.. The Mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki issued a joint call to cities everywhere to support this programme. Since that time, Peace Declarations and Peace Cities, along with the movement of Mayors for Peace have broadened the focus from non-proliferation and abolition of nuclear weapons to a wider concept of peace. Cities worldwide now pursue a range of initiatives related to the promotion of peace: peace festivals, peace bells, conflict resolution processes, peace and thanksgiving parks, as well as activities related to establishing a culture of peace through addressing vital problems such as poverty and hunger. A 2002 United Nations study on disarmament and non-proliferation education was adopted by the General Assembly on 22 November 2002 (Resolution 57/60). This study included a recommendation encouraging municipal leaders to work with citizen groups to establish peace cities through, for example, the creation of peace museums, peace parks, websites and booklets on peacemakers and peacemaking. There is no international authenticating body granting “City of Peace” status to local jurisdictions. The decision to become a “City of Peace” can be enacted by resolution of Council and launched through the signing of a declaration. In New Zealand, Wellington City Council declared itself a Peace City in 1993, christhucrh City Council in 2002, Waitakere City Council and Auckland City Council in 2007 and North Shore City Council in 2009. In 1982 Manukau declared itself nuclear free and the Mayor jpined the Mayors for Peace movement.

Item

11



City for Peace Draft Declaration A joint working group of Council staff and peace community stakeholders led the process of developing a draft declaration and proposals for peace-related activities in Auckland. Key stakeholders included the United Nations Association of New Zealand, the New Zealand Peace Foundation, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, the Auckland Civic Trust and the Devonport Peace Group. The final draft declaration (Attachment A) was developed from the declarations approved by the former cities of the Auckland region that were peace cities. The declaration embodies two perspectives: one focuses on the community, family and individuals, while the other focuses on issues of world peace, nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Letters Supporting City for Peace In response to the resolution of the Social and Community Development Forum, Council has received six letters supporting the Auckland Council to become a City for Peace (Attachment B). The letters either request that Council declare Auckland to be a Peace City or endorse the reinstatement of Auckland as a Peace City. 1. President of the United Nations Association of New Zealand 2. The Civic Trust Auckland 3. The Peace Foundation 4. Devonport – Takapuna Local Board 5. Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom 6. Devonport Peace Group.

Implications of Becoming a City for Peace Local authorities that are Peace Cities promote the absence of war, uphold social and human rights, respect, tolerance, safety, understanding, the celebration of difference, positive conflict resolution and the creation of conditions where people can reach their maximum potential, be fulfilled and have contributing citizens. The commitment as a “City for Peace” is an expression of principle, leadership, vision and intention rather than a claim that Auckland is, or will be, simply described as totally peaceful. The concept of a “City for Peace” supports the Mayoral Vision of “Creating the World’s Most Liveable City” and in the wider sense the outcome of cohesive resilient communities with strong local identities where all our people feel they belong. The former councils of the Auckland region that were Peace Cities supported a range of activities under the Peace umbrella, such as a school art exhibition, a Peace Walk, installation of a Peace Bell and funding support for conflict resolution programmes in a local school. Current Peace Initiatives in Auckland The Peace Foundation in Auckland support various peace related events in Auckland: • Cool School Mentoring Programme

This programme empowers young people by teaching skills and processes to resolve conflict peacefully.

• Schools’ Peace Week Peace week is a national event held in August designed to help schools educate students about peace issues.

• Hiroshima Day Hiroshima Day takes place on the closest Sunday to 8 August. A candlelight service is held at the Winter Gardens at Auckland Domain.

Item

11



• Auckland Peace Heritage Walk

This walk was created as part of the World March for Peace and Non-violence, taking place on or around 21 September, which is the United Nations International Day of Peace. This walk is currently co-ordinated by the Civic Trust Auckland.

Opportunities as a City for Peace A component of Auckland as a City for Peace would be to foster links between activities with a peace theme enabling greater collaboration and providing information about initiatives to the wider Auckland region. Officers have held meetings with staff from across Council as well as peace community representatives to discuss and prioritise activities that reflect a peace theme. The following are a range of initiatives discussed that would reflect and celebrate Auckland as a “City for Peace”; some of these could be undertaken in the short term whereas others could be considered for inclusion in the proposed three-year action plan. 1. Ceremony Launching Auckland as a City for Peace A ceremony with the Mayor, Councillors and Local Boards, in partnership with the peace community would launch the Auckland Council as a City for Peace and provide opportunities to publicise the purpose and programme. 2. Celebration of New Zealand Nuclear Free for 25 years – 8 June 2012 It is proposed there be a one-day celebration throughout the Auckland region for the 25th anniversary of New Zealand becoming Nuclear Free. This would also be an opportunity for our youth and children to learn about New Zealand’s nuclear-free stance. This celebration would be developed as a partnership with organisations from the peace community. 3. Communications – City for Peace Development of specific communications, including a web presence to identify Auckland as a Peace City. 4. Auckland Peace Heritage Walk - United Nations International Day of Peace – 21 September The Auckland Peace Heritage Walk (Attachment C) developed by the Civic Trust Auckland is a self-guided walk within the Auckland Central area, linking 15 significant places that are identified as historic or peace sites. This is a self-guided walk taking place in September on the United Nations International Day of Peace. There is potential for the Auckland Peace Heritage Walk to be co-ordinated and expanded regionally. There are significant heritage sites and walks identified around the Auckland region. Brochures and maps are available to the public at service centres and libraries. Council staff could identify all places throughout Auckland that incorporate a peace theme and the Auckland Peace Heritage Walk could take place at sites throughout the region. 5. Partnerships This opportunity would focus on building with groups such as Neighbourhood Support and Auckland Interfaith Council and working together on events such as White Ribbon Day. 6. Planting of Trees for Peace Peace-themed initiatives could include planting trees at parks around the Auckland region. The Parks Business Unit would identify appropriate locations, with related opportunities including developing butterfly gardens and dovecotes. 7. Cultural Peace Displays There is an opportunity for educational and cultural displays with a theme of peace to be developed for prominent public spaces.

Item

11



8. Peace Festival It was suggested that a festival be held in a Council park celebrating the peace movement and the City for Peace. Activities Proposed for 2011/2012 The working group considered the above opportunities to determine what is feasible in the short term. While a three-year action plan is developed for consideration for the 2012-2022 Long Term Plan, it is proposed that in the 2011/2012 year, Council support a ceremony to launch Auckland as a City for Peace and a celebration of the 25th anniversary of New Zealand’s nuclear free status, along with appropriate communications, including web presence.

Decision Making The recommendations in this report fall within the Committee’s delegated authority.

Significance of Decision The recommendations in this report do not trigger the significance policy. The draft declaration is a commitment to a high-level set of principles and an action plan to reflect the peace theme.

Consultation A working group of Council officers and key representatives from the peace community was established to address the resolutions of the November 2010 Social and Community Development Forum. The working group brought together information on Peace Cities, examples of declarations and potential activities. A consultation workshop led by an independent facilitator was held on 15 February 2011 with 32 representatives from the peace community attending. An outcome of the workshop was further ideas for the draft declaration and proposed activities for an action plan. The working group subsequently met on a regular basis to finalise the draft declaration and the proposed list of activities.

Financial and Resourcing Implications There is an allocation of $40,000 in the draft Annual Plan 2011/2012; this represents funding transferred through from Year Three of the Waitakere City Council Long Term Council Community Plan 2009-2019. This programme can therefore be delivered within existing budget allocation.

Legal and Legislative Implications There are no legislative implications from recommendations in this report.

Implementation Issues The implementation of the activities proposed for 2011/2012 can be undertaken within existing staff resources within the relevant departments of Council.

Attachments No. Title Page A Draft City for Peace Declaration 15B Letters of support and endorsement 17C Brochure on the Auckland Peace Heritage Walk 23

Item

11



Signatories Authors Jan Ziegler-Peri, Programme Advisor Community Capacity Authorisers Tony Rea, Manager Community development & Partnerships – West

Kevin Marriott, Community Development & Partnerships Louise Mason, Manager Community Development, Arts & Culture

Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1

1



Atta

chm

ent B

Ite

m 1

1 Regional Development and Operations Committee 16 June 2011


Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1

1



Atta

chm

ent B

Ite

m 1



Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1

1



Atta

chm

ent B

Ite

m 1



Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1

1



Atta

chm

ent B

Ite

m 1



Atta

chm

ent C

Ite

m 1

1



Atta

chm

ent C

Ite

m 1



Atta

chm

ent C

Ite

m 1

1



Atta

chm

ent C

Ite

m 1



Item

12


Financial Assistance Scheme for Scheduled Trees

Financial Assistance Scheme for Scheduled Trees File No.: CP2011/03376

Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to provide the Regional Development and Operations Committee with background information on the North Shore Financial Assistance scheme for Scheduled Trees and seek approval for this scheme to be extended beyond the end of the one year pilot to enable the previously required evaluation to be done.


b) That the Regional Development and Operations Committee endorse the extension of the North Shore Financial Assistance Scheme for Scheduled Trees for 2011/2012.

c) That an evaluation of the scheme be undertaken in time for recommendations to inform the continuation/cessation of the scheme during the Long Term Plan process.

Background The North Shore Financial Assistance scheme for Scheduled Trees was established as a one year pilot by the North Shore City Council (NSCC) in February 2010. This $50,000 funding scheme provides owners of scheduled trees with grants of up to $2,500 towards the cost of tree works. This programme covers scheduled trees located within the standard residential zones of the former North Shore City. To be eligible for financial assistance tree works must meet pruning criteria and rebate conditions. At the end of the pilot year the effectiveness of the scheme was to be assessed to inform the decision on whether to continue the scheme. The one year pilot commenced on 1 July 2010 and in the first four months, up until 31 October 2010, received 23 applications. Of these applications 20 were approved, 2 were declined and 3 applications were pending a decision. Of the total $50,000 budget, $11,057 was allocated and the average grant value was $552. Funding decisions for this scheme were made by NSCC Environmental Arborists. As legacy delegations had no status in the Auckland Council, applications to the scheme where suspended from 1 November 2010 until new delegated authority was confirmed. On 15 March, delegations were authorised to the Manager Environmental Services and the scheme was reopened on 1 April. Because of the 5 month hiatus in the scheme there is insufficient data to inform a useful evaluation of the scheme. A 12-month extension of the scheme is therefore proposed. Funding for the scheme will be met within the existing heritage grants and scholarships budgets and is derived from the former NSCC LTCCP allocation for 2011/12 An evaluation of this scheme will be undertaken by April 30 2012.

Decision Making The decision to continue this financial assistance scheme for a further 12 months falls within the delegation of the Regional Development and Operations Committee. No additional financial resources are required as these are available within the existing NSCC LTCCP commitment for 2011/2012.

Significance of Decision This report does not trigger the significance policy.

Item

12


Financial Assistance Scheme for Scheduled Trees

Consultation Auckland Council officers from Democracy Services and Environmental Strategy and Policy were consulted during the preparation of this report.

Local Board Views There has not been an opportunity to formally canvass the views of the 4 Local Boards on this matter. However it is noted that the proposed interim community funding model for 2011/2012 financial year report (considered by all of the local boards during April/May 2011 and approved by the Regional Development and Operations Committee on 11 May) will ensure that schemes such as this will in future be reported to the relevant local board for decision making and/or information (depending on the nature of the funding scheme and the requirements of the policy).

Financial and Resourcing Implications The North Shore Financial Assistance scheme for Scheduled Trees was previously funded from the North Shore Heritage grants and scholarships budget. NSCC made an allowance of $50,000 for this purpose for 2011/12 in this budget line. This funding remains available for 2011/12 in the approved Annual Plan. The evaluation project for this funding will be led by Environmental Strategy and Policy and involve staff from Environmental Services and Research, Investigations and Monitoring team. Costs associated with the evaluation project will be met by the Environmental Programmes and Partnerships team.

Legal and Legislative Implications There are no legal or legislative implications arising from this report.

Implementation Issues The administration of the scheme will be undertaken by the Environmental Programmes and Partnerships team as part of their regular programme of funding activities. The scheme will be administered in accord with the previously approved criteria and funding guidelines.

Attachments There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories Authors Fran Hayton, Environmental Funding Advisor

Alex Wilson, Team Leader Environmental Programmes and Partnerships Authorisers Viv Sherwood, Manager Environmental Programmes

Janis McArdle, Manger Environmental Services John Dragicevich, Manager Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Item

13


Update on Review of Auckland Council's International Relationships: Recommentation from Economic Forum

Update on Review of Auckland Council's International Relationships: Recommentation from Economic Forum File No.: CP2011/03335

Executive Summary At the Economic Forum meeting held on Thursday, 2 June 2011 it was resolved to recommend to the Regional Development and Operations Committee to formally endorse the recommendations concerning the Review of Auckland Council’s International Relationships.

Recommendations a) That the report be received.

b) That the Regional Development and Operations Committee formally endorse the following recommendations from the Economic Forum: (i) Agree to the following prioritisation of Auckland Council’s international

relationships, that of the 30 inherited relationships, 19 be retained by the Council, 7 continue as community-led relationships, and 4 be abated, as set out in Table 3 in the report of the Manager International Relations to the Economic Forum on 2 June 2011.

ii) That of the 19 relationships to be retained, there are 10 relationships to be a

priority for Council in pursuing its objectives for Auckland, as set as set out in Table 3 of the report of the Manager International Relations to the Economic Forum on 2 June 2011.

iii) That the International Relations unit assess the Council’s international

relationships in two years’ time based on the outcomes of civic, economic and cultural activities, and benefits generated for Auckland.

Attachments No. Title Page A Update on Review of Auckland Council’s International Relationships 30B Assessment Matrix - International Relations Review 45

Signatories Authors Carmen Fernandes - Committee Secretary Authorisers

Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1



Report Name: Update on review of Auckland Council’s international relationships File No.: <<leave blank – Infocouncil will insert this when the report is saved in Trim>>

Executive Summary The Mayor has initiated a review of Auckland’s international relationships to ensure their economic and social potential will be achieved. Auckland Council inherited 30 international relationships from the former local authorities in the Auckland region on 1 November 2010. The purpose of this report is to outline the outcome of the review of these legacy relationships and recommend an approach for Council to prioritise its ongoing commitment to, and participation in, those relationships. The review included an assessment of historical and future considerations, and economic and cultural opportunities. It drew on a mix of quantitative data and qualitative input from key stakeholders including Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT), New Zealand Trade and Enterprise (NZTE), Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (ATEED), and business and community organisations with direct experience of Auckland’s partnerships. The review has applied a comparative assessment framework that assessed each legacy relationship and ranked them against a set of criteria. This review is part one of a two-staged process. It is proposed this be followed by a further assessment in two years, which will be based on the outcomes of economic and cultural activities generated within the new Auckland Council. This will allow time for the agreed relationships to be fully activated and integrated into the new international relations programme. It is important to note that up to forty years of historical activity and investment with the legacy relationships has been inherited from the former Auckland councils. The relationships are akin to diplomatic engagements and not easily discontinued unless by mutual consent from the parties involved. The review has endeavoured to respect the legacy, goodwill and friendship that are the foundation of these relationships, and recognise the contribution they have made to Auckland. This review has shown that many of the partnerships offer mutually sound economic and social benefits, and are closely aligned with central government policy and broader Council priorities. Maximising the potential of international opportunities is vital to Auckland’s role as New Zealand’s economic centre, and our aim to be the world’s most liveable city. Auckland’s current international partnerships are in Asia, Australia, Europe, North America and the Pacific. This report recommends that most relationships with cities in these regions be retained, and that particular focus is applied to some of these. The review shows that a key factor in determining whether a relationship should continue to be led by the Council, is its regional significance. The review found that some relationships have strong local significance but limited regional significance, and it is appropriate that these are led by the community groups currently involved in the relationship. Local Boards can play an important role in supporting international relations at the local level, and where relevant at the regional level. This report recommends that of the 30 inherited relationships, 19 be retained by the Council, 7 continue as community-led relationships, and 4 relationships be abated. Of the 19 proposed to be retained, 10 relationships are recommended to be a priority for Council in pursuing its objectives for Auckland. Following this review, further work needs to be undertaken to identify the opportunities offered by each priority relationship and to align them with appropriate initiatives. Activation plans will be developed with a customised range of initiatives for each relationship.

Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1

3



Recommendation/s a) That the report be received. b) That the Economic Forum agree to the following prioritisation of Auckland Council’s

international relationships, that of the 30 inherited relationships, 19 be retained by the Council, 7 continue as community-led relationships, and 4 be abated, as set out in Table 3 in the report of the Manager International Relations to the Economic Forum on 2 June 2011.

c) That of the 19 relationships to be retained, there are 10 relationships to be a priority for

Council in pursuing its objectives for Auckland, as set as set out in Table 3 the report of the Manager International Relations to the Economic Forum on 2 June 2011.

d) That the International Relations unit assess the Council’s international relationships in two

years time based on the outcomes of civic, economic and cultural activities, and benefits generated for Auckland.

e) That the Economic Forum recommend the Regional Development and Operations

Committee formally endorse the above recommendations.

Background 1. Background to the review In January 2011, the Mayor initiated a review of Auckland’s international relationships to ensure their economic and social potential is achieved. This review is one of a series of economic initiatives as part of the Mayor’s 100 projects. Making the most of international opportunities is vital to Auckland’s role as New Zealand’s economic centre and our aim to be the world’s most liveable city. Auckland’s current international partnerships are in Australia, Europe, North America and the Pacific, encompassing sister cities, friendship relationships, strategic alliances and memorandums of cooperation and understanding. The outcome of the review is intended to prioritise the relationships into areas of focus for Council. 2. The process Council engaged the assistance of Strateg.Ease Ltd, an Auckland-based public policy consultancy, to undertake the review. This report draws heavily on the analysis and findings of the Strateg.Ease report1. The review has looked at historical and future factors, and taken into account global trends and significant events. It draws on a mix of quantitative data and qualitative input from key stakeholders including MFAT, NZTE, ATEED, and business and community groups with direct experience with Auckland Council’s international relationships. A comparative framework was used to assess each legacy relationship in terms of: • Nation-to-nation linkages with New Zealand - economic and diplomatic • Nation-to-Auckland linkages - economic and social indicators, including trade, tourism,

education, and the role of migrant communities • Past level of relationship activity, noting commitments and expectations between the partners

that need to be honoured • Future opportunities that increase and deepen the links between Auckland and partner cities

for mutual benefit across economic, cultural and civic objectives.

1 Strateg.Ease May 2011, Review of Auckland Council International Relationships

Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1



The review is being approached as a two-staged process. The initial review which this report outlines, will be followed by an assessment based on the outcomes of economic and social activities and benefits generated over the next two years (i.e. the first term of Auckland Council). The International Relations unit also engaged Covec, an Auckland-based international research company, to undertake a high level benchmarking review. This analysed the goals, activities and performance of six other cities with a dedicated International Relations unit2. The review included Brisbane, Busan (Korea), Guangzhou (China), Hamburg (Germany), Melbourne, and Wellington. Auckland Council has relationships with all of the international cities except for Melbourne. The purpose of the review was to assess how a number of other International Relations teams work around the world, and how they differ or are similar to the team at Auckland Council. The review represents a quick ‘snapshot in time’ analysis. The benchmarking analysis noted that local governments have increasingly become key drivers of economic development. International Relations units have a role to play in assisting local government achieve economic development outcomes, which occur against a backdrop of civic, community and cultural linkages. Highlighted in this review was that Auckland Council’s International Relations unit shares a strong economic development focus with Brisbane and Melbourne. It is also aligned with Busan, Guangzhou, Hamburg, and Wellington’s foreign affairs/cultural exchange approach that has an economic development component. Most cities profiled prioritised international ‘connectedness’ as a key objective, and placed varying emphasis on the economic development goals of local and central government. There were many similarities between the various profile cities, although unique aspects were noted, such as Melbourne’s representative office in Tianjin (China). Auckland Council’s International Relations unit has comparatively less staff and budget than many of the cities researched, while maintaining a higher number of relationships than many of these cities. 3. Overview of Auckland Council International Relations unit The primary purpose of the International Relations unit is to connect Auckland internationally, by creating and leveraging economic and cultural opportunities through collaboration with our partners and stakeholders. It has three key objectives: • Civic - Auckland is a vibrant and diverse global city that is recognised internationally as an

active member of the global community • Economic - Auckland benefits economically from global partnerships • Cultural - Auckland’s communities are strengthened through greater understanding and

appreciation of different cultures. The Auckland Plan Discussion Document3 recognises that “fostering international connections will be an important part of facilitating and supporting a more internationally competitive and innovative city”. The work of the International Relations unit contributes directly to the strategic priorities of the Auckland Plan Discussion Document - People and Economy strategy: • develop an internationally connected innovation system • growing skills, education and learning • creating a vibrant, creative world city attractive to visitors • quality city form and design • a business friendly and well functioning city In addition the unit is developing ways to address the Auckland Plan’s priority themes: • a diverse ethnic economy • the creation of an iwi/Maori economic powerhouse

2 Covec, May 2011, International Relations Benchmarking Review 3 Auckland Council, 2011 Auckland Plan: Auckland Unleashed, Discussion Document

Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1

3



The unit is a facilitator of economic activity. It is focused on 'opening doors' and partnering with other key teams across council and the CCOs, such as ATEED, to deliver economic returns through the range of initiatives that they are involved in. The unit is developing and project managing a portfolio of initiatives and events, including leveraging Rugby World Cup 2011 for international relations outcomes. The partner city relationships are actively aligned to some of Auckland’s sectors of importance, as listed in the Auckland Plan Discussion Document, which cover food and beverage; health technologies; biotechnology; marine; screen, stage and creative industries; education; knowledge intensive industries; advanced materials. The International Relations unit manages multiple international enquiries, numerous official and diplomatic visits and study delegations to the city, and has managed an exceptionally high workload since 1 November 2010. There is unprecedented interest in Auckland’s new governance structure, which has resulted in a significant volume of enquiries from national and international customers. In addition, many external stakeholders have a high interest in the Council’s continued involvement and future intentions with international relations. The unit collaborates with a number stakeholders including: • Partner cities and their associated stakeholders offshore • Diplomatic entities for all partners and other countries • MFAT and other Ministries e.g. Pacific Island Affairs and Office of Ethnic Affairs • NZTE • ATEED and other CCOs • Tertiary education providers e.g. University of Auckland and AUT University • Business, cultural and industry associations including Auckland Chamber of Commerce,

Employers and Manufacturers Association (EMA), country business councils and industry/sector organisations, cultural and community groups

• Auckland Council’s Business Advisory Panel, Ethnic People’s and Pacific People’s Advisory Panels.

A key focus has been promoting Council’s international relations programme and business opportunities through national and international channels. This includes establishing the new Auckland Council’s internationally facing section of the website, featuring a Mayoral welcome message offered in several key languages, and an overview of the unit’s work programme and recent activities. Context for Auckland’s international engagement and relationships International relationships are formed with an expectation of mutual benefit and rely on reciprocated activity between the partner organisations. During the past 20 years the former local authorities in Auckland operated, to a greater or lesser extent, two-way programmes with these cities/countries, spanning education, culture, industry sectors, and best practice for local government organisations and city management.

Auckland's partnerships with cities around the Pacific Rim and Europe help to connect business and other sectors with some of New Zealand's most important trading partners. A benefit of well-chosen city links is that their scale helps overcome the disparities in size which can arise at the country-to-country level. Business interests, tourism, education and other sectors can benefit from the experience and opportunities provided by wider international horizons. If activities are well planned and managed, these connections can make significant contributions to the city's character and prosperity.

Michael Chilton, Director, Auckland Office, Min. of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 20094 4 Former Local Authorities of the Auckland Region, September 2009: The International Dimension, “Auckland – New Zealand’s global city”, prepared for the Auckland Transition Agency.

Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1



Overcoming barriers of culture and distance have traditionally been drivers for developing international links, and city-to-city relationships are a local response to this. Sister city relationships were pursued in earnest after World War II as a channel for local government and citizens to help promote cross-cultural understanding through city-to-city relationships. They were recognised through a formal declaration of commitment by two cities to build long-lasting relationships. Over the past few decades the types of international city-to-city relationships have diverged from the traditional sister city model. City-to-city partnerships over time have increasingly reflected New Zealand’s changing strategic priorities in the global economy. Given the role of Auckland for flows of people, trade, and investment into and out of New Zealand, it is natural that the Council’s involvement in international relationship activity intersects with national interests in international trade and diplomacy. Changes in the national and regional importance of overseas countries to New Zealand have occurred rapidly and Auckland needs to ensure its international relations remain relevant. Aside from city-to-city relationships there are also a diverse range of channels through which the Council can pursue its international economic and social objectives for Auckland. In addition to overseas local government organisations, the Council has access to New Zealand and international business councils and industry bodies, the diplomatic community, and international pan-city organisations. 5. Analysis of Auckland Council’s current international relationships The Council inherited 30 formal international relationships with cities and countries from the former local authorities in the Auckland region. These included 26 principal relationships comprising 21 ‘city-to-city’ and 5 ‘city-to-Pacific Island nation’ relationships. These consist of: 11 Sister Cities, 1 Strategic Alliance, 5 Friendship Cities, 2 Twinning, and 7 relationships subject to a Memorandum of Cooperation or Understanding. Another 4 relationships were recognised in some form by the former councils, however they are not principal relationships subject to the above types of formalised agreements. These included some led by community groups rather than local councils. In addition to the 30 inherited relationships, there were 3 potential relationships under development prior to 1 November 2010. These 3 potential relationships were not included in this review and no further development is proposed at this time. Apart from relationships in Europe and North America, Auckland’s overseas relationships are predominantly around the Pacific Rim, including Asia, Australia, and the Pacific. The established international relationships span a forty-year period, with half having been entered into within the past decade5. The following table lists the inherited relationships as at 1 November 2010. Officers noted the Councillors’ feedback at the Economic Forum meeting in November 2010 of the need to rationalise these. The review incorporates a prioritisation process, and proposes to reduce the number of relationships that the Council will actively retain, manage and develop.

5 The formalised international relationships originated with either the Councils of Auckland City, Manukau City, North Shore City, Rodney District, Waitakere City, or Franklin District during 1989-20105, or the former city and borough councils of the Auckland region during 1971-1989

Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1

3



Table 1: Auckland Council’s International Relationships (as at 1 November 2010)

City Country/Region Type TLA Year

Brisbane Australia Sister City Auckland 1988

Guangzhou China Sister City Auckland 1989

Ningbo China Sister City Waitakere 1998

Qingdao China Sister City North Shore 2008

Utsunomiya Japan Sister City Manukau 1982

Fukuoka Japan Sister City Auckland 1986

Kakogawa Japan Sister City Waitakere 1992

Busan Korea Sister City Auckland 1996

Taichung Taiwan Sister City North Shore 1996

Huntington Beach USA Sister City Waitakere 1984

Los Angeles USA Sister City Auckland 1971

Hamburg Germany Strategic Alliance Auckland 2007

Galway Ireland Friendship City Waitakere 2002

Pohang Korea Friendship City North Shore 2008

Hara-mura Japan Friendly Town Franklin 2002

Tomioka Japan Friendship City Auckland 1983

Shinagawa Japan Friendship City Auckland 1993 Warkworth Canada Twinning Relationship Rodney 2003Warkworth, Northumberland UK Twinning Relationship

Rodney (Warkworth) 1992

Government of French Polynesia

Memorandum of Cooperation Manukau 2006

Government of SamoaMemorandum of Cooperation Manukau 2005

Government of Cook Islands

Memorandum of Cooperation Manukau 2000

Newcastle Australia Memorandum of Understanding Manukau 2002

Nadi Fiji Memorandum of Understanding North Shore 2006

Sichuan Province China Memorandum of Understanding North Shore 2007

Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1



Government of Tonga6

Memorandum of Understanding due to be signed Manukau

Furudono7 Japan Sister Town - community led

Warkworth Township 1999

Warkworth, Northhamptonshire5 UK

No formal agreement – community led

Warkworth Township 2000

Warkworth5 Australia No formal agreement Warkworth Township 2000

Lake Macquarie Australia Economic Development relationship agreement Manukau 2005

Government of American Samoa

In development (as at 2010) Manukau

Abu Dhabi United Arab Emirates In development (as at 2010) Waitakere

Pune India In development (as at 2010) Waitakere

6. Assessment framework The Strateg.Ease review of the relationships involved several components. The first step was to collate information from previous reports and files, and undertake interviews with staff to gauge the scope of past and upcoming activities between the respective local government bodies.

The Auckland Plan Discussion Document firmly associates the Council’s international relationships with economic and business benefits. As the Council’s priorities are to increase exports, foreign direct investment and leverage migrant networks, the assessment framework needed to emphasise economic objectives.

The second step involved using official data sources to identify economic and social indicators.

The next stage involved developing and applying an assessment framework to compare and rank each international relationship. The assessment criteria include economic and social indicators and incorporated the Council’s proposed objectives by emphasising economic factors.

The assessment criteria are (refer Attachment 1 for full assessment matrix):

1. Nation-to-nation connections

• based on economic indicators of two-way trade and tourists, and whether the country is a current focus for New Zealand free-trade agreements

2. Nation-to-Auckland region connections

• based on economic indicators of the number of international students in Auckland, alignment to priority Auckland sectors and the presence of business groups associated with the relationship

• based on social indicators of the country of origin and ethnic identity of Auckland residents, the extent of existing relationship activity relating to youth and culture, and the presence of community groups associated with the relationship

6 The relationship with Tonga was under development during 2010 and is included here as it was sufficiently advanced that a draft Memorandum of Understanding is subject to agreement by both parties and is anticipated to be formalised in late 2011. 7 These relationships were either not formalised, or were initiated by an individual associated with Warkworth Town, rather than formally by the former Rodney District Council.

Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1

3



3. International relationship to Auckland Council connections

• based on indicators of the breadth and depth of past and planned relationship activity at a civic level, and the potential for best practice learning and knowledge exchange (e.g. about city development issues and major projects).

The international relationships were ranked as being of ‘low’, ‘medium’ or ‘high’ regional significance. The ‘medium’ and high’ ones have then been prioritised on the basis of whether:

• an economic emphasis versus a cultural/civic emphasis dominates the Council’s focus on the relationship, and whether

• the relationship can realistically be maintained at the current resourcing levels, or otherwise requires greater effort and resources in order to strengthen and advance the relationship.

7. Countries of significance for Auckland and New Zealand As there were gaps in the available regional and international economic data, both for Auckland and its partner cities and countries, a combination of national and regional data has been used as a proxy for comparing city-to-city economic and social links. The analysis of the partner cities shows:

• the relative significance of the home countries to New Zealand in terms of national indicators of international trade and visitor volumes, and

• the relative significance of the home countries to the Auckland region in terms of volume of overseas students, and the country of origin of migrants living in the Auckland region.

The results for the Top 15 countries in each category are shown below.

Table 2: Top 15 countries for trade, tourism, education and migrants

NZ's Top 15 trading partners 2010

NZ's Top 15 sources of visitors 2010

Auckland's Top 15 sources of overseas students 2010

Auckland's Top 15 sources of overseas born residents 2006

Australia Australia China UK China UK South Korea China USA USA India Samoa Japan China Japan India South Korea Japan Thailand Fiji

Singapore Germany Germany Australia UK South Korea Taiwan South Korea Germany Canada France Tonga Malaysia Singapore Malaysia Cook Islands Thailand India Fiji Taiwan

Taiwan France USA USA

Indonesia Hong Kong Philippines Sri Lanka United Arab Emirates Fiji Indonesia Japan France Malaysia Sri Lanka Germany India Thailand Canada Canada Sources: Statistics NZ, MFAT, Study Auckland Auckland's international partnerships shown in bold italics

Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1



Auckland’s principal international relationships are with 10 of the top 15 countries across all categories shown in the table, which consists of a total 25 different countries. A further two countries, India and United Arab Emirates, were previously under consideration by former Auckland councils as having potential partner cities. In summary, all of Auckland’s international relationship cities/countries (other than Galway, Ireland) are within the top 15 countries for at least one category. The research also considered New Zealand’s priorities for new free-trade agreements. Council has existing city relationships within several countries that align with government’s existing and future aspirations for free-trade agreements. Stakeholder consultation A select number of key stakeholders were consulted regarding the review of the inherited relationships. These included representatives from ATEED, MFAT, NZTE, Auckland Consular Corps, EMA, Auckland Chamber of Commerce and former Mayors of local authorities in Auckland. The following key themes emerged from the discussions:

• International relationships at the local government level can meaningfully contribute to the whole of New Zealand (‘NZ Inc’) approach being taken by central government agencies (by MFAT, NZTE, Ministry of Education and others) to New Zealand’s international engagement. They help to ‘’get things off the ground’’ and reinforce efforts at the national level to promote economic and cultural exchange.

• The priority for pursuing economic development initiatives through new or existing city-to-city relationships should be in those countries that New Zealand has recently entered into a trade agreement with.

• The productivity of city-to-city international relationships measured in terms of cultural and economic outcomes, relies on initial efforts to build civic foundations between the respective local government organisations. This takes time and tends to be associated with establishing links between community and cultural groups, and organisations in the respective cities. This is a pre-requisite to creating the right environment for business opportunities to be explored.

• The Mayoral civic relationship opens doors to overseas industry, education and tourism organisations and is particularly instrumental in China and other Asian countries.

• Business delegations associated with a Mayoral-led mission should be planned with sufficient lead time to allow businesses to express their interest, commit funding and prepare to participate.

9. The contribution of Auckland’s Council international partnerships to the Auckland regional economy The research looked at the contribution of Auckland’s international partnerships to the region’s economy. The main sectors impacted positively by all international partner city relationships are tourism and education. The contribution of international inbound tourism to Auckland’s GDP is estimated at $1.96 billion (in 20108). The Strateg.Ease report notes that the Chinese outbound tourism market is growing rapidly and China-New Zealand sister city networks can contribute to the growth of this sector in both countries. This is consistent with the recent introduction of direct flights between Auckland and Guangzhou by China Southern Airlines, which was reported as being expected to bring 25,000 visitors and generate $75million in expenditure in the first year9. Based on a pro-rata of the 58% share of overseas students in the Auckland region in 2010, the export education industry is estimated to contribute around $1.22 billion annually to regional

8 ATEED, based on the following sources: IVS (YE September 2010), Covec report (2009). This exceeds domestic tourism’s contribution of $1.23 billion. 9 ATEED http://news.aucklandnz.com

Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1

3



GDP10. This implies an average contribution of around $21,000 net per student from their expenditure on goods and services in New Zealand. A Covec 200711 report on international relations, estimated that about $55 million of GDP was contributed annually to Auckland’s economy from Auckland City Council’s eight international relationships alone. This estimate was primarily due to the expenditure of overseas students attributed to those relationships, and dominated by the Guangzhou relationship. Similarly, a New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER)12 study in 2003 estimated that students from Guangzhou contributed $24 million of direct economic value per annum to Auckland. In order to understand the economic value from Council’s international partnerships, the International Relations unit plan to commission an economic evaluation in late 2012. This would offer both a quantitative and qualitative analysis and address the mix of benefits that international relations activity provides to Auckland. The future economic evaluation will likely revise the $55 million estimate of partner cities economic value significantly upwards, given that the Auckland region as a whole has international partnerships with 7 of the top 15 sources of overseas students in Auckland, and 7 of the top 15 countries of origin for tourists to New Zealand (refer Table 2). In addition to tourism and education, some of the international relationships have focussed on other sectors of importance to Auckland, for instance, Brisbane and bioscience, and Busan and film. It is expected that the prioritisation and activation of the agreed relationships will enable a sector focus to be applied that is consistent with the sectors identified in the Auckland Plan and the Economic Development Strategy.

Decision Making 1. Summary of review assessment The Council’s international partnerships have been assessed for their national and regional significance, in order to guide the Council on its future commitment and participation in those relationships. The relationships have been ranked as ‘high’, ‘medium’ or ‘low’ significance based on the assessment criteria. Each relationship has its assessment detailed in the separate Technical Report13.

The Council’s long-list of international relationships has been prioritised into those recommended to be retained and led by the Council, those to be led by the community, and those to be abated (refer Table 3, listed in alphabetical order by country within sections). Of the 19 relationships proposed to be retained, 10 relationships are proposed to be a priority for Council in pursuing its objectives for Auckland (shown as shaded in Table 3).

10 Education NZ 2008 estimate the economic impact of the NZ export education industry at $2.1 billion. Enquiries are being made to see if a more accurate regional breakdown is available to show the industry’s economic impact on Auckland. 11 Covec, “Assessing the Benefits of Auckland City Council’s International Partnerships”, July 2007: http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/auckland/introduction/sister/pdfs/covecreport-summary.pdf 12 NZIER March 2003, The economic benefits of Sister Cities in New Zealand, prepared for Sister Cities New Zealand. 13 Strateg.Ease May 2011, Review of Auckland Council International Relationships: Technical Report,

Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1



Table 3: Proposed Partner Relationship Status

Country City Category Type Year Former council

Retain (rated as medium or high regional significance) Australia Brisbane Strategic Sister City 1988 Auckland China Guangzhou Strategic Sister City 1989 Auckland China Ningbo Strategic Sister City 1998 Waitakere China Qingdao Strategic Sister City 2008 North Shore

Germany Hamburg Strategic Strategic Alliance 2007 Auckland

Korea Busan Strategic Sister City 1996 Auckland USA Los Angeles Strategic Sister City 1971 Auckland Pacific Cook Islands Pacific MOC 2000 Manukau Pacific Samoa Pacific MOC 2005 Manukau

Pacific Tonga Pacific MOU to be formalised Manukau

Ireland Galway Cultural/Social Friendship City 2002 Waitakere Korea Pohang Cultural/Social Friendship City 2008 North Shore Japan Fukuoka Cultural/Social Sister City 1986 Auckland

Japan Utsunomiya Cultural/Social Sister City 1982 Manukau Japan Kakogawa Cultural/Social Sister City 1992 Waitakere Japan Tomioka Cultural/Social Friendship City 1983 Auckland Japan Shinagawa Cultural/Social Friendship City 1993 Auckland Taiwan Taichung Cultural/Social Sister City 1996 North Shore Pacific Nadi, Fiji Pacific MOU 2006 North Shore

Community-led (rated as low regional significance)

Australia Warkworth Community No formal agreement 2000 Warkworth Town

Canada Warkworth Community Twinning Relationship 2003 Rodney

Japan Furudono Community Sister Town 1999 Warkworth Town Japan Hara-mura Community Friendly Town 2002 Franklin

UK Warkworth, Northhamptonshire Community

No formal agreement 2000 Warkworth Town

UK Warkworth, Northumberland Community

Twinning Relationship 1992

Rodney (Warkworth)

USA Huntington Beach Strategic Sister City 1984 Waitakere

Abate

Australia Lake Macquarie Community Relationship Agreement 2005 Manukau

Australia Newcastle Community MOU 2002 Manukau China Sichuan Province Strategic MOU 2007 North Shore

Pacific French Polynesia Pacific MOC 2006 Manukau

Under development prior to 1 November 2010 and not assessed India Pune Waitakere

Pacific American Samoa Manukau

UAE Abu Dhabi Waitakere

Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1

3



2. Relationships to be retained Of the 19 relationships proposed to be retained, 10 relationships are proposed to be a priority for Council in pursuing its objectives for Auckland (shown as shaded in Table 3). In order to identify which international relationships should be considered as priorities for the Council, the 19 ‘medium’ and ‘high’ relationships were evaluated to show whether: 1. an economic emphasis versus a cultural/civic emphasis dominates the Council’s focus on the

relationship, and whether

2. the relationship can realistically be maintained at the current resourcing levels, or otherwise requires greater effort and resources in order to strengthen and advance the relationship.

The results are illustrated in the Strategy Map below. There are two main clusters within the 19 relationships previously rated as ‘medium’ or ‘high’:

Group A - where an economic emphasis dominates and greater resources/effort will have more potential to generate economic outcomes from the relationship

Group B - where a cultural/civic emphasis dominates and where the relationship can be maintained at current levels of activity or further resource applied as economic opportunities arise

The evaluation shows that if the Council wishes to do more to advance its existing relationships, it should select cities/countries from ‘Group A’, which includes Brisbane, Busan, the Cook Islands, Guangzhou, Hamburg, Los Angeles, Ningbo, Qingdao, Samoa and Tonga (as highlighted in Table 3 and shown in the Strategy Map below).

Strategy Map of Auckland Council’s International Relationships Economic emphasis dominant

Maintain relationship at current level of resources/effort

Cultural/Civic emphasis dominant

Do more to advance the relationship

• Brisbane •

Ningbo •

Hamburg

• Qingdao

• Galway

• Fukuoka

• Busan •

Pohang

• Kakogowa

• Guangzhou

• Tomioka

• Utsunomiya

• Los Angeles

• Samoa

• Tonga

• Cook Islands

• Nadi

• Shinagawa

• Taichung

A

B

Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1



The 10 relationships in Group A have been assessed as those that offer the most potential to generate outcomes that align with Council’s objectives or have a unique relationship with Auckland and New Zealand. The assessment took account of indicators of trade, tourism, education and migrants (refer Table 2) as well as information on nation-to-nation connections and economic objectives; industry sectors of focus (identified by government); and examples of past and planned economically focussed relationship activity between the partners. The first 7 relationships (included in Table 3) have been prioritised due to their significant trade, tourism and industry sector links at national and regional levels. The 3 Pacific Island nation relationships have been prioritised due to New Zealand’s unique political, economic and security links to the region. They are also important given their close personal and family links to Auckland, as the origin for a high proportion of Auckland’s permanent population. Following this review, further work needs to be undertaken to identify opportunities offered by each priority relationship and to align them with appropriate initiatives. The breadth and depth of past and planned activity associated with these relationships provides a sound platform to build on and advance the relationship to achieve mutual objectives. Activation plans will be developed with a customised range of initiatives for each relationship. These may include: inbound official and diplomatic visits and study delegations; outbound Mayoral-led business delegations; industry sector focussed initiatives; best practice learning and knowledge exchange initiatives; events; and ongoing engagement with business councils and industry organisations 3. Relationships to be community-led or abated The governing body is responsible for international relationships under the Council’s economic development activity. This reflects the national and regional significance of the relationships. Local Boards can play an important role in supporting international relations at the local level, as appropriate. The relationships rated as being of ‘low’ regional significance are recommended to be either abated or to be led by a community group. The term ‘abate’ means that the relationship will not be continued. The term ‘community-led’ means it would be managed by a local community group without any on-going financial or staff commitment from the Auckland Council. However, this does not preclude periodic involvement in relationship activity by the governing body or Local Boards of Auckland Council, where relevant. All of the relationships recommended to be led by a community group are currently based on activities at a local community level (i.e. Huntington Beach, Hara-mura, Furudono, and the four Warkworth relationships), and it is anticipated that these relationships will continue to be community-driven by the parties involved. These include: • Huntington Beach - the former Waitakere City Council engaged in a modest level of activity

with Huntington Beach in the USA. The Piha Surf Club has a long-standing and active relationship with Huntington Beach, and the General Manager of the Piha Surf Club has confirmed this will continue at a club-level. The formal sister city relationship with Huntington Beach (as signed in 1984 with the parties involved at the time), will be discontinued. It is proposed that appropriate communication will be undertaken with the relevant parties to advise the exiting of the relationship by the Council.

• Hara-mura - in 2002 a Friendly Town Relationship was established between Hara-mura,

Nagano Prefecture in Japan, and Pukekohe of the Franklin District Council. The basis of this relationship is the educational exchanges which occur on an inbound basis every year from Hara-mura Junior High and outbound basis every second year by Pukekohe Intermediate School. The schools continue to enjoy a strong bond. The Principal of Pukekohe Intermediate School has confirmed they wish to continue leading this relationship. The Franklin Local Board has been involved with the activities of this relationship and will continue to support it.

Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1

3



• Furudono - in 1999 a Sister Town relationship was established between the Town of Warkworth, and Furudono, Fukushima Prefecture in Japan. The relationship mainly focuses on cultural exchanges between the towns’ respective schools on an annual basis. This relationship has been led by a local community group “International Relations Group” (IRG) and its co-ordinator Dave Parker, along with Yurimi Ito, a local liaison person. They have confirmed they would like to continue leading this relationship.

• Warkworth - the four other relationships involving Warkworth are also led at a community level. The activities to date have included receiving international visitors and Council delegations (e.g. from Warkworth Ontario). The primary focus of the official visits have been on the heritage values and linkages from the agreements between the respective towns. These relationship have been led by the local community group, IRG and Dave Parker, who has confirmed the IRG would like to continue leading these relationships. In regard to the former twinning relationship agreement signed between Rodney District Council and Warkworth Ontario, it is proposed to communicate to the relevant parties that the relationship will continue in this way.

It is noted that in September 2007, Manukau City Council endorsed the abatement of the relationships with French Polynesia and Newcastle, Australia. The results of this review confirm that these relationships should remain abated as intended. Manukau City Council also endorsed that the relationship with Lake Macquarie should be assessed as it was inactive14. It is proposed here that Lake Macquarie and Sichuan Province are abated. For practical reasons it is difficult to maintain a relationship with a province the size of Sichuan, and the review recommends focusing on the three existing active and formal relationships with China. It is proposed that the appropriate communication regarding these arrangements be undertaken to the relevant parties in Sichuan and Lake Macquarie. Regardless of the changes to these former agreements, Council and ATEED can continue to facilitate any business and investment opportunities as they arise. 4. Under development prior to 1 November 2010 and not assessed There were three potential relationships under development by the former councils prior to 1 November 2010. These three are not included in this review and no further development of these potential relationships is proposed at this time. Since the Auckland Council was formed on 1 November 2010 many requests have been received from international cities wishing to explore a formal partner city status with Auckland. South America, South-East Asia, India and the United Arab Emirates have been suggested by stakeholders as worthy of detailed investigation, given their importance as economic markets. In addition, it has been proposed that further relationships could be developed with countries where Council has existing partner relationships, such as China. To assess any new international relationship, the pre-selection phase requires investigating existing and potential linkages between the prospective international city and Auckland at a local, regional and national level. This would take two to three years and would require: a robust assessment of relevant markets and mutual economic and social benefits; analysis of costs for establishment and management of the new relationship; significant consultation and formal discussions with stakeholders (on and offshore) and the prospective partner cities; and visits to the preferred partner city. The current priority is to concentrate on the existing partner cities to ensure Council realises existing and potential benefits. Any consideration of new partnerships would likely require further budget and resource. Regardless of whether the Council secures a new formal relationship, officers in the Council and ATEED will continue to facilitate business and investment opportunities, as well as connections between Auckland and other cities - whether they are partner or non-partner cities. 14 Refer Manukau City Council, Strategic Directions Committee Agenda, September 2007

Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1



Should the Council wish to investigate a new partner city relationship, further work would need to be undertaken to develop the appropriate pre-selection criteria and assessment framework.

Significance of Decision This project does not trigger the Significance Policy.

Consultation The consultation undertaken for this review is outlined above.

Local Board Views The governing body is responsible for international relationships under the Council’s economic development activity. This reflects the national and regional significance of the relationships. Local Boards can play an important role in supporting international relations at the local level, for instance through working with local community groups and schools, both in their Local Board area and with the offshore partners. The first stage of the review has focussed on developing the broader framework for Council. The views of Local Boards, on the appropriate role they may play with international relations, will be sought progressively prior to the second stage of the review of Council’s international partnerships.

Financial and Resourcing Implications There are no financial implications associated with this report.

Legal and Legislative Implications There are no legal or legislative implications associated with this project.

Implementation Issues There are no implementation issues associated with this report

Attachments Attachment One - Auckland Council’s International Relations Assessment Matrix

Signatories Authors Tara Pradhan

Manager International Relations Authorisers Harvey Brookes

Manager, Economic Development Authorisers Roger Blakeley

Chief Planning Officer .

Atta

chm

ent B

Ite

m 1

3



Atta

chm

ent B

Ite

m 1



Item

14


Establishment of the Orakei Basin Advisory Group - Recommendation from the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum

Establishment of the Orakei Basin Advisory Group - Recommendation from the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum File No.: CP2011/03121

Executive Summary At its 5 May 2011 meeting, the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum resolved: Resolution number PH/2011/32 MOVED by Cr Hartley, seconded Cr Coney:

a) That the report on the establishment of an Orakei Basin Advisory Group be received.

b) That it be a recommendation to the Regional Development and Operations Committee: i) That the Regional Development and Operations Committee agrees to the

establishment of an Orakei Basin Advisory Group as proposed in the approved Orakei Basin Management Plan, based on the draft terms of reference attached to the report to the 5 May meeting of the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum, entitled Establishment of Orakei Basin Advisory Group.

ii) That the Regional Development and Operations Committee appoints Cr Cameron

Brewer to the Orakei Basin Advisory Group. Since the 5 May meeting of the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum, the Orakei Local Board has requested that an amendment be made to the terms of reference as follows: That the wording under the Composition section of the Orakei Basin Advisory Group Terms of Reference be modified by moving the statement "or as determined by the advisory group from time to time" from its current location against the bullet point referring to water user groups, to the bottom of this section, (as per Attachment B) so that it applies to any changes in composition. This then gives the advisory group the ability to change any membership as it sees fit. This recommendation is now being presented to the Regional Operations and Development Committee for its acceptance.

Item

14



Recommendation/s a) That the recommendation report from the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum be

received. b) That the Regional Development and Operations Committee approve the

establishment of an Orakei Basin Advisory Group as proposed in the approved Orakei Basin Management Plan, based on the draft terms of reference attached to the report to the 5 May meeting of the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum, amended as per Attachment C to the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum recommendation report.

c) That the Regional Development and Operations Committee appoint Councillor

Cameron Brewer to the Orakei Basin Advisory Group.

Attachments No. Title Page A Original report to the 5 May 2011 meeting of the Parks, Recreation and

Heritage Forum - Establishment of Orakei Basin Advisory Group 49

B Draft Terms of Reference for the Orakei Basin Advisory Group as presented to 5 May meeting of Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum

55

C Amendment to the draft Terms of Reference for the Orakei Basin Advisory Group requested by the Orakei Local Board

58

Signatories Authors Elaine Stephenson - Committee Secretary Authorisers Warwick McNaughton – Governance Support Manager

Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1

4



Establishment of Orakei Basin Advisory Group File No.: CP2011/02373

Executive Summary The Orakei Basin Management Plan was approved by the Auckland City Council in September 2010. The management plan proposes the establishment of an Orakei Basin advisory group based on terms of reference to be developed by the Auckland Council. Responsibility for implementation of the management plan currently rests with the Governing Body, as the basin is a volcanic feature, not a local park. The Orakei Local Board has requested that the advisory group be established as soon as possible so that the momentum built from the management plan is not lost, and has accordingly passed a resolution asking that the Governing Body agree to the establishment of the advisory group. The board’s resolution also proposes terms of reference for the advisory group, including the make-up of the advisory group, which is to include one councillor.

Recommendation/s a) That the report be received. b) That it be a recommendation to the Regional Development and Operations

Committee:

i) That the Regional Development and Operations Committee agrees to the establishment of an Orakei Basin Advisory Group as proposed in the approved Orakei Basin Management Plan, based on the draft terms of reference attached to the report to the 5 May meeting of the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum, entitled Establishment of Orakei Basin Advisory Group.

ii) That the Regional Development and Operations Committee appoints one

councillor to the Orakei Basin Advisory Group.

Background In September 2010, the Auckland City Arts, Culture and Recreation Committee approved the Orakei Basin Management Plan based on the recommendations of a hearings panel that had considered the 140 submissions on the draft management plan. The management plan resulted from an Environment Court mediated settlement of appeals against Auckland City Council’s proposed Orakei Basin walkway, with the court agreeing that the best way to address the large range of issues associated with the basin and walkway, was by developing a management plan. One of the key recommendations of the management plan is the establishment of an Orakei Basin advisory group. In recent years, the Hobson and Eastern Bays community boards and Auckland City Council have expended considerable energy and resources on issues associated with the basin and its surrounding open spaces, with these all being well aired and considered during the process of developing the Orakei Basin management plan.

Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1



The proposal to create an advisory group is in recognition of the fact that there is very strong local community interest in, and a sense of ownership of, the basin and its surrounding open spaces. It also recognises that the local community has been articulate and effective in advocating for the basin and that this has made a significant difference to the quality and effectiveness of management of the basin and its open spaces. The Orakei Basin, and some of its immediately adjoining open spaces, are categorised as volcanic features in the Auckland Council parks hierarchy, being a tuff ring remnant from an explosion crater. As such, they are not local parks managed by the Orakei Local Board, instead coming under the Governing Body. The Orakei Basin water body and seabed are managed by Auckland Council under a lease from the Crown due to expire in 2050, and hence come under Governing Body management. The Orakei Local Board resolved at its 2 February 2011 meeting, that the Governing Body agree to the establishment of an Orakei Basin Advisory Group as proposed in the approved Orakei Basin Management Plan, and that the terms of reference be finalised based on the Orakei Basin Advisory Board reporting directly to the Orakei Local Board. The board also developed draft terms of reference for the advisory group for the Governing Body’s consideration. These are included as Attachment A to this report and include the purpose of the group, the scope of its roles and responsibilities and the composition of the group. It is suggested that the advisory group does not have any decision-making responsibilities nor hold any funding. Its make-up is suggested to include the Orakei Local Board Chair and Parks spokesperson; a councillor; existing local groups, including basin user groups and iwi. Council officers will provide support to the advisory group. The inclusion of both a councillor and local board members is suggested as necessary, as the advisory group would report directly to the Governing Body, but would be very much dealing with local issues and interests.

It is noted that the Orakei Local Board, by resolution passed at its December 2010 business meeting, has urged the Governing Body to grant the management of the Orakei Basin to the Orakei Local Board on the basis that the board is best placed to provide effective, consistence oversight and local knowledge. This resolution supports and recognises the local interest in the basin, as noted in this section of the report.

The Orakei Local Board’s view is that decisions on this matter need not hold up decision making on the establishment of the advisory group. Once established, the advisory group would report to the Governing Body. In the event that management of the Orakei Basin and its surrounding open spaces was delegated to the Orakei Local Board, the advisory group would then report to that board, but would still provide minutes and other material to the Governing Body regularly, or as requested.

Decision Making The Orakei Local Board has asked the Governing Body to agree to the establishment of an advisory group for the Orakei Basin and surrounding open spaces because it considers that the advisory group needs to be established as soon as possible. This is to maintain the momentum and community role in basin management set by the recent approval of the Orakei Basin management plan. Not establishing the advisory group until the Governing Body has time to fully consider this matter, if this is some months away, risks undoing the good work, partnerships and trust built up through the development of the Orakei Basin management plan. It also provides no direct role for the Orakei Local Board in the management of this area, in which it has a major interest.

Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1

4



Significance of Decision The proposal to establish the Orakei Basin Advisory Group is not significant in terms of Council’s policy on significance, but would be a positive step for the Orakei community.

Consultation The proposal to establish the Orakei Basin Advisory Group has been widely consulted as it was included in the draft Orakei Basin Management Plan, and supported by most submitters to the management plan.

Financial and Resourcing Implications The establishment of the Orakei Basin Advisory Group is expected to involve support services to be provided by Auckland Council officers, principally from the Local Board Services Department and from Council’s parks advisor for the area.

Legal and Legislative Implications Not applicable.

Implementation Issues If the Governing Body approves the establishment of the Orakei Basin advisory group, officers from local board services, parks sport and recreation, and community and cultural policy will commence work on establishing the advisory group.

Attachments No. Title Page A Draft Terms of Reference for the Orakei Basin Advisory Group

Signatories Author Sarah Young, Relationship Manager Orakei Local Board, Local Board Services Authorisers Ian Maxwell, Manager Parks, Sports & Recreation

Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1



Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1

4



Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1



Atta

chm

ent B

Ite

m 1

4



DRAFT

Orakei Basin Advisory Group Terms of Reference The terms of reference of the Orakei Basin Advisory Group were approved by (committee) at its (date) ordinary meeting. Introduction In September 2010, the Auckland City Council approved the Orakei Basin Management Plan, a plan for the management of the Orakei Basin and its surrounding public open spaces. The management plan includes as an action, the establishment of an Orakei Basin Advisory Group (the advisory group) and the establishment of a “Friends of the Orakei Basin” group. Purpose The advisory group will assist the Auckland Council in managing the Orakei Basin and surrounding public open spaces by providing advice and advocacy in relation to these areas and any other role(s) allocated to it by the Auckland Council. The advisory group will not have any regulatory or decision making responsibilities and will not hold any funding. Reporting The advisory group will report annually to the governing body. Minutes of regular advisory group meetings will be provided to the relevant governing body committee for inclusion on its monthly business agenda, if it chooses. Minutes will also be provided to the Orakei Local Board, for information, for inclusion in its monthly business agenda, if it chooses. Scope The advisory group’s role will be primarily the Orakei Basin itself and the public open spaces surrounding it as described in the Orakei Basin Management Plan (see attached map). Responsibilities The advisory group will:

• lead on progressing the actions identified in the Orakei Basin Management Plan and reporting annually on progress to the Auckland Council

• be responsible for establishment and oversight of the Friends of the Orakei Basin group • have a role in working with residents in the vicinity of the Orakei Basin to encourage actions

and activities that support the objectives of the Orakei Basin Management Plan • meet regularly as agreed and keep a record of meetings and agreed actions. Decisions of

meetings will be by consensus and there will be no voting Other responsibilities may be delegated to the advisory group by the Auckland Council as it sees fit. Composition The membership of the advisory group will be appointed tri-annually by the Auckland Council and will consist of:

• One governing body representative • The Orakei Local Board Chair • The Orakei Local Board Parks Spokesperson

Atta

chm

ent B

Ite

m 1



• The Orakei Basin Protection Society Chair • 2 local resident representatives (not elsewhere included in this list) • 1 Ngati Whatua o Orakei representative • 4 representatives selected by Orakei Basin water user groups, including the Auckland Water Ski

Club, the Orakei Yacht Club, the Orakei Sea Scouts, and Akarana Young Mariners, or as determined by the advisory group from time to time

Ex officio • The Auckland Council Parks Advisor for the Orakei Basin • An Orakei Local Board Advisor

The chair of the advisory group will be selected by the members at its first meeting. Other members may be co-opted by the advisory group for specific purposes as it deems appropriate. The Local Board Services Department will service advisory group meetings including arranging and keeping a record of meetings and recording agreed actions.

Atta

chm

ent B

Ite

m 1

4



Orakei Basin

Orakei Creek& arms

Area included within Orakei Basin Advisory Group responsibility

Atta

chm

ent C

Ite

m 1



Composition

The membership of the advisory group will be appointed tri-annually by the Auckland Council and will consist of:

o One governing body representative

o The Orakei Local Board Chair

o The Orakei Local Board Parks Spokesperson

o The Orakei Basin Protection Society Chair

o 2 local resident representatives (not elsewhere included in this list)

o 1 Ngati Whatua o Orakei representative

o 4 representatives selected by Orakei Basin water user groups, including the Auckland Water Ski Club, the Orakei Yacht Club, the Orakei Sea Scouts, and Akarana Young Mariners, or as determined by the advisory group from time to time

Ex officio

o The Auckland Council Parks Advisor for the Orakei Basin

o An Orakei Local Board Advisor

or as determined by the advisory group from time to time

The chair of the advisory group will be selected by the members at its first meeting.

Other members may be co-opted by the advisory group for specific purposes as it deems appropriate

Item

15


Establishment of a Heritage Advisory Panel - Recommendation from the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum

Establishment of a Heritage Advisory Panel - Recommendation from the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum File No.: CP2011/03120

Executive Summary At its 5 May 2011 meeting, the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum resolved: RESOLUTION NUMBER PH/2011/31 MOVED by Cr Coney, seconded Cr Lee:

a) That the report on the proposed establishment of a Heritage Advisory Panel be received. b) That it be a recommendation to the Regional Development and Operations Committee:

i) That a Heritage Advisory Panel be established, to provide independent advice to the

Governing Body on a range of historic heritage matters and to support the work of the new Auckland Urban Design Panel, as set out in this report to the 5 May 2011 meeting of the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum.

ii) That the scope and role of the Heritage Advisory Panel be as outlined in this report

to the 5 May 2011 meeting of the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum.

iii) That subsequent to the Committee approving the above resolutions b) i) and ii); detail around membership and the terms of reference for the Heritage Advisory Panel be delegated to the Chair of the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum to finalise, in conjunction with the Mayoral Office and with advice from the Manager, Environmental Strategy and Policy and Manager, Environmental Services.

iv) That subject to the Committee approving the above resolutions b) i), ii) and iii), the

establishment of a Heritage Advisory Panel be identified in the draft Historic Heritage Plan as a priority action.

v) That a review of the Heritage Advisory Panel be undertaken after 12 months of

operation and any recommendations from that review be reported to the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum.

This report presents that recommendation to the Regional Development and Operations Committee for its acceptance.

Item

15



Recommendation/s a) That the report from the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum be received. b) That the Regional Development & Operations Committee notes the resolutions from

the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum meeting of 5 May 2011 in relation to the report on the Establishment of a Heritage Advisory Panel.

c) That a Heritage Advisory Panel be established, to provide independent advice to the Governing Body on a range of historic heritage matters and to nominate candidates for membership on the new Auckland Urban Design Panel.

d) That the purpose and scope of the Heritage Panel be confirmed as:

1. Purpose Identify and communicate to the Council the interests and preferences of the

wider heritage community of Auckland in relation to: - the content of the strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws of the Council –

and - any matter that the panel considers to be of particular interest or concern

to the heritage interests of Auckland. • Advise the Chair Parks Recreation and Heritage Forum, of the Council

processes and mechanisms for engagement with the heritage community in Auckland.

• To deliver recommendations for improving the management of heritage of the Auckland Council region.

• To provide heritage advice into the Auckland Urban Design Panel. 2. Scope To provide a forum for consideration of issues affecting heritage of the Auckland Council area and recommendations to Council.

e) That detail around membership and the terms of reference for the Heritage Advisory

Panel be delegated to the Chair of the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum to finalise, in conjunction with the Mayoral Office and Chief Planning Officer.

f) That a review of the Heritage Advisory Panel be undertaken after 12 months of

operation and any recommendations from that review be reported to the Regional Development & Operations Committee.

Attachments No. Title Page A Original report to the 5 May 2011 meeting of the Parks, Recreation and

Heritage Forum - Proposed Establishment of a Heritage Advisory Panel 61

B Draft Terms of Reference for the Heritage Advisory Panel 67

Signatories Authors Elaine Stephenson - Committee Secretary Authorisers Warwick McNaughton – Governance Support Manager

Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1

5



Proposed Establishment of a Heritage Advisory Panel File No.: CP2011/02271

Executive Summary At its meeting of the 17 February 2011 the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum resolved as follows:

That officers report back to the Forum on the proposed Heritage Panel, with options for composition, roles and Terms of Reference.

This report responds to the above resolution and also to the Mayor’s request of the Chair of the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum to establish a heritage panel. The recommended approach in terms of role, membership and operation is based on recently established advisory panels (The Business Advisory Panel and Rural Advisory Panel). The purpose of the proposed heritage advisory panel would be to provide independent advice and input to the Governing Body’s decision-making processes. As well as resource consents and plan changes through input via the Auckland Urban Design Panel, the advisory panel would also provide input to Council policy and major public development proposals. The preferred approach proposes the formation of an advisory panel consisting of both technical experts, as well as community and stakeholder interests. A wide representation is recommended both geographically within Auckland and expertise wise. In the first instance, the panel should be limited in its scope. The Council has already resolved to limit the scope of the heritage plan to historic heritage and this should follow for the panel. This will enable a clear focus without significant resource implications. If this approach is endorsed this would enable the Council to promote a more efficient, integrated approach to managing the city’s historic heritage and assist in achieving the Mayor’s vision of Auckland being a beautiful, liveable city, in partnership with the community and stakeholders. The report also recommends that this approach be included as a priority action in the first draft of the draft historic heritage plan, to be presented to the Forum. Given that this is a new initiative, after a defined period (12 months), the advisory panel, its operation, scope and role should be reviewed.

Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1



Recommendation/s a) That the report be received. b) That it be a recommendation to the Regional Development and Operations

Committee: i) That a Heritage Advisory Panel be established, to provide independent

advice to the Governing Body on a range of historic heritage matters and to support the work of the new Auckland Urban Design Panel, as set out in this report to the 5 May 2011 meeting of the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum.

ii) That the scope and role of the Heritage Advisory Panel be as outlined in this

report to the 5 May 2011 meeting of the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum.

iii) That subsequent to the Committee approving the above resolutions b) i) and

ii); detail around membership and the terms of reference for the Heritage Advisory Panel be delegated to the Chair of the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum to finalise, in conjunction with the Mayoral Office and with advice from the Manager, Environmental Strategy and Policy and Manager, Environmental Services.

iv) That subject to the Committee approving the above resolutions b) i), ii) and

iii), the establishment of a Heritage Advisory Panel be identified in the draft Historic Heritage Plan as a priority action.

v) That a review of the Heritage Advisory Panel be undertaken after 12 months

of operation and any recommendations from that review be reported to the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum.

Background At its 17 February 2011 meeting the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum resolved as follows:

That officers report back to the Forum on the proposed Heritage Panel, with options for composition, roles and Terms of Reference.

The Council has established a number of advisory boards/panels on specific matters (e.g. the Business Advisory Panel and the Rural Advisory Panel) serving similar roles to that which it is anticipated the Heritage Advisory Panel could fulfil for heritage. For the sake of council-wide consistency, the proposed heritage advisory panel is modelled on these already existing panels/boards. To this extent, the full range of options is not addressed in this report as requested in the resolution, but instead the practice and format of already established Council forums and panels is used as a guide. The establishment of a heritage advisory panel to provide non-statutory external expert advice to the Governing Body on policy and projects is one of a number of initiatives identified as having the potential to assist with achieving better heritage outcomes for Auckland.

Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1

5



While this report deals with the establishment of an advisory panel on its own merits, it is best considered and implemented as part of a suite of other methods. Such methods include regulatory provisions, financial incentives and education about historic heritage. These methods are to be investigated and acted upon through an agreed draft historic heritage plan. The establishment of an advisory panel could be identified as a priority action in the draft historic heritage plan.

Decision Making The benefits of forming a historic heritage advisory panel for Auckland include:

• It is an immediate response to the high profile that heritage issues have received and calls for the Council to strengthen its response to such matters.

• It will assist in raising the profile of heritage, both within the Council, and to the public. • It will bring a new/fresh perspective on heritage advice to the Governing Body. • Subject to the Forum’s agreement to the recommended approach, it could signal a more

inclusive community and stakeholder-based approach to managing heritage within the region. As this is a new initiative, a 12 month review period is recommended. The scope of the panel should be limited in the first instance to historic heritage and should not, at this stage, address natural heritage issues or heritage issues facing iwi. This would be consistent with the Council’s resolution around the draft historic heritage plan. This would be reviewed after 12 months

Role The panel would be an advisory body, with no statutory decision making powers. In a general sense, the role of the heritage advisory panel would be to signal a more inclusive approach to management of heritage in the region. This would entail a move away from reliance solely on recognised experts but include community and stakeholder involvement. Specifically, the advisory panel could: • Provide non-statutory, community and expert heritage advice on private and public

development proposals involving heritage places, in advance of (or during) the statutory resource consent process. As discussed further on in this report, this role could be delivered through the existing urban design panel processes.

• Provide external heritage advice on heritage policy matters such as the development of the draft historic heritage plan, plan changes, structure plans and the unitary plan development.

• Assist the Council by engaging directly with local boards on heritage matters. • Champion heritage outcomes and initiatives across the region and assist the Council to

promote awareness and the importance of heritage matters. Preferred Approach Assumptions: In terms of the establishment of an advisory panel, the following assumptions are made:

• It would be separate from, but funded by the Council • It would be independent of other advisory boards and panels • The role of the advisory board is as stated above. • It would follow the structure, role and membership of existing panels and boards.

Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1



Given these assumptions the preferred approach put forward for the Forum’s consideration is as follows:

The recommended approach is the establishment of an advisory panel, consisting of a broad spectrum of interests, covering expertise and interest from across the region. It would include community members and stakeholders, as well as recognised experts in the field of heritage. Benefits:

• It would allow for the input of a wide range of heritage opinion, knowledge and advice. • It would enable community and stakeholder views to be discussed alongside expert

professional views. • It would signal a shift towards a more community focussed approach to heritage

management. Issues:

• Ensuring that advice is balanced and not captured by any one perspective. • Recognition that if matters enter a statutory process, expert advice is necessary to defend

Council positions. This approach allows the Council to promote a more efficient, integrated approach to managing the city’s heritage and achieving the Mayor’s vision of Auckland being a beautiful, liveable city, in partnership with the community and stakeholders. Should this approach be endorsed, it should be included as a priority action in the first draft of the historic heritage plan. Relationship to the Urban Design Panel: Currently the Council has an Urban Design Panel that provides advice on private sector development proposals, which may contain heritage issues/values. Separating consideration of heritage issues from the role of the urban design panel and giving that responsibility to a separate heritage advisory panel is not recommended. Heritage is an integral part of the urban environment and its separation from (re)development proposals could potentially undermine the ability to provide the integrated management that the RMA and the Council is seeking to achieve. Heritage, historic character and urban design issues are frequently inseparable. It is frequently observed that today’s urban design decisions are tomorrow’s heritage. In order to avoid duplication of effort and maintain the integrity of the Urban Design Panel, while ensuring heritage advice is provided to the Urban Design Panel, it is proposed that the Heritage Advisory Panel nominate suitably qualified representatives to sit on the Urban Design Panel, depending on what sort of expertise or experience is required. Those nominated may be members of the Heritage Advisory Panel but may also be from outside the Panel, should it consider it does not have the necessary expertise. This decision would be made by the Heritage Advisory Panel, in conjunction with the Manager Environment Strategy and Policy who oversees the operation of the Auckland Urban Design Panel.

Membership: Members of the advisory panel could be drawn from a number of areas that have interests in heritage, including relevant technical expertise (conservation architecture, archaeology, history, planning, engineering and landscape architecture), museums, New Zealand Historic Places Trust

Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1

5



and community groups. It will also be important to ensure that all parts of the Auckland region are represented (a wide geographic spread of interests). Membership of the other panels has been decided by the Chair of the relevant Council Forum, in conjunction with the Mayoral Office. A similar approach is recommended for the Heritage Advisory Panel. Individuals recognised as skilled in heritage and other related disciplines would be considered for membership by the Chair and Mayoral Office with advice from the Manager Environment Strategy and Policy and/or the Manager Environmental Services. Consideration also needs to be given to the Chair of the panel. This could be either someone independent of Council or a Councillor. Other similar panels are chaired by a Councillor, generally the Chair of the relevant Forum, and this approach in the establishment phase of the panel is recommended for the Heritage Advisory Panel. At some time after the panel is up and running the panel could consider choosing a different chair. Terms of Reference: A draft terms of reference based on the recently established Business Advisory Panel is attached for reference.

Significance of Decision The establishment of an advisory panel is a significant decision, but consistent with decisions Council has made in other areas. While the advantages of such an approach have already been identified, as this is a new initiative, it is recommended that the advisory panel addresses matters of historic heritage in the first instance, with consideration being given to a wider mandate after a review in 12 months. Such a review would also allow a review of its membership as well as its relationship to the Auckland Urban Design panel.

Consultation No consultation was undertaken in the development of this report.

Financial and Resourcing Implications The establishment of an advisory panel will have financial and resourcing implications. An advisory panel would very likely rely heavily on Council for administrative support and for funding to meet operational costs. No funding allocation has been made for the current financial year and provision will need to be made in the Annual Plan 2011/2012 and in the Long Term Plan (LTP). The strengthening of attendance by advisory panel members onto the new Auckland Urban Design Panel, as proposed, is unlikely to add significant costs. The administrative and operational cost of the Auckland Urban Design Panel is already contained within existing budgets. Attendance by Heritage Advisory Panel members on the Urban Design Panel would not affect administrative costs and would have minimal impact on attendance fee costs. It is likely there will be overlap between the members of the proposed Heritage Advisory Panel and the Auckland Urban Design Panel. In terms of the cost of the advisory panel providing heritage policy advice, that is more difficult to define. There will be administrative and staff costs in establishing and operating the advisory panel, the amount of which will depend on the number of meetings and meeting format. While attendance fees are not recommended, it is reasonable for members travelling expenses to be reimbursed. A 12 month review period will enable cost implications to be monitored and addressed if necessary.

Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1



Legal and Legislative Implications As discussed previously, a heritage advisory panel would be an advisory body, with no statutory decision making powers.

Implementation Issues Should the Council resolve to establish a heritage advisory panel as outlined in this report it is recommended that the detail around membership and terms of reference be delegated to the Chair of the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum, in conjunction with the Mayoral Office and with advice from the Manager Environmental Strategy and Policy and Manager Environmental Services. Given that this is a new initiative, after a defined period, the advisory panel, its operation, scope and role should be reviewed.

Attachments No. Title Page A Draft Terms of Reference

Signatories Author Noel Reardon, Manager Heritage; Environmental Strategy & Policy Authorisers Ludo Campbell-Reid, Environmental Strategy & Policy Manager

Roger Blakeley, Chief Planning Officer

Atta

chm

ent B

Ite

m 1

5



Draft Terms of Reference: Heritage Advisory Panel 1. Background The Heritage Advisory Panel is one of a number of Auckland Council Advisory Panels. 2. Purpose Identify and communicate to the Council the interests and preferences of the wider

heritage community of Auckland in relation to:

- the content of the strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws of the Council – and - any matter that the panel considers to be of particular interest or concern to the

heritage interests of Auckland.

• Advise the Chair Parks Recreation and Heritage Forum, of the Council processes and mechanisms for engagement with the heritage community in Auckland.

• To deliver recommendations for improving the management of heritage of the

Auckland Council region.

• To provide heritage advice into the Auckland Urban Design Panel. 3. Scope

To provide a forum for consideration of issues affecting heritage of the Auckland Council area and recommendations to Council.

4. Priorities

The priorities for the Panel in the first year will include:

• Auckland (Spatial) Plan • Heritage Plan • District Plan issues and preparation for Unitary Plan • Input into Urban Design Panel.

5. Membership The panel Chairperson shall be the Chair of the Councils Parks Recreation and

Heritage Forum. Representation on the Heritage Advisory Panel has been determined by the Board

Chairperson and the mayoral office, in consultation with relevant officers following a public call for nominations.

Heritage Advisory members will not be paid for their attendance.

Atta

chm

ent B

Ite

m 1



6. Meetings Meetings will be held quarterly with the first meeting scheduled for the July 2011.

Further meetings dates are to be confirmed. Meeting locations are to be rotated, hosted by local boards in the region.

Each meeting will have a particular focus that assists the purpose of the Heritage

Advisory Panel. 7. Officer Support Auckland Council staff are responsible for:

• Administrative support for the Group, including organising meetings, setting agendas, and the drafting and distribution of minutes.

• Development of the work programme and provision of technical advice on identified topics.

• Response to requests generated. • Assistance with other reporting requirements as they arise.

Item

16


Draft Earthquake Prone, Dangerous & Insanitary Building Policy 2011 - 2016

Draft Earthquake Prone, Dangerous & Insanitary Building Policy 2011 - 2016 File No.: CP2011/03377

Executive Summary As a consequence of the Christchurch earthquake, Auckland Council has undertaken a review of the draft earthquake-prone, dangerous and insanitary buildings (EQP) policy and is reviewing its current list of ‘at risk’ buildings to ensure that it is prepared for, and capable of managing, an emergency event in the Auckland region. The Auckland region is in a zone of low seismic activity. It has a range of building types, construction and ages reflecting the steady development over the last 150 years. Construction materials include wood, un-reinforced masonry, framed masonry, brick veneer as well as modern multi-storey steel and concrete buildings. The Draft EQP policy is a requirement of the Building Act. It must state the Council’s approach in performing its functions, its priorities and how the policy will apply to heritage buildings. In reviewing its Draft EQP, Auckland Council has consulted with the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences (GNS) in identifying the risk relating to casualty and economic loss in terms of a moderate earthquake in the Auckland area. Earthquake-prone buildings are those whose ultimate capacity will be exceeded in a moderate earthquake and would be likely to collapse causing injury or death or damage to any other property. The purpose of the Draft EQP policy is to reduce the level of risk to people from earthquake-prone buildings by ensuring that buildings are more able to withstand an earthquake. This policy has been developed to reflect Council’s goal to reduce the risk of earthquake related damage over time, but in a way that is acceptable to the community in social and economic terms. It has been developed with the following considerations:

• the intent and provisions of the Building Act concerning earthquake-prone buildings; • the Government’s broader concern with the safety of the public in buildings; • the need to address safety in the event of an earthquake; and • lessons learned from the Christchurch earthquake.

The policy proposes that the Auckland Council adopt a staged approach to the identification of earthquake-prone buildings and action required to mitigate any risk. This approach balances the costs that this policy might incur on building owners against the identified low risk of an event occurring in the Auckland region. Officers have undertaken a field survey to validate Auckland Council’s list of potentially earthquake-prone buildings. It is proposed that officers will complete an initial evaluation of building performance (IEP) for relevant buildings by December 2012. Following this, buildings on the list will be arranged in the following categories to prioritise any remedial work required to the building:

• Buildings with special post-disaster functions to be assessed by December 2011 and, if found to be earthquake-prone and if notices are issued, to be either strengthened or removed from being recognised as having a post-disaster function within 10 years (2021).

• Buildings that contain people in crowds or contents of high value to the community to be assessed by December 2012 and, if found to be earthquake-prone and if notices are issued, to be strengthened or removed from this use within 10 years (2022). This section will not include heritage buildings.

Item

16



• Heritage buildings scheduled in district plans and/or registered by the NZ Historic Places Trust to be assessed by December 2015 and, if found to be earthquake-prone and if notices are issued, to be strengthened, within 30 years (2045).

• Other buildings to be assessed by December 2015 and, if found to be earthquake-prone and if notices are issued, to be strengthened within 30 years (2045).

Building owners will be advised of their building’s status and timeframes for there to be a detailed assessment and possible strengthening work. Information regarding a building’s status will be included on the land information memorandum for a property (LIM). The list of potentially earthquake-prone buildings will be maintained and updated on an on-going basis to reflect any information obtained by or provided to Council, which affects the earthquake prone status of a building. This will include any findings and recommendations from the enquiry into the Christchurch earthquake. If the proposed policy is approved, the council is required to undertake public consultation as provided for under the Local Government Act 2002.

Recommendation/s a) That the report be received. b) That the Council approves the Draft Earthquake-Prone, Dangerous and Insanitary

Buildings Policy 2011-2016 for public consultation.

Background The Christchurch Earthquake has raised awareness of Auckland’s level of risk and civil defence and emergency management planning should a natural disaster occur in the region. In particular, there is much focus on the structural integrity of buildings and their ability to withstand an earthquake. Auckland Council is required under section 131 of the Building Act 2004 to adopt a policy on earthquake prone, dangerous and insanitary buildings (EQP). This policy is required to state:

• the approach that the Auckland Council will take in performing its functions under the Building Act 2004;

• its priorities in performing those functions; and • how the policy will apply to heritage buildings.

The Auckland region is in a zone of low seismic activity. It has a range of building types, construction and ages reflecting the steady development over the last 150 years. Construction materials include wood, un-reinforced masonry, framed masonry, brick veneer as well as modern multi-storey steel and concrete buildings. In the past, legacy councils in the region have not actively pursued a policy of identifying and strengthening every earthquake-prone building. Any strengthening work that has been undertaken has been as a result of:

• property owners acting on their own accord; or • major upgrades of Council owned buildings (including heritage buildings); or • strengthening required under section 46 of the Building Act where property owners

undertake a change of use of their building.

Item

16



As a consequence of the Christchurch earthquake, Auckland Council is undertaking a review of the EQP policy and reviewing its register of ‘at risk’ buildings to ensure that it is capable of managing, and is prepared for an emergency event in the Auckland region. In reviewing its Draft EQP, Auckland Council has consulted with the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences (GNS) in identifying the risk relating to casualty and economic loss in terms of a moderate earthquake in the Auckland area.

Decision Making Earthquake-Prone Buildings Earthquake-prone buildings are defined in the Building Act as those whose ultimate capacity will be exceeded in a moderate earthquake and would be likely to collapse causing injury or death or damage to any other property. The definition of earthquake-prone buildings has been extended from previous legislation so more buildings are potentially covered by the definition and a higher level of structural performance of buildings is required. Small residential buildings are exempt from such a definition. Earthquake-Prone Buildings Policy The purpose of the EQP policy is to reduce the level of risk to people from earthquake-prone buildings by ensuring that buildings are more able to withstand an earthquake. Additionally, the policy is council’s approach to safeguarding people from buildings considered to be dangerous or insanitary. The Draft EQP policy needs to take into account the relative risk of an earthquake in an area as seismic activity differs across New Zealand. The Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences produced a report in 2006 entitled “Estimated Damage and Casualties from Earthquakes Affecting Auckland” that concluded the risk of serious loss from an earthquake to be relatively low in Auckland. This report is being reviewed following the Christchurch Earthquake however it is not anticipated that Auckland’s risk profile will have altered. The report further concluded that in the event of a moderate earthquake in the Auckland region, loss would be incurred in the following areas:

• Injury and death of people • Damage and destruction of buildings • Destruction of building contents • Disruption of business.

The Draft EQP policy is council’s intended approach to:

• the identification of earthquake-prone buildings, • the extent to which council requires earthquake-prone buildings to meet standards • the council priorities for upgrading earthquake-prone buildings, • working with owners to upgrade their buildings, • managing buildings considered to be dangerous or insanitary, and • managing heritage buildings, both in respect of earthquake-prone and dangerous and

insanitary. The Draft EQP policy has been developed to reflect Council’s goal to reduce the risk of earthquake related damage over time, but in a way that is acceptable to the community in social and economic terms. It has been developed with the following considerations:

• the intent and provisions of the Building Act concerning earthquake-prone buildings, • the Government’s broader concern with the safety of the public in buildings, • the need to address safety in the event of an earthquake, and • lessons learned from the Christchurch earthquake.

Item

16



The policy proposes that the Auckland Council adopt a staged approach to the identification and action required to earthquake-prone buildings. This approach balances the costs that this policy might incur on building owners against the identified risk of an event occurring in the Auckland region. Identification of Earthquake-prone buildings Stage 1. Officers have carried out a field survey to check the accuracy of information held on legacy council files to ensure that the Auckland Council has a list of all buildings which could potentially be earthquake-prone based on age, building use, and construction form and materials. Stage 2. Officers will complete by December 2012 an initial evaluation of building performance (IEP) of relevant buildings, in the event of an earthquake. This will be based on information obtained by using the New Zealand Society of Earthquake Engineering (NZSEE) “Assessment and Improvement of the Structural Performance of Buildings in Earthquake.” Stage 3. Following the completion of the above stages of work, officers will arrange the list of potentially earthquake-prone buildings into the following categories:

• buildings with special post-disaster functions and defined in the building regulations as Importance Level 4;

• buildings that contain people in crowds or contents of high value to the community and defined as Importance Level 3;

• heritage buildings or structures identified on district plan schedules and other significant buildings or structures forming part of a Conservation Area; and

• other buildings with an Importance Level less than 3. Building owners will be advised of their building’s status and timeframes for there to be a detailed assessment and possible strengthening work. The list of potentially earthquake-prone buildings will be maintained and updated on an on-going basis to reflect any information obtained by or provided to Council, which affects the earthquake-prone status of a building. Action on earthquake-prone buildings The draft policy provides specific timeframes in which buildings of certain importance levels15 are to be assessed. It then sets out how building owners will be notified if their building is deemed to be potentially earthquake prone and what needs to be done to address this (including timeframe). Buildings will only become part of the Auckland Council’s EQP buildings register if owners fail to take action to strengthen their building and they have been served notice under the Building Act 2004. The policy contains the following timing priorities with respect to confirming if a building is an earthquake-prone building and if the council decides that a notice is to be issued, requiring the building to be strengthened and removed from the register :

• Buildings with special post-disaster functions defined Importance Level 4 to be assessed by December 2011 and, if found to be earthquake-prone and if notices are issued, to be either strengthened or removed from being recognised as having a post-disaster function within 10 years (2021).

15 Importance levels are defined in Australian and New Zealand Standard 1170.0:2002. They range from level 1 (structure presents low degree of hazard to life or other property) to level 4 (structure with special post-disaster functions)

Item

16



• Buildings that contain people in crowds or contents of high value to the community defined as Importance Level 3 to be assessed by December 2012 and, if found to be earthquake-prone and if notices are issued, to be strengthened or removed from this use within 10 years (2022). This section will not include heritage buildings.

• Heritage buildings scheduled in district plans and/or registered by the NZ Historic Places Trust to be assessed by December 2015 and, if found to be earthquake-prone and if notices are issued, to be strengthened, within 30 years (2045).

• Buildings with an Importance Level of less than three to be assessed by December 2015 and if found to be an earthquake-prone building and if notices are issued, to be strengthened within 30 years (2045).

Heritage buildings For the purposes of this policy, ‘heritage buildings’ are:

• structures as scheduled in the District Plan; • buildings forming part of a Conservation Area or Special Character Zone as identified

within the District Plan; or • buildings or structures as registered under the Historic Places Act 1993; or • buildings or structures constructed prior to 1900.

Where the detailed structural assessment confirms that the building is earthquake-prone, Council will work with the owners to develop a mutually acceptable way forward. Again, consistent within this policy, where agreement cannot be reached, Council will issue a notice under the Building Act 2004. Special effort will be made to meet heritage objectives and may include the use of dispensations and waivers to avoid forcing work which has a significantly negative impact on heritage places, especially where the level of non-compliance is technical rather than significant, or where the level of risk can be adequately mitigated by a more flexible approach to levels of strengthening and to strengthening techniques under the Building Act. The Council will advocate for strengthening work and techniques that respect and protect the heritage value of the building. Where a heritage building is damaged by an intervening event (such as fire) that renders the building earthquake-prone, dangerous or insanitary, any building work (other than demolition of all or part of the building) required by a notice to reduce or remove that danger will be in accordance with what is necessary to facilitate the preservation of the building’s heritage value. These provisions may include the retention of historic building material or components (such as brick or stone) for reconstruction purposes, and the recording or damaged elements or details, rather than the immediate removal of such materials and their disposal. Other matters Officers are also currently updating the Council’s GIS to enable an overlay of ‘at risk’ buildings relative to arterial routes to enable better emergency management planning.

Significance of Decision Preparation of this policy requires council to undertake public consultation as provided for under the Local Government Act 2002. Officers have discussed the intention to review the policy with the Property Council.

Consultation The Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences produced a report in 2006 entitled “Estimated Damage and Casualties from Earthquakes Affecting Auckland” that concluded the risk of serious loss from an earthquake to be relatively low in Auckland. This report is being reviewed following the Christchurch Earthquake. It is expected to be completed within three months.

Item

16



Financial and Resourcing Implications The review is being undertaken within existing budgets.

Legal and Legislative Implications The review is being undertaken to ensure that the Auckland Council is meeting its legal requirements under the Building Act to maintain a register of ‘at risk’ buildings and adopt an earthquake-prone, dangerous and insanitary buildings policy.

Implementation Issues Any changes to the existing policy may place additional obligations on property owners particularly if a building is identified as a potentially earthquake prone building and whether, if confirmed as an earthquake-prone building, work is required to the building to reduce of remove the danger.

Attachments No. Title Page A Draft Earthquake-Prone, Dangerous and Sanitary Buildings Policy 2011-

2016 75

B Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences Limited • Figure 2.1 – Occurrence of large shallow earthquakes in New Zealand since 1840 • Figure 2.2 – Tectonic setting of New Zealand

93

C New Zealand Standards – NZS3604:2011 • Figure 5.4 – Earthquake zones Figure 5.4 – Earthquake zones (continued)

95

D Addendum to Draft Earthquake _rone, Dangerous & Insanitary Buildings Policy report

97

Signatories Authors Bob de Laur – Manager Building Policy – Training & Resolutions Authorisers Ian McCormick – Manager Building Control

Patricia Reade – Chief Operating Officer

Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1

6



DRAFT EARTHQUAKE-PRONE,DANGEROUS & INSANITARY BUILDINGS POLICY 2011 - 2016 Policy Purpose Auckland Council is required under s131 of the Building Act 2004 to adopt a policy on earthquake prone, dangerous and insanitary buildings (EQP). The Act also specifically recognises that heritage buildings may require a variation to such an approach if their particular heritage values are not to be compromised. It therefore makes provision for the council policy to deal with earthquake strengthening of such buildings in a systematically different manner and on a case-by-case basis. For instance, council can consider dispensations and waivers for issues of safety and sanitary conditions for heritage buildings and consider lateral or innovative approaches to achieving the desired level of compliance. This policy is required to state:

• the approach that the Auckland Council will take in performing its functions under the Building Act 2004,

• its priorities in performing those functions and • how the policy will apply to heritage buildings.

In developing and adopting its Draft EQP, Auckland Council has followed the consultative procedure set out in section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 and has consulted with the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences in identifying the risk relating to casualty and economic loss resulting from a moderate earthquake in the Auckland geographic area. A further report has been commissioned as per the recommendations of the 2006 report. It is important to recognise that the seismic zone and risk will not change from what was previously identified for the Auckland region. The policy document is divided into three Parts

• Part 1 – Earthquake-prone buildings • Part 2 – Dangerous buildings, and • Part 3 – Insanitary buildings

Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1



1.0 Earthquake-Prone Buildings

1.1 Background The definition of an earthquake-prone building is set out in s122 of the Building Act 2004 and the definition of a moderate earthquake is defined in Regulation 7, 2005/32. It is as follows:

“‘In relation to a building, an earthquake that would generate shaking at the site of the building that is of the same duration as, but that is one-third as strong as, the earthquake shaking (determined by normal measures of acceleration, velocity and displacement) that would be used to design a new building at the site.”

Buildings are made up of a number of parts and parts of the building that are found to be earthquake prone will require strengthening. The significant change from the 1991 Building Act is that more buildings are potentially covered by the definition and a higher level of structural performance of buildings is required.

1.2 Context

Auckland Council is in a zone of low seismic activity (appendix A1). Its buildings comprise a range of types and ages reflecting the steady development over the last 150 years. Construction materials include wood, unreinforced masonry, framed masonry, brick veneer as well as modern multi-storey steel and concrete buildings. The major concentration of buildings constructed prior to 1976 is located in the previous Auckland city area.

In the past, Auckland’s legacy councils have not actively pursued a policy of strengthening every earthquake-prone building and primarily used the change of use provisions of the building act to require building owners to upgrade their buildings. Subsequent to adopting Earthquake prone and dangerous building policies in May 2006 each of the Auckland region’s legacy councils compiled a register of Earthquake prone buildings as defined by section 122 of the 2004 Building Act. These EPB policies and registers have been used as the basis for establishing the overall register of Earthquake prone buildings for the Auckland council geographic area. The greatest concentration of these buildings are located in the Auckland city geographic legacy area. This has also been verified by previous records and assessments of these buildings held on file.

Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1

6



Any strengthening work that has been undertaken to date in the Auckland council area has been as a result of: • property owners acting on their own accord, or • major upgrades of Council owned heritage scheduled buildings or • where property owners had applied for a building consent for a change of

use of their buildings or part of their building and strengthening was required under s46, Building Act 1991.

2.0 Policy development approach

This draft policy has been developed and will be implemented using a pragmatic approach. This reflects Council’s goal to reduce earthquake risk over time, but in a way that is acceptable to the community in social and economic terms.

The pragmatic approach addresses the following considerations: • Intent and provisions of the Building Act concerning earthquake-prone buildings, • Government’s broader concern with the life safety of the public in buildings and, • The need to address life safety in the event of an earthquake rather than seeking

to avoid all damage to buildings. • Recognising the early learning’s derived out of the Canterbury earthquake

Auckland Council is committed to ensuring that the Auckland council geographic area is a safe place to live and work in. The draft earthquake-prone building policy is consistent with Council’s strategic priority for a safe city as outlined in the long term plan.

3.0 Identifying earthquake-prone buildings – Process overview

Key actions will include: • Identifying potentially earthquake-prone buildings that previously may not

have been identified • Updating the register of buildings that are potentially earthquake-prone in

terms of the Building Act 2004. • Advising owners that their building has been identified as being potentially

earthquake-prone • Determining whether a building (or part of) is an EPB as defined in the Act • Where necessary, issuing written notices under s124 of the Building Act. • For EPB’s, determining with building owners the appropriate scope and

timetable of this policy for building improvement if the Council decides to issue a notice

Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1



4.0 Earthquake-prone buildings - Process detail Auckland Council will adopt a staged approach as outlined

Stage 1 Council will maintain a register of all buildings, which could potentially be earthquake-prone based on age, building use, and construction form and materials. To complete this list council will: • Carry out a field survey to check accuracy of information held on previous legacy

Council files • Buildings unlikely to be EPB’s will not be assessed at this stage. Buildings that will not require further assessment include those:

• Designed or strengthened to the 1976 NZS4203 and subsequent codes, unless

they have a critical structural weakness Stage 2 To be completed by December 2012. This stage will result in the completion, by council, of an initial evaluation (IEP) of building performance (of relevant buildings), in the event of an earthquake. This will be based on information obtained by using the New Zealand Society of Earthquake Engineering (NZSEE) “Assessment and Improvement of the Structural Performance of Buildings in Earthquake.”

Stage 3 Once stages one and two are complete, Council will compile a register of potentially earthquake-prone buildings, arranged into the following categories:

• Buildings with special post-disaster functions as defined in AS/NZS 1170.0: 2002,

Importance Level 4. (Appendix A3) • Buildings that contain people in crowds or contents of high value to the

community as defined in AS/NZS 1170.0: 2002, Importance Level 3. (Appendix A3)

• Heritage buildings or structures identified on District Plan schedules NZHPT Register, and other significant buildings or structures forming part of a Conservation Area or Special Character Area

• Buildings with an Importance Level less than 3 as defined in AS/NZS 1170.0:2002 (Appendix A3) and timeframes for there to be a detailed assessment and possible strengthening work.

Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1

6



The register of potentially earthquake-prone buildings will be maintained and updated on an ongoing basis to reflect any information obtained by or provided to Council, which affects the earthquake prone status of a building.

5.0 Detailed assessment of earthquake-prone status Earthquake-prone buildings are defined in the Building Act as those whose ultimate capacity will be exceeded in a moderate earthquake as defined in Regulation 7 of the Act, and would be likely to collapse causing injury or death or damage to any other property. Special attention will be given to the intact survival of essential emergency egress routes, such as stairs and ramps, notwithstanding the possibly adequate strength of the building containing them. The detailed assessment will make use of appropriate materials standards and other NZ and/or overseas publications relevant to assessment of existing buildings for earthquake loadings. The council or the owner may carry out the detailed assessment. Average known or measured strengths of materials may be used when assessing ultimate capacities of structural elements.

6.0 Taking action on earthquake-prone buildings

When the Council has satisfied itself that a building or a part is an earthquake-prone building, it will advise and liaise with the owner(s) regarding resolution of the buildings status. In accordance with s124 and s125 of the act, it may: • Attach a written notice to the building stating what work is required within a time

stated in the notice, to reduce or remove the danger • Provide copies of the notice to the building owner, occupier, and every person

who has an interest in the land, or is claiming an interest in the land, including the New Zealand Historic Places Trust, if the building is a scheduled or registered heritage building;

• Contact the owner at the expiry of the time period set down in the notice in order to gain access to the building to ascertain whether the notice has been complied with;

• Pursue enforcement action under the Act if the requirements of the notice are not met within the time stated in the notice as well as any other non-compliance matters.

However, it should be noted that Council would discuss options for action with owners before deciding whether a notice under s124 will be issued. The purpose of these discussions will be to develop an agreed approach for the building. A notice may then be issued stating the particular parts for which the danger is to be reduced by strengthening to an ultimate capacity of at least 34% NBS, or be removed. The owners will then need to provide a formal proposal with respect to the work they will undertake. Council can then formally accept the proposal.

Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1



Owners have the right of appeal as defined in the Building Act 2004. This can include applying to the Department of Building and Housing for a determination under s177.

7.0 Required level of structural improvement

Where a notice has been issued, buildings or parts of buildings identified as earthquake prone will be required to be strengthened to no less than 34% of the new building standard (34%NBS). The council will consider any reasonable approach proposed for improving the seismic performance of a building which is found to be earthquake prone and a notice has been issued. The proposed work will be assessed on a case by case basis, taking into account the relevant principles and requirements set out in the Building Act 2004. Guidance on building assessment and strengthening is available from a number of sources, including the NZSEE.

8.0 Alterations to buildings and change of use;

8.1 s112 Alterations and additions to existing buildings not involving a change

of use as defined in regulation 5

This section of the Building Act applies where an application is made to alter an existing building. In deciding to issue a consent Council must be satisfied that the altered building will comply as nearly as reasonably practicable with the building code in terms of means of escape and access for disabled and this will continue to apply.

8.2 s115 Change of use

The Building Act 2004 provisions regarding change of use are separate from the Act’s provisions relating to earthquake-prone buildings. When an owner is required to notify a change of use for a building, then an upgrade of the structure of the building is required “as nearly as is reasonably practicable” with the Building Code. Notification of change is defined within the Act by Regulation 5 & 6 and Schedule 2.

1Assessment and improvement of the structural performance of buildings in earthquake – recommendations of a NZSEE study group June 2006

9.0 Recording a building’s earthquake-prone status and access to information

In granting access to information concerning EPBs and potential EPBs, the council will conform to the requirements of the Building Act & LGOIMA. Building owners will be encouraged to obtain an initial evaluation report identifying if their building is earthquake prone and to forward a copy of the report to the council for inclusion on the register.

Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1

6



The Council will keep, and update as necessary, a register of all potentially EPBs for which an initial evaluation (IEP) has been done, and of those for which it has been agreed with the owner following a detailed assessment (assessed) that the building is an EPB. The register will record details of the outcome of the assessment, the details of any notice which may have been issued and any strengthening which may have been done. All information on the register will be made available; this includes all detailed information and calculations in connection with the IEP and EPB assessment.

In addition, the following information will be placed on the LIM for each earthquake-prone building: • Address and legal description of land and building • Statement that the building is on the Council’s register of potential earthquake-

prone buildings (IEPs done), buildings assessed as earthquake-prone (EPBs) and buildings for which a notice.under s124 has been issued;

• Date by which, strengthening is required, where a notice has been issued. • Statement that further details are available from the Council, and that Council has

a cost recovery policy and this will apply where it provides these details. 10.0 Economic impact of policy

Indications from the 2005 report, commissioned by the Auckland City Council from the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences entitled “Estimated Damage and Casualties from Earthquakes affecting Auckland City” are that the risk of substantial economic loss due to a moderate earthquake as defined in regulation 7 (see 1.1 of this policy) is low for Auckland. The information within the report relating to seismicity can be applied across the Auckland council region. A further economic assessment will follow completion of the initial building evaluation phase and identification of the scale and extent of the required strengthening work by this policy to be completed by the end of the strengthening periods set under 12.0 “Priorities”. A separate report on the economic impact of the policy will be prepared for Council. This will be prepared following stage 2, (see section 4.0 of this policy). Policy implementation will ensure that a balance is struck between the need to address earthquake risk and the social and economic implications for the four categories of buildings in 12.0.

11.0 Buildings which can be excluded from this policy

The equivalent static earthquake forces for the design of buildings in Auckland have not changed much since earthquake design began with the introduction of NZS 95 in 1935. This was followed by NZS 1900, Chapter 8, then by NZS 4203 in 1976, by the Building Act 1991 and now the Building Act 2004. From 1976 onwards various other

Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1



factors have been introduced from time to time to take account of the performance of differing structural types, constructed using different materials with differing detailing standards (and hence differing degrees of ductility), and on differing soil types. In contrast, for the high earthquake risk areas, the equivalent static earthquake forces have substantially increased in recent years, which mean that there are likely to be many more EPBs for older buildings from a particular design era in Wellington (say) than in Auckland. The definition of an EPB part means that the existing part must be at least three times weaker than would be the case if designed now to the building code. This will be the basis for developing categories of buildings, which can be excluded from this policy. The Council will develop for Auckland over time a list of classes of buildings of differing ages, materials, and structural types, which will be deemed to be excluded from the EPB process, provided permits were granted by the Council for the structural system(s), which now exist. In the meantime, all buildings designed to NZS 4203: 1976 and later will be deemed to be excluded. It is likely that the large majority of low buildings designed for earthquake between the introduction of NZS 95 and NZS 4203:1976 will also be able to be excluded, subject to some assessment of any unreinforced concrete or masonry.

12.0 Priorities

The Draft policy has the following timing priorities with respect to confirming if a building is an EPB and if the council decides that a notice under s124 is to be issued, requiring the building to be strengthened and removed from the register : a. Buildings with special post-disaster functions as defined in AS/NZS 1170.0:2002,

Importance Level 4 to be assessed by December 2011 and if found to be EPBs and if notices are issued, to be strengthened or removed from being recognised as having a post disaster function within 10 years, (ig 2021)

b. Buildings that contain people in crowds or contents of high value to the community as defined in AS/NZS 1170.0: 2002, Importance Level 3 to be assessed by December 2012 and if found to be EPBs and if notices are issued, to be strengthened or removed from this use within 10 years, (eg 2022). This section will not include heritage buildings

c. Heritage buildings scheduled in Council’s District Plan and/or registered by the NZ Historic Places Trust (as defined in section 13.0) to be assessed by December 2015 and if found to be EPBs and if notices are issued, to be strengthened, within 30 years (ie 2045)

d. Buildings with an Importance Level of less than three as defined in AS/NZS 1170.0: 2002 to be assessed by December 2015 and if found to be EPBs and if notices are issued, to be strengthened within 30 years (ie 2045).

Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1

6



13.0 Heritage buildings

For the purposes of this policy, ‘heritage buildings’ are:

• structures as scheduled in the District Plan • buildings forming part of a Conservation Area or Special Character Zone

as identified within the District Plan, or • buildings or structures as registered under the Historic Places Act 1993

or • buildings or structures constructed prior to 1900.

Council believes that the ongoing survival of heritage buildings needs to be actively promoted. However, Council does not want to see the strengthening work adversely affect the intrinsic value of these buildings. Where the detailed structural assessment confirms that the building is earthquake-prone, Council will work with the owners to develop a mutually acceptable way forward. Again, consistent within this policy, where agreement cannot be reached, Council will issue a notice under s124 of the Building Act 2004. Special effort will be made to meet heritage objectives and may include the use of dispensations and waivers to avoid forcing work which has a significantly negative impact on heritage places, especially where the level of non-compliance is technical rather than significant, or where the level of risk can be adequately mitigated by a more flexible approach to levels of strengthening and to strengthening techniques under the Building Act. Strengthening work and techniques that respect and protect the heritage will be advocated.

Where a heritage building is damaged by an intervening event (such as fire) which renders the building earthquake prone, dangerous or insanitary, any building work (other than demolition of all or part of the building) required by s124 notice to reduce or remove that danger will be in accordance with what is necessary to facilitate the preservation of the building’s heritage value. These provisions may include the retention of historic building material or components (such as brick or stone) for reconstruction purposes, and the recording or damaged elements or details, rather than the immediate removal of such materials and their disposal.

Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1



14.0 Dangerous Buildings

14.1 Background

Context

By 1st November 2011, Auckland Council is required to have adopted a policy on dangerous buildings16. The definition of a dangerous building is set out in s121 (1) of the Act:

“A building is dangerous for the purposes of this Act if,- (a) in the ordinary course of events (excluding the occurrence of

an earthquake), the building is likely to cause- (i) injury or death (whether by collapse or otherwise) to

any persons in it or to persons on other property; or (ii) damage to other property; or

(b) in the event of fire, injury or death to any person in the building

or to persons on other property is likely because of fire hazard or the occupancy of the building.”

14.2 Policy Principles

The report advocates Auckland Council adopting a pragmatic approach in developing the policy. The approach addresses the following considerations:

• Intent and provisions of the Building Act, • Government’s broader concern with the life safety of the public in buildings

Auckland Council is committed to ensuring that the Auckland Council region is a safe place to live and work in. The dangerous building policy is consistent with the Auckland Council’s strategic direction indicators as outlined in the Draft Auckland plan to deliver on the current and future social, economic, environmental or cultural well-being of the local board area or Auckland region and any statutory responsibility. Auckland Council is expecting strong growth over the next forty years with an expected increase in population from 1.4 million people to 2.2 million, which will place considerable pressure on existing building stock. Conversions of existing aged buildings, lack of maintenance, overcrowding and illegal building alterations can cause serious building problems for occupants. The failure to obtain a building consent or the negligent use of a building for a purpose for which it is not

2 s131 Building Act 2004

Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1

6



suitable can result in a building no longer complying with the building code and pose a danger to the occupants. Dangers could include inadequate fire protection, means of escape or danger of collapse.

The Council is actively involved in educating the public on the need to discuss development plans with it and to obtain building consent where necessary. Where necessary, Council will initiate enforcement action under the Building Act 2004.

15.0 Identifying dangerous buildings

The Council will: 1. Respond to and investigate all building complaints received; 2. Identify from these investigations any buildings that are dangerous; 3. Inform the owner and occupier of the building to take action to reduce or remove

the danger, as is required by s124 and s125 of the Building Act 2004; 4. Liaise with the New Zealand Fire Service when Council deems it appropriate, in

accordance with s121(2) of the Building Act 200417: 16.0 Assessment Criteria

The Council will assess dangerous buildings in accordance with s121(1) of the Building Act 2004:

17.0 Taking Action on dangerous buildings In accordance with s124 and s125 of the Building Act 2004, the Council will: • Advise and liaise with the owner(s) of buildings and • May request a written report on the building from the New Zealand Fire Service;

If it is found that the building is dangerous, Council will: • Attach a written notice to the building requiring work to be carried out on the

building, within the time stated in the notice and not being less than 10 days, to reduce or remove the danger;

3 s121 of the Building Act 2004 says “For the purpose of determining whether a building is dangerous in terms of s121 subsection (1) (b), a territorial authority- (a) May seek advice from members of the New Zealand Fire Service who have been notified to the territorial authority by the Fire Service National Commander as being competent to give advice; and (b) If the advice is sought, must have due regard to the advice.”

Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1



• Give copies of the notice to the building owner, occupier, and every person who has an interest in the land, or is claiming an interest in the land, as well as the New Zealand Historic Places Trust, if the building is a heritage building;

• Contact the owner at the expiry of the time period set down in the notice in order to gain access to the building to ascertain whether the notice has been complied with;

• Where the danger is the result of non-consented building work a Notice to Fix will be issued under s124 of the Building Act 2004;

• If the Dangerous Building notice requirements are not met within a reasonable period of time as well as any other non-compliance matters Council will pursue enforcement action under the Building Act 2004

If the building is considered immediately dangerous, the Council will: • Take any action necessary to remove the danger (this may include prohibiting

persons using or occupying the building and demolition of all or part of the building); and

• Take action to recover costs from the owner(s) if the Council must undertake works to remove the danger.

• The owner(s) will also be informed that the amount recoverable by Auckland Council will become a charge on the land on which the building is situated.

Owners have the right of appeal as defined in the Building Act 2004. This can include applying to the Department of Building and Housing for a determination under s177.

18.0 The dangerous buildings policy and the Building Act 2004 s41: Building consent not required in certain cases

Where a building is assessed as being immediately dangerous the Council may not require that a building consent be obtained for any of the immediately necessary building work. However, prior to any action being taken Council will require from owners and discuss with them, a written scope of the work.

19.0 Access to dangerous building information

Where a building is identified as dangerous, Auckland Council will have a requisition placed on the property file where the building is situated. This requisition will remain until the danger is remedied. In granting access to information concerning dangerous buildings, the Council will conform to the requirements of the Local Government Official Information and Meeting Act 1987 and the Local Government Act 2002.

Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1

6



In addition, the following information will be placed on the LIM: • The notice issued informing the owner that the building is dangerous and where

necessary notice of the requirement to evacuate • A copy of the letter to owner, occupier and any other person that the that the

building is dangerous; • A copy of the notice given under section 124(1) that identifies the work to be

carried out on the building and the timeframe given to reduce or remove the danger.

20.0 Economic impact of policy

In any one year, Council could expect to receive 400 complaints relating to potentially dangerous buildings and as a result issue 20 Dangerous Building Notices. Consequently, Council has concluded that the economic impact of this is negligible.

22.0 Priorities Council will act on buildings deemed to be immediately dangerous as a matter or urgency. In these circumstances immediate action will be required to remove the danger and could include prohibiting any person occupying or using the building and where needed boarding the building up to prevent entry.

Buildings that are determined to be dangerous, but not immediately dangerous, will be subject to the minimum timeframes for reduction or removal of the danger (i.e. not less than 10 days) as set out in s124(1) (c) of the Building Act 2004.

23.0 Heritage Buildings

For the purposes of this policy, ‘heritage buildings’ are those structures as scheduled in the District Plan, buildings or structures forming part of a Conservation Area or Special Character Zone as identified with the District Plan, buildings or structures as registered under the Historic Places Act 1993; buildings or structures constructed prior to 1900. Heritage buildings will not be given systematic dispensation under this policy. However, where a risk is minor and no accidents are known to have occurred in the past as a result and where mitigation or full compliance would result in significantly negative impacts to the heritage value, then, innovative non-damaging approaches will be accepted. The alternative approaches would still need to demonstrate mitigation of the identified risks.

Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1



In cases where compliance with any aspect of the Act would so damage the attributes of a place to the extent that its very role as a valued heritage item is compromised then case-by-case consideration of a dispensation or waiver may be negotiated by the appropriate council officer acting under delegated authority.

This procedure is in accordance with established practices and has been used on a number of occasions. Examples are the non-complying height of the Auckland Town Hall balcony rail (where an increase to code height would obliterate sightlines for much of the balcony, and where no accidents are known to have occurred), or non-complying stair tread/riser/handrail dimensions in the Civic Theatre and Old Central Post Office, where compliance would involve complete reconstruction and therefore destruction of the precious original element.

Where a dangerous building notice is issued for a heritage building a copy of the notice will be sent to the New Zealand Historic Places Trust as required by s125 (2) (f) of the Building Act 2004.

24.0 Insanitary Buildings

24.1 Background Context

By 1st November 2011, s131 of the Building Act 2004 requires Council to adopt a policy on insanitary buildings. The definition of an insanitary building is set out in s123 of the Act and it says:

“A building is insanitary for the purposes of this Act if the building- (a) is offensive or likely to be injurious to health because-

(i) of how it is situated or constructed; or (ii) it is in a state of disrepair; or

(b) has insufficient or defective provisions against moisture penetration so as to cause dampness in the building or in any adjoining building; or

(c) does not have a supply of potable water that is adequate for its intended use; or

(d) does not have sanitary facilities that are adequate for its intended use.” The provisions of the Act with respect to insanitary buildings reflect the Government’s broader concern with the health and safety of people occupying buildings where it may be considered insanitary. This is particularly so in the older building stock in Auckland City and (potentially) buildings that has been identified as having severe weathertightness issues.

Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1

6



24.2 Policy development approach Growth in Auckland is resulting in a reduction in the availability of affordable housing. As a result, there is an increased incidence of overcrowding, occupation of garages, basements and sleepouts and an increase in numbers of apartments. Often the associated conversions are undertaken without a building consent and do not comply with the building code. Insanitary conditions can prevail in these circumstances.

Council is actively involved in encouraging people to discuss their development plans with Council and to obtain building consent prior to the work beginning, where necessary. This is particularly important to avoid creating insanitary conditions. Council has and will initiate enforcement action under the Building Act, 2004 when appropriate.

Auckland City also has a substantial number of buildings that are subject to weathertightness issues. In these severe cases insanitary conditions can occur.

25.0 Identifying insanitary buildings

The Council will: • Investigate all building complaints received; • Identify from these investigations any buildings considered to be insanitary; • Inform the owner(s) of the action that is necessary to prevent the building from

remaining insanitary; • Liaise with the Auckland Regional Public Health Service (Medical Officer of

Health) where occupants may be neglected or infirm. 26.0 Assessment criteria

The Council will assess insanitary buildings in accordance with s123 of the Building Act 2004, established case law, the building code and advice from the Medical Officer of Health:

The Council will determine: • if the building is occupied; • what the building is being used for, and • whether the insanitary conditions pose a reasonable probability or are potentially

dangerous to the health of any occupants.

Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1



Where a building is occupied, considerations may include: • adequacy of available sanitary facilities; • adequacy and availability of drinking water; • the separation of kitchen and other sanitary facilities; • potential for moisture penetration taking into account construction materials and

any defects in roof and walls; and • the extent to which the building is offensive to adjacent and nearby properties. In accordance with the Building Code, the following clauses are relevant: • E2 (External Moisture) • G1 (Water Supplies) • G1 (Personal Hygiene)

27.0 Taking action on insanitary buildings

The Council will: • Advise and work with the owner(s) of the buildings identified as being potentially

insanitary;

Where the building is found to be insanitary, Council will: • Attach written notice to the building requiring work to be carried out on the

building, with a time stated on the notice that is not less than 10 working days, to prevent the building from remaining insanitary;

• Give copies of the notice to the building owner(s), occupier, and every person who has an interest in the land, or is claiming an interest in the land, as well as the city’s Heritage Manager, and the New Zealand Historic Places Trust, if the building is a scheduled and/or registered heritage building.

• Where the insanitary conditions are the result of non-consented work, a Notice to Fix will be issued.

• Contact the owner(s) at the end of the period set down in the notice to gain access to the building and determine whether the notice has been complied with.

• Determine if enforcement action should be pursued under the Act if the requirements of the notice have not been met.

Where Council considers that immediate action is required to fix insanitary conditions the Council will: • Take action necessary to fix those insanitary conditions; and • Take action to recover costs from the owner(s) if the Council has had to

undertake works to address the insanitary conditions;

Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1

6



• The owner(s) will also be informed that the amount recoverable by the Council will become a charge on the land on which the building is situated.

All owners have a right of appeal as defined in the Act. This can include applying to the Department of Building and Housing for a determination under s 177 of the Building Act 2004.

28.0 The insanitary building policy and the Building Act 2004.

s41: Building consent not required in certain cases.

Where a building is assessed as requiring immediate work to address the insanitary conditions, Council may not require that a building consent be obtained for any of the immediately necessary building work. However, prior to any action being taken Council will require from owners and discuss with them, a written scope of the work.

29.0 Recording of insanitary buildings

Where a building is identified as insanitary, Auckland Council will have a requisition placed on the property file where the building is situated. This requisition will remain until the danger is remedied.

In addition, the following information will be placed on the LIM: • The notice issued informing the owner that the building is dangerous and where

necessary notice of the requirement to evacuate • A copy of the letter to owner, occupier and any other person that the that the

building is dangerous; • A copy of the notice given under section 124(1) that identifies the work to be

carried out on the building and the timeframe given to reduce or remove the danger

• Any report that describes work that has been undertaken to remedy the insanitary conditions.

30.0 Heritage Buildings For the purposes of this policy, ‘heritage buildings’ are those structures as scheduled in the District Plan, buildings or structures forming part of a Conservation Area or Special Character Zone as identified with the District Plan, buildings or structures as registered under the Historic Places Act 1993; buildings or structures constructed prior to 1900.

Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1



Heritage buildings will not be given systematic dispensation under this policy. However, as with earthquake risk and other dangerous aspects, where the non-compliance is minor, and where to correct the situation would involve destruction or visual compromise of high value items, the appropriate council officer acting under delegated authority may negotiate consideration of a dispensation or waiver. This procedure is in accordance with established practice and has been used on a number of occasions.

Examples are textured wall surfaces in areas of the Civic Theatre behind food and beverage service areas, and (in the same building) non-impermeable restored mosaic floor tiling in areas leased as a café from time to time.

Where a notice is issued for a heritage building a copy of the notice will be sent to the city’s Heritage Manager and to the New Zealand Historic Places Trust as required by s125 (2) (f) of the Building Act 2004.

Atta

chm

ent B

Ite

m 1

6



Atta

chm

ent B

Ite

m 1



Atta

chm

ent C

Ite

m 1

6



Atta

chm

ent C

Ite

m 1



Atta

chm

ent D

Ite

m 1

6



Atta

chm

ent D

Ite

m 1



Item

17


Submission on Social Services Select Committee Inquiry into Boarding Houses

Submission on Social Services Select Committee Inquiry into Boarding Houses File No.: CP2011/03142

Executive Summary On the 11th of May the Social Services Select Committee initiated an inquiry into boarding houses in New Zealand. The terms of reference for the inquiry are to: • consider the regulatory and legislative frameworks that apply to boarding houses • determine whether the current frameworks provide adequate protection to vulnerable tenants. The purpose of this report is to inform the Regional Development and Operations Committee of the inquiry into boarding houses and to seek input into the submission. Submissions on the inquiry are due on the 24th of June 2011. The report outlines Auckland Council’s current approach to monitoring boarding houses, the current legislative framework available for oversight and monitoring, and the issues that need to be considered if more active oversight of boarding houses is sought. Due to the time available to complete submissions consultation on this issue has been limited. Officers are yet to gain input from local boards, but will do so prior to the submissions being finalised. The draft submissions will be presented to Councillors at the meeting of the Regional Development and Operations Committee for input. Officers also request that two Councillors be delegated the authority to approve the final submissions on behalf of Council.


b) That the Regional Development and Operations Committee provide input into the Auckland Council submission on the inquiry into boarding houses that are due on the 24th of June 2011.

c) That the Chair of the Regional Development and Operations Committee and the Chair of the Social and Community Development Forum be delegated authority to approve the final submission on behalf of Auckland Council.

Background On the 11th of May the Social Services Select Committee initiated an inquiry into boarding houses in New Zealand. The terms of reference for the inquiry are to: • consider the regulatory and legislative frameworks that apply to boarding houses • determine whether the current frameworks provide adequate protection to vulnerable tenants. The term ‘boarding houses’ generally captures a wide range of accommodation facilities of which a small proportion are of poor quality and may be considered exploitative of vulnerable tenants. There are a range of legislative provisions that regulate the quality of accommodation and the rights of the tenants and landlords in boarding houses. These include:

Legislation Purpose

The Housing Improvement Regulations 1947 (HIR)

• Allows the Council to maintain a register of boardinghouses and hostels (clause 21) and defines what will constitute overcrowding (Part 2).

Item

17



The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (as amended by the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2010) (RTA)

• Provides rights and obligations of tenants and landlords on boardinghouses, including the oversight of the Tenancy Tribunal.

The Health Act 1956 (HA) • Provides for any premises to be deemed a nuisance, where they are so situated, or are in such a state, as to be offensive or likely to be injurious to health (s.29(d)) and allows for the abatement of the nuisance either through Court proceedings (s.33) or without notice (s.34), and the issue of cleansing orders (s.42). The HA also allows for bylaws to be made with respect to improving, promoting, or protecting public health, and preventing or abating nuisances, and, in particular, the cleansing of buildings and the inspection of any land or premises and generally (s.64).

The Building Act 2004 (BA) • Provides for a building to be deemed insanitary if it is

offensive or likely to be injurious to health because of how it is situated or constructed or is in a state of disrepair, or does not have adequate sanitary facilities for its intended use (s.123). Buildings must also achieve the performance criteria specified in the Building Code.

The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA)

• Provides for local authorities to prepare a district plan for its district which contains definitions and rules on activities including the operation of boarding houses and the effects of this activity.

Local Authorities have a range of permissive and mandatory responsibilities in relation to boarding houses including: • consenting under the RMA and BA • ensuring continued safety compliance through the building warrant of fitness process • public health inspection and enforcement responsibilities under the Health Act 1956 • the ability to maintain a register of boarding houses and monitor compliance with minimum

standards relating to size and overcrowding under the Housing Improvement Regulations (HIR) 1947

• the ability to regulate standards through bylaws, for example, under the Local Government Act 2002.

The low quality of living conditions in some boarding houses in Auckland has attracted media attention in the past. Attention has largely been focused on boarding houses in the former Manukau City area and has highlighted the sub-standard living facilities in some boarding houses and the vulnerable nature of the tenants. The current council practice in monitoring boarding houses is reflective of the practice of legacy councils. The approaches are summarised below:

Legacy Council Approach Manukau City • In 2008 created a register of boarding houses in the area and resolved to

inspect them on a biannual basis to assess compliance with the HIR • In 2008 the register contained 15 boarding houses and currently it

numbers 12 • Regular inspections continuing

Item

17



Auckland City • Developed the operative Hostels bylaw (2008) that applies to "all

buildings in which accommodation is provided for a single night or longer for 5 or more persons who are not part of a family with or without a right to the use of common cooking or dining or bathroom or toilet facilities. A hostel includes but is not limited to a boarding house, guest house, rooming house, private hotel, motel, residential club, and hostel (including a backpackers' hostel)."

• Establishes minimum standards for boarding houses • Inspection in response to complaints

Rodney District • Developed bylaw - sanitation and cleanliness of buildings and places of public resort. The bylaw (for travelers’ accommodation) sets minimum room sizes and general cleanliness requirements.

• The bylaw includes an ability to charge a reasonable fee for assessments performed under the bylaw

Other Councils • Inspections as required in response to complaints Although Council is currently discharging its responsibilities adequately, there are opportunities to play a more proactive role in implementing, monitoring and enforcing minimum standards on boarding houses. There are also a number of other government agencies and community organisations that share a responsibility in the provision of accommodation and assisting vulnerable people. These organisations should also be engaged in the solution. Increased regulatory oversight carries cost implications and may also have unintended consequences for vulnerable tenants who use lower quality boarding houses. These are discussed further below.

Decision Making The recommendations contained within this report fall within the Regional Development and Operations Committee’s delegated authority.

The Regulatory and Legislative Frameworks There are a range of legislative measures available to define, specify, monitor and enforce rules in relation to the quality of boarding houses. Some of the current provisions are inconsistent and outdated and should be revised to provide an updated and consistent framework to regulate boarding houses. Some examples include:

Issues Explanation Definition of Boarding House

Under HIR Boarding House means a house or part of a house, other than licensed premises, in which 5 or more persons other than the occupier and the members of his family are lodged, but with the right of entry by the occupier to any room in which such persons are lodged, and in which the occupier supplies any food to such persons. Under RTA Boarding House means residential premises—

(a) containing 1 or more boarding rooms along with facilities for communal use by the tenants of the boarding house; and (b) occupied, or intended by the landlord to be occupied, by at least 6 tenants at any one time

Facilities means the facilities provided by the landlord of a boarding house for the shared use by tenants of the boarding house, such as—

Item

17



(a) toilet and bathroom facilities: (b) cooking facilities: (c) general living, dining, or recreational areas: (d) laundry facilities: (e) lifts and stairways: (f) rubbish storage and rubbish disposal facilities: (g) appliances for heating or cooling premises: (h) communication facilities: (i) lawns, gardens, and outhouses: (j) any land or buildings intended for use for storage space or for the parking of motor vehicles

Under District Plans (legacy councils) (a) Rodney

Boarding Houses - means a residential building in which lodging and/or boarding is provided or intended to be provided (with or without reward) for 5 or more lodgers, (other than members of the family of the occupier or person in charge or control of the building), and includes a halfway house, and excludes visitor accommodation units and premises licensed under the Sale of Liquor Act 1989, or any Act in substitution thereof. [Chapter 3, Definitions]

(b) North Shore

Boarding House - means a residential building in which board or lodging is provided or intended to be provided for reward or payment for three or more boarders or lodgers (other than members of the family of the occupier or person in charge or control of the building) but does not include a licensed hotel or building forming part of a motor camp or hostel. For the purposes of development contributions, boarding houses will be assessed under the special assessment category. [Section 21, Definitions]

(c) Auckland

Boarding House/Hostel - means a building used, designed, capable of, or intended to be used for residential accommodation by five or more people/boarders or lodgers (exclusive of the manager and/or manager’s family) where the accommodation provided will involve lodging alone; or boarding and lodging; or lodging and the provision of communal food preparation and sanitary facilities, and includes student hostels, but does not include premises with consent under provisions of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989, camping grounds, hotels, tourist complexes, motor camps, self contained residential units (excluding the managers accommodation) or visitor accommodation. [Part 13, Isthmus Section]

(d) Waitakere

Dwelling(s) - means a building or part of a building designed or used for Residential Activity and which contains, or is intended to contain no more than one housekeeping unit, consisting of either: (a) one person, or (b) two or more persons related by blood, marriage, adoption or legal

guardianship, or (c) a group of not more than eight persons unrelated by blood,

marriage, adoption or legal guardianship (d) a combination of (b) and (c) above, provided the total number of

persons does not exceed eight and includes buildings which are subsidiary to a dwelling, but does not

Item

17



include a minor household unit or any buildings used for Non-Residential Activities.

(e) Manukau

Boardinghouse (Hostel) - means a residential building in which board or lodging is provided or intended to be provided for boarders or lodgers, and includes a half-way house or any premises providing (with or without payment), residential accommodation on a temporary basis, to persons in need of emergency housing and shelter; but excludes a hotel or building forming part of a motor camp or motel. [Chapter 18, Definitions]

(f) Papakura

Residential activities - means activities comprising one or more household units and includes residential accommodation for physical, psychological or social support. The following list is provided for the purpose of specifying the activities permitted under the category of residential activities: boarding houses, pensioner household unit, papakainga housing, single and multiple household units, motels, hotels, holiday flats, motor and tourist lodges. [Section One, Part 10, Definitions]

(g) Franklin

Special Housing Development - means a residential development intended to suit the particular residential needs and characteristics of a homogenous group of people and includes any building or buildings used to provide board, lodging or any form of live-in or on-site physical or mental health support for five (5) or more people. The development may involve one or more housing or accommodation types (such as detached or attached units, or boarding or shared-room accommodation) and may include ancillary facilities for medical care, recreation, fitness, counselling, training, dining, or other communal or personal services provided they are available only to the residents of the development. [Part 50, Definitions]

Quality of accommodation

HIR Part I Minimum standards of fitness for boarding houses including size of rooms, heating, ventilation and facilities. HIR Part II Prescribes minimum occupancy requirements per kitchen, bedroom, living quarters, bathrooms etc to address overcrowding. Maximum fine for breach is $40. RTA Right of quiet enjoyment Reasonable state of cleanliness Reasonable state of repair Compliance with health and safety requirements under other enactments BA Restrictions against dangerous or insanitary (that are offensive or likely to be injurious to health) buildings

Item

17



Register HIR Part III

Local authorities have the option to maintain a register of boarding houses and an option to regulate through bylaw. There is no requirement to undertake regular inspection visits. Any premises included on the register can be contested by the owner through appeal to the District Court. It should be noted that none of the fifteen premises included in Manukau register strictly meet the criteria of boarding houses under the HIR as the owners do not supply food to the tenants.

Public authorities can use a range of measures within the current framework to monitor and improve poorer quality boarding houses. This would need a more proactive approach by all relevant stakeholders. The main considerations in implementing more active monitoring and enforcement are costs and the need to minimise any unintended consequences. Protection of Vulnerable Tenants The current legislative provisions have a number of protections that could be used more effectively by and on behalf of vulnerable tenants. The current reactive approach to investigation and enforcement of standards depends on the ability and willingness of tenants or the public to make a complaint. Vulnerable tenants have a number of rights in respect of their tenancies. The exercise of these rights are however dependant on both the required knowledge of them and the willingness to exercise them. Issues Explanation Appropriate targeting of problem facilities

• There are a number of facilities that could meet the definition of boarding houses including motels, marae, back packers accommodation and student lodges. The majority of these would not be considered exploitative or need a rigorous oversight regime.

• Where adequate competition exists and where consumers are able to exercise choice, market forces generally reward the better quality providers and punish the lower quality ones.

• Where consumers lack choice or adequate information they become vulnerable to exploitation

• A scheme that targets the exploitative parts of the industry needs to be developed without increasing the regulatory burden on the wider industry.

Lack of knowledge of rights and obligations

• Vulnerable tenants may not know their legal rights to minimum standards or may not be willing to exercise them due to fear of consequences or a lack of alternative choices.

Lack of or insufficient consequences for breach

• The lack of regular oversight or inadequate consequences for breaching minimum standards provide little incentive to improve standards.

• More intense oversight and harsher consequences however is likely to increase the cost to both the responsible public authority and the accommodation provider.

Costs of regulation and oversight

• Public authorities would incur additional costs in providing oversight of boarding houses. These costs would need to be met through additional resources or through reallocation of existing resources.

• Adequate cost recovery models will need to be developed.

Item

17



Unintended consequences of regulation

• Increased compliance costs have the potential to be passed on to consumers. These increased costs could either make accommodation more unaffordable for the most vulnerable clients or increase the burden on social services.

• An increase in litigation for the Council. Non-Regulatory Measures A range of non-regulatory measures are also needed to inform and support vulnerable tenants to ensure they are more likely to exercise their legal rights to minimum standards. These include: • ensuring tenants and landlords are aware of their rights and obligations • supporting tenants to complain against poor industry practice • ensure tenants are not penalised for exercising their rights

Significance of Decision The preparation of a submission on the inquiry does not trigger the Significance Policy.

Consultation Timeframe and process for submission Submissions on the inquiry close on the 24th of June 2011. Officers are developing a submission and recommend the following process in preparing and seeking approval for Auckland Council’s submission:

Process Date Officers to report to the Regional Development and Operations Committee to seek input and delegation for approval of the submission

16 June 2011

Officers to canvass feedback from interested Local Boards and include comments into the Auckland Council Submission

Until 18 June 2011

Delegates receive submission 20 June 2011 Feedback received from delegated authority holders 22 June 2011 Submission approved by delegated authority 23 June 2011 Submissions close 24 June 2011

Local Board Views N/A

Financial and Resourcing Implications The costs associated with preparing the submission will be met from within existing Planning and Operational budgets.

Legal and Legislative Implications The select committee inquiry may lead to the Government revising the current legislative framework. Any changes will be subject to the normal legislative process.

Implementation Issues The closing date for submissions is the 24th of June 2011. Consultation on the submissions has been limited due to time constraints. Local Board input will be sought prior to the development of the final submissions.

Item

17




Signatories Author Ruth Stokes, Manager, Community and Cultural Policy

Penny Pirrit, Manager, Regional and Local Planning Authorisers

Roger Blakeley, Chief Planning Officer, Planning

Item

18


Adult Entertainment Programme - Policy and Planning to Promote Safe, Healthy and Strong Communities

Adult Entertainment Programme - Policy and Planning to Promote Safe, Healthy and Strong Communities File No.: CP2011/03161

Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to provide the Regional Development and Operations Committee with an overview of the proposed Adult Entertainment Programme (the Programme) designed by the Region Wide Community and Cultural Policy Unit. The Programme will encompass the location, design, advertisement and operation of adult entertainment and sex industry premises. For the purpose of the programme, adult entertainment includes premises where commercial sexual services and sexual acts take place (sex industry premises, e.g. brothels) and those where these acts do not take place (adult entertainment premises, e.g. sex shops). A complete definition of adult entertainment will be developed following the research and engagement phase of the Programme. Different approaches to the regulation of the sex industry has been inherited from the previous councils, which include policies, bylaws and plans. Auckland Council (Council) has an opportunity to develop a standardised approach for the management of adult entertainment-related issues in Auckland that aligns with the Council’s strategic objective of strong, healthy communities. On 15 February 2011, the Planning, Policies and Bylaws Unit presented a report to the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee on its proposed bylaw review work programme. At that meeting, the committee resolved that officers would review Auckland’s commercial sex premises bylaws (including brothels and street prostitution), which has been incorporated into the wider Adult Entertainment Programme. A political working party was established to inform the development of the bylaw. Officers have developed the Programme to enable a consistent region wide approach to the regulation of Auckland’s sex industry and management of adult entertainment. The Programme includes:

• development of an adult entertainment framework • development of a brothels and commercial sex premises policy, review of legacy brothels and

commercial sex premises bylaws and development of an Auckland Council brothels and commercial sex premises bylaw if deemed appropriate

• completion of a Supplementary Order Paper for the Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill, to reflect the new geographic boundary of Auckland Council.

Item

18




b) That the Regional Development and Operations Committee approve the Adult Entertainment Programme, which includes:

i) development of an adult entertainment framework

ii) brothels and commercial sex premises policy development and bylaw review

iii) completion of a Supplementary Order Paper for the Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill.

c) That the Regional Development and Operations Committee recommend to the Regulatory and Bylaw Committee the extension of the mandate of the commercial sex premises bylaw working party to include the wider Adult Entertainment Programme.

d) That the Regional Development and Operations Committee note that the delegation for decisions relating to policy development is with the Regional Development and Operations Committee. Officers will report to the Committee regarding the adult entertainment framework, the brothels and commercial sex premises policy, and the Supplementary Order Paper for the Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill.

e) That the Regional Development and Operation Committee note that the delegation to approve a brothels and commercial sex premises bylaw is with the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee. Officers will report to the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee on the brothels and commercial sex premises bylaw if a bylaw is considered the most appropriate regulatory mechanism.

f) That the Regional Development and Operations Committee note that officers will also report to the Community Safety Forum and local boards for input into the framework, policy development and bylaw review.

Background Adult Entertainment Programme Auckland Council has inherited several approaches for regulating the adult entertainment industry from the previous local government organisations. Consequently, there is no consistent approach to policy or planning for adult entertainment and prostitution for Auckland. The recent amalgamation of local government organisations provides an opportunity to streamline, integrate and standardise inherited approaches and set a clear policy direction for the management of adult entertainment and prostitution in Auckland. Officers have developed a proposed Adult Entertainment Programme (the Programme) to create a new, consistent approach that will reflect stakeholder and community views and appropriately address issues associated with the sex industry in Auckland. The programme will encompass the location, design, advertisement and operation of adult entertainment and sex industry premises. For the purpose of the programme, adult entertainment includes premises where commercial sexual services and sexual acts take place (sex industry premises, e.g. brothels) and those where these acts do not take place (adult entertainment premises, e.g. sex shops). A complete definition of adult entertainment will be developed following the research and engagement phase of the Programme. The purpose of the Programme is to reduce the negative health and safety impacts associated with prostitution by managing adult entertainment in a way that provides for Auckland’s diverse and vibrant communities, and promotes healthy outcomes for the industry. To ensure a cohesive region wide approach and maximise the efficient use of resources, the proposed Programme includes:

Item

18



• development of an adult entertainment framework • development of a brothels and commercial sex premises policy and review of legacy brothels

and commercial sex premises bylaws • completion of a Supplementary Order Paper for the Manukau City Council (Regulation of

Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill, to reflect the new geographic boundary of Auckland Council.

Decision Making Scope of the Adult Entertainment Programme Research The first phase of the Programme is research and engagement. The outputs of the research and engagement phase will be used to inform the review and development of all components of the Programme. This will include:

• review and analysis of existing mechanisms regulating adult entertainment for Auckland, other New Zealand cities and comparable cities world-wide to identify best practice

• review and analysis of relevant New Zealand case law • consultation with key internal and external stakeholders to determine interests, positions,

issues and expectations relating to the regulation of adult entertainment in Auckland • gathering and analysis of qualitative and quantitative data to determine the nature and extent

of issues associated with adult entertainment in Auckland • a survey of Auckland residents through the People’s Panel, to identify key issues and

opinions relating to adult entertainment in Auckland • workshops with the Community Safety Forum, local boards and advisory panels.

In order to deliver the Programme in a manner that meets the needs of Auckland’s diverse communities, officers also intend to complete a market research project to understand community perceptions of the adult entertainment industry (at a local and regional level) and to gain an understanding of what the community believes Council’s role should be in the management of adult entertainment. It is anticipated that research and engagement will take approximately eight months, and will result in a report outlining key findings, options and recommendations for framework and policy development and bylaw review. Adult entertainment framework The purpose of the adult entertainment framework is to provide a basis for a consistent Auckland approach to adult entertainment policy and planning. The adult entertainment framework will be a high-level overarching policy document that will establish the Council’s mandate to manage and address issues associated with adult entertainment. It will:

• identify overarching policy objectives to reduce negative impacts arising from adult entertainment

• explain the linkages between the Council’s adult entertainment-related policies, processes and practices

• identify future projects and planning with an aim to improve current practices • promote consistency and transparency in Council decision-making on adult entertainment-

related issues • provide a foundation for partnerships and collaboration with industry and community groups to

improve safety within the industry and communities of Auckland. The adult entertainment framework will outline the Council’s broad responsibilities in relation to prostitution and other aspects of the sex industry and promote guiding principles consistent with the Council’s strategic objectives.

Item

18



It is intended that the adult entertainment framework will be completed by October 2012. Brothels and commercial sex premises policy and bylaw Auckland Council is empowered through the Prostitution Reform Act 2003, Health Act 1956 and Local Government Act 2002, to make bylaws controlling location, signage, licensing and hygiene requirements relating to commercial sexual services in its district. Auckland Council has inherited several bylaws regulating Auckland’s sex industry. Under the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 these bylaws remain in force until 2015 unless confirmed, reviewed or revoked. On 15 February 2011, the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee received a report on the proposed bylaw review programme and resolved to commence a review of Auckland’s commercial sex premises bylaws in 2011. Officers propose to develop a region wide adult entertainment policy to strengthen and support a brothels and commercial sex premises bylaw if a bylaw is deemed appropriate. The policy will provide Council with regulatory and non-regulatory tools to manage adult entertainment in Auckland. Policy development and bylaw review will be carried out at the same time as the framework development to ensure organisational consistency and the efficient use of resources, particularly in the research and engagement phase. If a bylaw is considered the most appropriate mechanism for regulating the location, operation and signage of brothels and commercial sex premises, it is intended that the policy and bylaw will be completed by May 2013. Supplementary Order Paper In 2010, the former Manukau City Council introduced a bill to parliament that, if enacted, would allow the Council to make bylaws specifying public places in its district where street prostitution cannot occur, other than in a brothel or small owner-operated brothel. When Manukau City Council merged into Auckland Council in November 2010, the Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill (the Bill) also transferred to Auckland Council. An implication of the transition was that the Bill would apply to the entire area administered by the Auckland Council, instead of only the former Manukau City Council district. On 4 February 2011, the Council provided a submission to the Local Government and Environment Committee (Select Committee) on the Bill. After receiving and considering Auckland Council’s submission, the Select Committee recommended that the Council draft a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that makes two changes to the Bill:

1) a change of title, to reflect that Auckland Council is taking over from Manukau City Council as promoter of the Bill

2) a change in the definition of “district” to mean the district of Auckland Council. Auckland Council’s Legal Services Department prepared the SOP in consultation with the Clerk of the Select Committee, to ensure that the SOP fully complies with the Select Committee’s recommendations. The SOP will be reported to local boards, the Community Safety Forum and Regional Development and Operations Committee in June 2011. In July 2011, the SOP will be presented to the Governing Body for final approval. In early August 2011, the SOP will be publicly notified to ensure residents throughout Auckland are made aware of the change in title and definition and resultant wider scope of the Bill. This will occur at least once in each of two consecutive calendar weeks and will include publication on the Auckland Council website, in the New Zealand Herald and 16 Auckland community newspapers. This project will complete the process requested by the Select Committee.

Item

18



After receiving the SOP, the Select Committee may choose to re-open submissions on the bill. Should this occur the public will be given a second opportunity to submit on the Bill and its implications for Auckland. Because it is uncertain when the Bill will be enacted, the Programme does not include the development of a bylaw to regulate street prostitution in specified places.

Significance of Decision The recommendations proposed in this report do not trigger any requirements arising in connection with the council’s significance policy.

Consultation Councillor representatives for Adult Entertainment Programme working parties Councillor working parties are recommended as a way of providing consistent political oversight and input to the Adult Entertainment Programme. On 15 February 2011, the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee resolved to establish working parties for the bylaw review programme, divided by particular bylaw themes. Five councillors have indicated their interest in joining the commercial sex premises working party. To promote consistent outcomes and reduce the risk of duplication, it is suggested that in addition to commercial sex premises bylaws, members of the commercial sex premises working party also consider matters relating to the wider Adult Entertainment Programme. The councillor working party structure will provide a mechanism for ensuring political input throughout the programme and will ensure that the approaches available to Council in the development of the Programme are considered. The working party also provides a mechanism for addressing the range of outcomes that may be sought by different stakeholders. It is expected that the working party would meet several times throughout 2011, typically for half-day workshops to discuss findings, issues and options. Reporting and delegations In the delivery of the Programme, officers will consult with local boards and the Community Safety Forum for the framework, brothels and commercial sex premises policy development and bylaw review. Two Committees hold delegations for decisions relating to the Adult Entertainment Programme:

1) The Regional Development and Operations Committee is responsible for making decisions on matters relating to the adult entertainment framework, brothels and commercial sex premises policy and Supplementary Order Paper

2) The Regulatory and Bylaws Committee is responsible for making decisions on matters relating to the review and development of a brothels and commercial sex premises bylaw.

Officers will provide update reports to the Regional Development and Operations Committee and Regulatory and Bylaws Committee and seek approval at major milestones. Reporting and engagement for the Programme is provided in Attachment One. Consultation with key stakeholders In addition to councillor workshops and political reporting, the Programme will involve significant consultation with council staff, external stakeholders and the public. Council officers will develop a comprehensive communications plan to ensure that all key stakeholders are identified and approached for consultation and feedback throughout the duration of the Programme.

Item

18



Officers have identified the Maori Statutory Board and advisory panels such as the Pacific and Ethnic Peoples panels as key stakeholders in the review and development of policy. Officers will ensure that the Maori Statutory Board and advisory panels are kept informed on the progress and development of Adult Entertainment Programme initiatives and invited to provide feedback throughout the Programme.

Local Board Views The views of local boards will be sought throughout the Adult Entertainment Programme, via political reports and workshops. A version of this report will be presented to local boards in July 2011 and information reports will be provided at key milestones. Reports to Forums, Committees and the Governing Body will incorporate the views of local boards.

Financial and Resourcing Implications The costs associated with the adult entertainment programme will be met from within existing operational budgets.

Legal and Legislative Implications Auckland Council is empowered by the Health Act 1956, Resource Management Act 1991, Local Government Act 2002 and Prostitution Reform Act 2003 to regulate the adult entertainment industry and manage issues associated with that industry through a variety of mechanisms. The Local Government Act 2002 specifically requires territorial authorities to follow the special consultative procedure when make a bylaw (section 156). The Select Committee suggested that council follow sections 1-7 in Appendix C of the Standing Orders, which outline a process for public notification of a Bill. Officers have consulted with the Clerk of the Select Committee and council’s Communications and Public Affairs Unit to ensure that the public notice of the SOP will meet all necessary requirements and ensure that Auckland’s communities are well informed. Officers will seek legal advice when determining the most appropriate mechanisms for Council to use to address issues relating to adult entertainment. In addition, legal advice will be sought on the development process, content and enforcement of the preferred approach, to ensure that it falls within Council’s authority, and mitigate the risk of legal challenge.

Implementation Issues N/A

Attachments No. Title Page A Adult Entertainment Programme - Timeframe and Processes 113

Signatories Authors Ruth Stokes, Manager, Community and Cultural Policy Authorisers Penny Pirrit, Manager, Regional and Local Planning

Dr. Roger Blakeley, Chief Planning Officer, Planning

Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1

8



Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1



Item

19


Supplementary Order Paper for the Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill

Supplementary Order Paper for the Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill File No.: CP2011/03144

Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to provide the Regional Development and Operations Committee with a draft Supplementary Order Paper for the Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill and to outline the process for completion. In November 2010, Auckland Council inherited the Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill (the Bill), which was promoted by the former Manukau City Council. An implication of the transition was that the Bill would apply to the entire area administered by the Auckland Council, instead of only the former Manukau City Council district. Auckland Council’s submission to the Local Government and Environment Committee supported the general purpose and intent of the Bill, but recommended that the wording be changed to reflect the Bill’s wider application as a result of local government amalgamation. On 15 February 2011, the Local Government and Environment Committee (Select Committee) put the onus back on Auckland Council as the new promoter of the Bill, by recommending that the council draft a Supplementary Order Paper to effect a wording change. Following the recommendations received from the Select Committee, council’s Legal Services Department has drafted a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). The SOP amends the Bill in two ways to reflect Auckland’s recent local government amalgamation. Firstly, by changing the title of the Bill from Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill to the Auckland Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill; secondly, by amending the definition of “district” from the former Manukau City Council boundary to mean the district of Auckland Council. Officers have provided information updates on the SOP, through reports to Local Boards and the Community Safety Forum in June 2011. Officers will seek endorsement on the SOP from the Governing Body on 28 July 2011. Following approval, the SOP will be publicly notified via the council’s website, NZ Herald, 16 community newspapers and hard copies placed in libraries and service centres across Auckland.


b) That the Regional Development and Operations Committee recommends that the Governing Body approves the Supplementary Order Paper for the Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill, noting that officers will report to the Governing Body on 28 July 2011.

Background Supplementary Order Paper On 4 February 2011, Auckland Council provided a submission to the Local Government and Environment Committee (Select Committee) on the Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill (the Bill). Attachment One is a copy of the submission, which was endorsed by the Governing Body on 27 January 2011. If enacted, the Bill would allow the council to make bylaws specifying areas where street prostitution may not occur. The submission supported the general purpose and intent of the Bill, but recommended that the Bill be amended

Item

19



so that its application would reflect the incorporation of Manukau City Council into Auckland Council as a result of Local Government amalgamation on 1 November 2010. After receiving and considering the council’s submission, the Select Committee, on 15 February 2011, strongly encouraged the council to draft a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that makes two changes to the Bill:

1) a change of title, to reflect that Auckland Council is taking over from Manukau City Council as promoter of the Bill

2) a change in the definition of “district” to mean the district of the Auckland Council. Auckland Council now governs the Auckland region including that area formerly governed by the Manukau City Council. If passed, the Act will have effect across the Auckland Region and enable Auckland Council to regulate street prostitution in specified places if it is considered necessary and desirable. Auckland Council’s Legal Services Department has prepared the SOP (Attachment Two) in consultation with the Clerk of the Select Committee, to ensure that the SOP fully complies with the Select Committee’s recommendations. Process The Select Committee has advised the council to follow some of the procedures for notification of local bills as set out in Appendix C of Standing Orders (sections 1-7), to ensure that the council’s intentions to assume responsibility for the bill are adequately publicised. Officers have provided this information update on the SOP to all Local Boards and to the Community Safety Forum in June 2011. Following approval by the Regional Development and Operations Committee, officers will seek endorsement of the SOP from the Governing Body on 28 July 2011. In early August 2011, the SOP will be publicly notified to ensure residents throughout Auckland are made aware of the change in title and definition and resultant wider scope of the Bill. Notification will occur at least once in each of two consecutive calendar weeks and will include publication on the Auckland Council website, in the New Zealand Herald and 16 Auckland community newspapers. Hard copies of the notification will also be made available at libraries and service centres across Auckland. Following the notification period, officers will submit the SOP to the Select Committee for consideration. In order for this piece of work to be completed, the Select Committee was granted a six-month extension for its report back to the house. The report is now due on 8 September 2011. After receiving the SOP, the Select Committee may choose to call for submissions on the new version of the Bill. Should this occur the public would be given a second opportunity to submit on the Bill and its implications for Auckland. The process for completion of the SOP is summarised below: June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011

Reports provided to all Local Boards and Community Safety Forum on the SOP SOP reported to the Regional Development and Operations Committee for approval

SOP reported to the Governing Body for endorsement

Public Notice period SOP submitted to Select Committee

Select Committee due to report back to the House

Item

19



Decision Making The recommendations contained within this report fall within the Regional Development and Operations Committee’s delegated authority.

Significance of Decision Whilst the preparation of the SOP does not trigger the Significance Policy, the content of the SOP will be of broad community interest. To ensure the communities of Auckland are informed of the SOP, council will follow the procedures for notification of local bills as set out in Appendix C of Standing Orders (sections 1-7).

Consultation Draft SOP Officers have liaised with the Clerk of the Select Committee to clarify the recommendations outlined in its letter to council and ensure the draft SOP is compliant with those recommendations. Public Notice The Select Committee suggested that council follow sections 1-7 in Appendix C of the Standing Orders, which outline a process for public notification of a Bill. Officers have consulted with the Clerk of the Select Committee and council’s Communications and Public Affairs Unit to ensure that the public notice of the SOP will meet all necessary requirements and ensure that Auckland’s communities are well informed. Once the Select Committee receives the SOP, it may decide to call for public submissions on the new version of the Bill.


Financial and Resourcing Implications The costs associated with drafting the SOP and advertising the public notice will be met from existing operational budgets.

Legal and Legislative Implications Council’s Legal Services Department provided legal support in preparing the draft Supplementary Order Paper.


Attachments No. Title Page A Auckland Council submission on the Manukau City Council (Regulation of

Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill 118

B Draft Supplementary Order Paper 124

Signatories Author Ruth Stokes, Manager, Community and Cultural Policy

Penny Pirrit, Manager, Regional and Local Planning Authorisers


Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1



Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1

9



Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1



Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1

9



Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1



Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 1

9



Atta

chm

ent B

Ite

m 1



Item

20


Report and decision of the Board of Inquiry into the New Zealand Transport Agency Waterview Connection Proposal

Report and decision of the Board of Inquiry into the New Zealand Transport Agency Waterview Connection Proposal File No.: CP2011/03365

Executive Summary On 24 May 2011, the Board of Inquiry into the Waterview Connection Proposal released its draft report and decision. The draft decision is to approve the alterations to designations, new designations and resource consent applications, subject to conditions.

Auckland Council and Auckland Transport have supported the Project in principle, subject to the effects of the Project being more appropriately or more fully mitigated. While not necessarily in the manner proposed by the Council and Auckland Transport, all of the outstanding concerns are addressed in the draft decision. The Albert-Eden Local Board is a separate party to the process and sought the decline of the Project. In the alternative, the Local Board sought additional mitigation to address effects on local communities. While not necessarily in form proposed, the additional mitigation requested by the Local Board, as carefully re-considered at the hearing, is addressed in the draft decision. The draft decision is considered to strike a fair balance between enabling the New Zealand Transport Agency to construct a road of national significance and mitigating effects of the Project on the environment, particularly the Waterview and Owairaka communities. As required by section 149Q of the Resource Management Act 1991, parties are invited to comment on minor or technical aspects of the report by 23 June 2011. Comments are limited to minor errors in the report, on the wording of conditions, or omissions in the report. It does not extend to comments on the Board's decision or its reasons for the decision. In this regard, comments are on technical matters and the implementation of the conditions. For this reason and to meet the timeframe for responding, Committee approval is sought for the Manager Regional and Local Planning (in consultation with the Manager Resource Consents and the Manager Strategy and Planning, Auckland Transport) to finalise the comments on the draft report and decision.


b) That the Committee delegate to the Manager Regional and Local Planning (in consultation with the Manager Resource Consents and the Manager Strategy and Planning, Auckland Transport) the Auckland Council comments on the draft report to the Board of Inquiry into the Waterview Connection Proposal.

Background Introduction The Waterview Connection Project is an extension of the State Highway 20 motorway from Mt Roskill to State Highway 16 at Pt Chevalier and includes upgrading of State Highway 16 to Te Atatu (“the Project”). The Project requires new designations and alterations to existing designations in the Waitakere District Plan and Auckland Isthmus District Plan. Resource consents are also required under Regional Plans.

Item

20



Applications were lodged with the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) on 20 August 2010. As provided for in the Resource Management Act 1991 (“the RMA”) the applications were referred to a Board of Inquiry (“BOI)”. Role of the Council and Auckland Transport The role of the Council in the BOI process is twofold. Firstly, to prepare the Local Authority Report. This report sets out the key issues relating to the Project and is principally a factual document on the statutory planning requirements. Reports were prepared by the former Waitakere, Auckland City and Auckland Regional Councils. All reports were prepared in advance of submissions. Secondly, as a submitter to the Project, Auckland Regional Council, Waitakere City Council, Auckland City Council and Auckland Regional Transport Authority all lodged submissions on the Project. All submissions support the Project in principal, subject to further mitigation of effects or resolution of particular matters. Due to the then forthcoming government reorganisation, there was a degree of co-ordination in preparing the submissions. The Governing Body at its November 2010 Council meeting adopted each of these submissions as the Auckland Council position for the purposes of the Board of Inquiry hearing. Some concerns raised in the submission were resolved by an exchange of information and minor revisions to parts of the Project. Remaining concerns were discussed by 14 witnesses who presented evidence on behalf of the Council and Auckland Transport. The majority of the witnesses suggested how their concerns could be addressed by revisions to the draft conditions proposed by the NZTA. Other concerns required more significant modifications. Concerns continued to be narrowed through caucusing and revisions of the NZTA suite of offered conditions. The submission by the Eden-Albert Local Board In addition to the Council submission, the Albert-Eden Local Board made a submission and was represented by separate legal counsel at the hearing. The Local Board opposed the Project. In the alternative, the Local Board sought modifications to the Project and the imposition of conditions to address how the Project impacts on the Waterview, Owairaka and to a lesser extent, Mt Albert communities. At the time of presenting its case at the hearing, the Albert-Eden Local Board carefully re-considered its position and focused on its alternative position, suggesting mitigation that would provide the greatest benefit to most directly affected communities. While some of the suggested mitigation was the same or similar to that sought by the Council, the Local Board sought two additional matters, more closely reflecting that sought by the local communities. These matters have been addressed in the BOI draft decision and are: • Moving the northern ventilation stack on the northern side of Great North Road into Oakley

Creek Reserve • Greater certainty that the fundamental requirements for essential open space in Waterview

are achieved by conditions Comparison between the mitigation sought by the parties and the BOI draft decision As noted above, some concerns were resolved directly with the NZTA over the last six months. Given the complexity and enormity of the Project, these are not detailed in this report. A high level summary of the unresolved issues/mitigation sought by Auckland Council, Auckland Transport and the Local Board and how this is addressed in the draft decision is set out below. All

Item

20



mitigation sought (as summarised in legal submissions tabled at the hearing) has been addressed, albeit not necessarily in the manner proposed by the parties. The BOI decision also requires additional mitigation on topics beyond the matters set out below. (a) The provision of open space mitigation Waterview and Point Chevalier The BOI draft decision supports the Council’s position that the sports field at Waterview Reserve should be replaced by one at an upgraded Phyllis Reserve. The NZTA is required to make a financial contribution to Council for this to occur, with Waterview Reserve to be reinstated as an informal active recreation park. In addition, the BOI draft decision requires the NZTA to construct a skate park and non-motorised bike track at Waterview Reserve. In line with the Local Board’s concerns, conditions relating to other reserves in the locality have been strengthened. The BOI draft decision requires additional mitigation including building a path network, weed removal and undertaking riparian planting along the esplanade reserve network in northern Waterview. The importance of this esplanade network was highlighted in caucusing. To connect the Waterview community with land to the north, the BOI draft decision requires the NZTA to extend the cycle and pedestrian connections into and through Eric Armishaw Park. Owairaka Council’s mitigation package required the NZTA to acquire eight residential properties to expand Valonia Reserve so the two sports fields could be located in side-by-side configuration and provide a passive recreation function. The BOI considers this outside its jurisdiction and the draft decision requires that Valonia Reserve be developed in accordance with the NZTA proposal. However, to provide further sports field opportunities, the NZTA is required to vest (at no cost to the Council) as reserve a 1.9ha site at 6 Barrymore Road, which adjoins Alan Wood Reserve, after it is required by the NZTA for a construction yard. To address other effects identified by the Council on Allan Wood Reserve, the BOI draft decision requires the NZTA to: • provide a skate park • undertake further improvements to the path network • provide additional landscaping and signage • shift the southern ventilation building by approximately 70m – 80m, thereby retaining open

space in the reserve (b) Cycleway connection Council, together with Auckland Transport sought the completion of the SH20 cycleway as part of the motorway project (i.e. constructing that part of the cycleway above the tunneled section between New Windsor / Owairaka and Point Chevalier). This was supported by the Local Board. The BOI draft decision requires the NZTA to pay the Council $8 million towards the cycleway, including two bridges (at Alford Street in Waterview and Soljak Place in Mt Albert) as mitigation to offset the effect of the project on passive open space. The payment is contingent on Council securing the cycleway route and obtaining the necessary consents. This must be done within 8 years of the designation commencing.

Item

20



It is expected that Auckland Council and Auckland Transport will both need to be involved in the fulfillment of this condition as it will gain a significant piece of regional cycle network that is of both local and strategic importance. (c) The location of the Southern Portal building Council sought to have the southern portal building in Allan Wood Reserve located underground to the greatest possible extent. The NZTA draft decision requires the option of what is known as option 3 – shifting (lengthening the tunnel) a further 70-80 meters to the southeast. This aligns with Council’s position and reduces the effect of the project on Alan Wood Reserve. (d) Northern ventilation stack The local community of Waterview proposed moving the ventilation stack (now reduced in height from 25m to 15m by the BOI draft decision) to the opposite side of Great North Road. The Local Board and the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum supported this proposal. Witnesses for the Council did not favour moving the ventilation stack as it placed the stack on part of Oakley Creek Esplanade Reserve. The BOI draft decision requires that the stack to be located on the opposite side of Great North Road. Suitable conditions are included in the decision to ensure that at the time of the outline plan of works for the stack, concerns about the impact on Oakley Creek Esplanade Reserve can be minimised. (e) Landscape and planting maintenance period Council sought an extended maintenance period for planting and re-vegetation. This is recognised in the BOI draft decision. (f) Mitigation in relation to Traherne Island The Council had outstanding concerns about Traherne Island. The BOI draft decision requires the NZTA to prepare a Weed and Pest Management Plan to the approval of the Council.

Decision Making At this stage in the process, the Council is invited, as provided for by section 149Q of the RMA, to comment on “minor or technical aspects of the report”. This includes comments on minor errors in the report, on the wording of conditions, or omissions in the report. The RMA specifically excludes comments on the BOI decision or its reasons for the decision. At the time of writing this report to the Committee, the 390 page BOI report and 160 pages of conditions is being reviewed by the various technical witnesses for the Council. Legal advisors are also considering particular aspects of the report. As comments are limited to minor or technical aspects, it is expected that the focus of any comments will be on the comprehension and effectiveness of the BOI conditions, particularly bearing in mind the Council’s role as regulatory authority in monitoring and enforcing the conditions of the designations and resource consents. In this regard, input from the Manager Resource Consents is being sought and this is reflected in recommendation b) of this report. In advance of a detailed review of the decision, which was not possible by the close of the agenda, examples of comments on conditions that have been identified include: • Additional cross referencing of conditions where there is an inter-relationship between

different topics • Strengthening language by amending “should” to “shall”

Item

20



• Providing for a single point of contact for all conditions requiring Council approval or certification whilst ensuring that the Local Board and appropriate Council departments are consulted, and where appropriate, approval given. Where consultation and land owner approval is necessary, such as for works on Council reserves, the condition would recognise that this shall occur before details are submitted to the Major Infrastructure Team Manager.

Separate from comments on the BOI draft report, in order to comply with particular conditions and address ancillary matters in respect of the Council’s land owner obligations, reports to other committees of the Council, the Local Board and Auckland Transport will be necessary. The recommendations contained in this report fall within the Committee’s delegated authority

Significance of Decision The ability to comment on the BOI report is limited to minor or technical aspects, the content is considered to be administrative and will focus on the Council’s role in monitoring the conditions of the designations and resource consents. Accordingly, the decision to delegate the content of the comments on the BOI draft report is not significant in terms of the Council’s Significance Policy.

Consultation The BOI followed the usual public submissions. All parties had the right to give evidence before the BOI. In regard to iwi consultation, both Ngati Whatua o Orakei and Te Kawerau a Maki made submissions. Ngati Whatua did not appear at the hearing as its concerns were addressed via amended conditions. Te Kawerau a Maki raised concerns about lighting which have now been resolved.


Financial and Resourcing Implications The cost involved in providing Council comments is provided for within existing budgets. Costs associated with the monitoring of the conditions and outline plan of works process can be recovered from the NZTA.

Legal and Legislative Implications The BOI decision is not subject to appeal, except on matters of law to High Court. There are no legal implications associated with the invitation to provide comments on the BOI draft report

Implementation Issues Comments are required to be submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency by 5pm Thursday 23 June 2011.


Signatories Author Warren Maclennan, Manager Operative Plans Reviewer Penny Pirrit, Manager Regional and Local Planning Authoriser Dr Roger Blakeley – Chief Planning Officer

Item

21


Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) – Chapters 3, 4, 9, 13 & 21 to be made Operative

Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) – Chapters 3, 4, 9, 13 & 21 to be made Operative File No.: CP2011/03115

Executive Summary This report seeks to have the Council exercise its powers under clauses 17 and 20 of the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) to approve and make operative one Plan Change and 5 additional chapters of the Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) . Approval under the same provisions is sought for the zoning of a specific area of land excluded from the previous approval of Chapter 7 – Rural. Since January 2009 parts of the Rodney Proposed District Plan 2000 have been progressively approved and become operative. Five chapters (3, 4, 9, 13 and 21) could not be made operative prior to transition on 1 November 2010 as they were subject to appeals to Variation 22 to the former Rodney Proposed District Plan, notified under the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Act 2004 (LGAAA). On 1 April 2011 the Environment Court issued a consent order resolving the appeals on these chapters by consent. The consent order resolves both the original appeals on the Proposed District Plan and the later appeals on Variation 22 (V22) and Plan Change 97 (PC97) to the Operative Plan 1993. The agreed text for Chapter 3 – Definitions, Chapter 4 - Overview, Chapter 9 - Business, Chapter 13 – Future Development and Structure Plans, and Chapter 21 – Transportation and Access - Policy 21.4.7 is attached to the consent order. The five outstanding chapters to the Rodney Proposed District Plan 2000 (as amended by V22) can now be approved by the Council, and made operative. Under the LGAAA, the former Rodney District Council also notified PC97 to the then Operative Rodney District Plan 1993. The one appeal lodged in respect of this plan change has also been resolved by consent, with no text changes required. PC97 can therefore also be approved and made operative. It is noted that the Operative Plan 1993 will cease to be relevant once the Proposed District Plan 2000 is made fully operative. The amended chapters to be approved will be available at the meeting and in the Councillors’ room prior to the meeting. In addition an appeal by the Coatesville Countryside Residence Living Group (ENV-2007-AKL-227) has been resolved by consent order dated 12 May 2011. The land in Coatesville affected by this appeal was ring fenced when the Rural chapter (chapter 7) became operative on 1 September 2010. The zoning of the land and associated site specific provisions can now be made operative. One appeal to the Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) remains outstanding:

• This appeal to Variation 51 by Gulf Harbour Marlin Trust (ENV-2007-AKL-417) means that the Special 18 - Gulf Harbour section of Chapter 12 Special Zones, cannot be made operative at this stage, and will need to be the subject of a separate agenda item in the near future.

Item

21




b) That in accordance with Clauses 17 and 20 of the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991:

i) That Plan Change 97 to the former Rodney Operative District Plan 1993 be

approved and made operative.

ii) That it be noted that Variation 22 to the Rodney Proposed District Plan 2000 merged with, and became part of the Proposed District Plan 2000 when it reached the same procedural stage as the Rodney Proposed District Plan 2000 in August 2007 and by passing resolution iii) below, the variation is in effect being adopted.

iii) That Chapter 3 – Definitions, Chapter 4 – Overview, Chapter 9 - Business,

Chapter 13 – Future Development and Structure Plans and Chapter 21 – Transportation and Access of the Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) (as amended by Variation 22) and tabled at the meeting, be approved and made operative.

iv) That the zoning of the land at Coatesville identified in the exclusion in schedule

6 to the signing and sealing of Chapter 7 of the Auckland District Plan (Rodney Section) on 19 August 2010, be changed to Countryside Living Rural and the site specific provisions apply as outlined in the consent order to appeal ENV-2007-AKL-000227, as tabled at the meeting and that this zoning and the site specific provisions be approved.

c) That the Manager, Operative Plans, be authorised to complete the statutory

processes required to make the provisions in (b) (i) to (iv) inclusive operative.

Background Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section)

The Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section), formerly Rodney Proposed District Plan 2000 was publicly notified in November 2000, with the majority of decisions on submissions released in late 2006. Appeals were lodged on a number of chapters. Subsequently, as required under section 39(1) of the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Act (LGAAA), the Council prepared, and publicly notified, proposed changes to both its Operative District Plan and the Proposed District Plan 2000, called “Amendments for Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Act” in the form of PC97 and V22 respectively. To avoid unnecessary duplication and confusion, and to ensure that users of the planning documents could focus on a single set of planning provisions, the proposed amendments were set out in V22, with PC97 simply referring the reader of the Operative District Plan to V22 - Amendments for Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Act. The Council released its decisions on submissions on V22 and PC97 in August 2007. From this time on, the changes proposed by V22 merged in, and became part of, the relevant chapters of the Proposed District Plan, pursuant to Clause 16B of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991. Appeals on V22 were lodged in mid September 2007. These appeals affected a number of chapters.

Item

21



Since January 2009 parts of the Proposed District Plan 2000 have been progressively approved and become operative as appeals were settled, or determined by the Court. The former Rodney District Council spent considerable resources attempting to resolve as many appeals as possible, and make as many provisions operative as possible, prior to 1 November 2010. However, five chapters (3, 4, 9, 13 and 21) and two location-specific provisions could not be made operative prior to 1 November 2010 as they were subject to appeals. Chapters 3, 4, 9, 13 and 21 were subject to appeals by Progressive Enterprises Limited, The National Trading Company of New Zealand Limited and The Warehouse Limited, challenging both the original provisions of the Proposed District Plan and the amended provisions introduced by V22. On 1 April 2011 the Environment Court resolved these appeals by consent. The five outstanding chapters to the Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) (as amended by V22) can now be approved and made operative. The amended chapters to be approved and made operative will be available in the Councillors’ Lounge and will be tabled at the Committee meeting. Under the LGAAA the former Rodney District Council also notified PC97 to the then Operative Rodney District Plan 1993. Appeals lodged in respect of this plan change have also been resolved by consent. PC97 can therefore also be approved and made operative. However, the Operative Plan 1993 will cease to be relevant once the Proposed District Plan 2000 is approved, and made operative. In addition an appeal by the Coatesville Countryside Residence Living Group (ENV-2007-AKL-227) has been resolved by consent order dated 12 May 2011. The Court issued an interim decision on this appeal on 1 September 2009, and directed that the parties jointly work further on a concept plan for the area. The consent order now puts the agreed plans and related provisions into place. The land in Coatesville affected by this appeal was ring fenced when the Rural chapter became operative on 1 September 2010. The new Countryside Living Rural zoning and associated restricted activity on the land can now be made operative. A copy of these consent orders have also been made available in the Councillors’ lounge and will be tabled at the Committee meeting.

Decision Making As the remaining appeals to the outstanding chapters of the Proposed District Plan 2000 have been resolved by consent, the Council can now approve Chapters 3, 4, 9, 13 and 21 of the Rodney Proposed District Plan 2000 (as amended by V22) and resolve to make them operative. It is also requested that the Manager Operative Plans, be authorised to complete the statutory processes required to make Chapters 3, 4, 9, 13 and 21 of the Rodney Proposed District Plan 2000 (as amended by V22) operative. The site specific zoning and provisions for the land at Coatesville mentioned above can be treated likewise. This plan will then be known as the Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section). One appeal to the Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) remains outstanding:

• An appeal to Variation 51 by Gulf Harbour Marlin Trust (ENV-2007-AKL-417) means that the Special 18 - Gulf Harbour section of chapter 12 Special Zones, cannot be made operative at this stage.

The Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) can therefore be made fully operative with the exclusion of the Gulf Harbour Special 18 zone. The recommendations within this report fall within the Committee’s delegated authority.

Significance of Decision The recommendation to make Chapters 3, 4, 9, 13 and 21 of the Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) and the Coatesville provisions operative, is consistent with the Council’s policies and strategies and does not trigger the Significance Policy.

Item

21



Consultation Consultation has occurred in the earlier stages of the process, including with Te Uri o Hau, Ngati Paoa Whanau Trust, Ngati Whatua Nga Rima o Kaipara, Ngati Wai Trust, Te Kawerau a Maki Trust, Ngati Manuhiri, and there is no provisions in the RMA or particular need, for consultation in this final stage in the process.

Local Board Views The views of the local boards are not applicable at this stage of the regulatory process. Auckland Council’s involvement with the plan has only been at the stage of appeals.

Financial and Resourcing Implications There will be some administrative costs involved in making Chapters 3, 4, 9, 13 and 21 of the Proposed District Plan 2000, and the Coatesville provisions operative. These costs can be accommodated within existing planning budgets.

Legal and Legislative Implications Under Clause 20 of the First Schedule to the RMA, once the Council has approved Chapters 3, 4, 9, 13 and 21 of the Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section), and the Coatesville provisions the Council is required to publicly notify that those parts are operative.

Implementation Issues There will be administrative tasks involved in making Chapters 3, 4, 9, 13 and 21 of the Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) and the Coatesville provisions operative.


Signatories Authors Dave Paul, Principal Policy Planner, Area Planning &Policy North

Peter Vari, Team Leader, Area Planning & Policy, North. Reviewer Warren Maclennan, Manager, Operative Plans

Penny Pirrit, Manager, Regional and Local Planning Authorisers Dr Roger Blakeley – Chief Planning Officer

Item

22


Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) Plan Changes being made Operative - Noise; Warkworth Countryside Living; Heritage Schedule; Stockyard Falls - Designation 154 (Weiti)

Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) Plan Changes being made Operative - Noise; Warkworth Countryside Living; Heritage Schedule; Stockyard Falls - Designation 154 (Weiti) File No.: CP2011/03116

Executive Summary This reports seeks to have the Council exercise its powers under the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991(RMA) to approve Designation 154 , Plan Change 102 – Noise, Plan Change 133 – Warkworth Countryside Living and Plan Change 135 – Heritage Schedule Amendments, and Private Plan Change 157 – Stockyard Falls Light Industrial, and make them operative


b) That the pursuant to Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the RMA, the Council approve the following parts of the Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section), being parts that have had all submissions and appeals relating to them disposed of; i) Designation 154

c) That pursuant to Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the RMA, the Council approve the following plan changes to the Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) that have had all submissions and appeals relating to them disposed of; i) Plan Change 102 – Noise ii) Plan Change 133 – Warkworth Countryside Living iii) Plan Change 135 – Heritage Schedule iv) Private Plan Change 157 – Stockyard Falls Light Industrial

d) That the Manager, Operative Plans be authorised to complete the statutory process under clauses 17 and 20 of the First Schedule of the RMA, to enable the provisions in (b) and (c) above to become operative.

Background Progressively since January 2009, parts of the former Proposed Rodney District Plan 2000 have been approved and made operative. When the chapter relating to designations (Chapter 15) was made operative on 30 January 2009 it was done with the specific exclusion of Designation 154, which was still the subject of an appeal to the Environment Court (ENV-2006-AKL-1131). That appeal has now been resolved, enabling designation 154 to be made operative. The designation relates to a reserve within the Special 8 – Weiti Forest Park zone at Stillwater covering Chenier Sandspits and the adjoining Coastal margin along the Weiti River. When a plan or a chapter in a plan becomes operative, outstanding variations to the proposed plan become plan changes. A plan change must follow the same procedure (set out in the First Schedule to the RMA) as a District Plan in order to be made operative.

Item

22



The following plan changes, that were previously variations to the former Rodney District Plan, have had all submissions and appeals relating to them disposed of and can now be formally approved and made operative. Copies of the Plan Changes will be available in the Councillors’ Lounge and tabled at the meeting. Plan Change 133 – Warkworth Countryside Living This plan change was publicly notified on 10 December 2009 to implement the adopted

Warkworth Structure Plan, by introducing new rules and assessment criteria specific to the Countryside Living Town zone in Warkworth, and by rezoning an area to Countryside Living Town, in order to align with the adopted Structure Plan. The decision on submissions was released on 21 October 2010 and there were no appeals.

Plan Change 135 – Amendments to Heritage schedule This plan change was publicly notified on 20 May 2010 to make a number of corrections in

Chapter 17 Cultural Heritage. These were specifically to Appendix 17B – Historic Structures, Sites and Fixed Objects Listed for Protection and the related planning maps. The decision on submissions was released on 4 October 2010 and there were no appeals.

Plan Change 102 – Noise Tables This plan change was publicly notified on 20 November 2007 to make corrections to the

column headings in the noise tables (Table 16.9.2.1.1 and Table 16.9.2.1.2(i)) in Chapter 16 General Rules , in particular 16.9 Noise & Vibration. The corrections were necessary to remove ambiguity in the times to which the different noise levels applied. The noise levels themselves did not change. The decision on submissions was released on 24 September 2010 and there were no appeals.

In addition a Private Plan Change, which was notified on 13 July 2010 has completed the statutory processes and can now be approved pursuant to clause l17 of the First Schedule of the RMA. This private plan change will not have any legal effect until it is made operative. Plan Change 157 – Stockyard Falls Light Industrial This plan change was a privately initiated plan change which relates to land known as

Stockyard Falls, in Woodcocks Road, Warkworth and introduces provisions for light industrial activity at the Stockyard Falls development. The development is covered by a Scheduled Activity 328 (enabling a bulk retail development), and Restricted Activity 210 (enabling light industrial activity in a specified area). There was one appeal to the Plan Change which has now been resolved.

It is appropriate therefore that the above mentioned provisions are now made operative in accordance with the requirements of the RMA.

Decision Making The recommendations contained within this report fall within the Committee’s delegated authority.

Significance of Decision The recommendations to make the above mentioned designation and plan changes operative do not trigger Council’s Significance Policy.

Item

22



Consultation Each Plan Change/Variation has involved a statutory process with full notification, and public involvement has occurred. This included consultation with Te Uri o Hau, Ngati Paoa Whanau Trust, Ngati Whatua Nga Rima o Kaipara, Ngati Wai Trust, Te Kawerau a Maki Trust, Ngati Manuhiri, as required under the RMA. The final stage will be the public notification of the decision to make these plan changes operative.

Local Board Views The views of the Local Boards are not applicable at this final stage of the regulatory process and Auckland Council’s involvement with the Plan Changes is the final step of approving the Changes.

Financial and Resourcing Implications The costs of making the provisions operative have been provided for in the Regional and Local Planning existing budgets.

Legal and Legislative Implications Adoption of the recommendations will enable the statutory processes for amendments and Plan Changes to the District Plan to be completed.



Signatories Authors Peter Vari – Team Leader, Area Planning & Policy - North Reviewer Warren Maclennan, Manager, Operative Plans

Penny Pirrit, Manager, Regional and Local Planning Authorisers Dr Roger Blakeley Chief Planning Officer

Item

23


Approval of Plan Change 30 - Urban Design Code - Auckland Council District Plan (North Shore City section 2002)

Approval of Plan Change 30 - Urban Design Code - Auckland Council District Plan (North Shore City section 2002) File No.: CP2011/03117

Executive Summary This reports seeks final approval of Plan Change 30 to the Auckland Council District Plan (North Shore section, 2002). All outstanding issues have been resolved between the relevant parties. The key pages of the consent order of the Environment Court dated 26 May, 2011 are attached (Attachment A). The full document of 96 pages will be tabled. The purpose of Plan Change 30 - Urban Design Code - is to improve the quality of the urban built form in the small business nodes and town centres of North Shore, which are zoned Business 1, 2, 3 and 4. The code also applies to a Business 9 node in Hinemoa Street, Birkenhead which has Business 1 characteristics and important heritage values. Approval under Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) is the final formality, and enables this Change to become operative and take full legal effect.


b) That Plan Change 30 - Urban Design Code - to the Auckland Council District Plan (North Shore section, 2002) be approved pursuant to Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.

c) That the Manager Operative Plans be authorised to complete the statutory processes required to achieve operative status for Plan Change 30 - Urban Design Code.

Background The purpose of Plan Change 30 - Urban Design Code - is to improve the quality of the urban built form in the business nodes and town centres of North Shore zoned Business 1, 2, 3 and 4 and an area in Hinemoa Street zoned Business 9 (that has Business 1 characteristics and historic heritage values). The small business nodes and suburban centres of North Shore are typically zoned Business 1 or 2, while the Takapuna sub-regional town centre is zoned Business 3, and the Albany sub-regional town centre is zoned Business 4. The main component of the Change 30 is that building alterations and new developments that were controlled activities become ‘limited discretionary’, enabling a more comprehensive assessment against a new ‘urban design code’. This activity status also gives Council the capacity to decline applications. There were four appeals that addressed a number of relatively minor factors and these have been resolved and are the subject of the consent order of the Environment Court.

Decision Making To complete the plan change process the committee is required to approve the Plan Change in terms of Clause 17 of the First Schedule of Resource Management Act 1991 (‘RMA’). The decision falls within the committee’s delegated authority.

Item

23



Significance of Decision The recommended decision is consistent with the council’s policies and strategies and does not trigger the Council’s significance policy.

Consultation Consultation occurred in the earlier stages of plan change promulgation (2007/2008), including statutory consultation with North Shore iwi representatives (Ngati Paoa Whanau Trust; Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority; Te Runanga O Ngati Whatua; Ngati Whatua O Orakei Maori Trust Board; Hauraki Maori Trust Board; Te Hao O Ngati Whatua; Te Tinana O Ngati Whatua; Pat Ruka; Te Hao O Ngata Whatua; Te Runanga O Ngati Whatua). There is no requirement in the RMA, or particular need, for consultation at this very final stage in the Plan Change process.

Local Board Views The views of the Boards are not applicable at this stage. Auckland Council’s involvement with this plan change has only been at the stage of resolving appeals.

Financial and Resourcing Implications There are no significant financial or resourcing implications associated with the routine ‘approval’ decision recommended. All costs fall within normal operating budgets.

Legal and Legislative Implications There are no outstanding legal implications once the operative date is publicly notified under Clause 20 of the First Schedule of the RMA, apart from ongoing monitoring of the effectiveness of the new plan provisions as required by the RMA.

Implementation Issues There will be some routine administrative tasks to achieve ‘operative’ status. ‘Consents’ staff will have simplified and quicker reporting once the former operative provisions have been superseded as they will then only need to address the newly operative provisions of the change.

Attachments No. Title Page A Consent order of the Environment Court (key pages only) - Plan Change

30, Urban Design Code (the full document of 96 pages is to be tabled) 141

Signatories Author Ewen Patience, Principal Planner North Reviewer Warren Maclennan, Manager Operative

Plans

Reviewer Penny Pirrit, Manager Regional and Local Planning

Authoriser Dr Roger Blakeley, Chief Planning Officer

Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 2

3



Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 2



Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 2

3



Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 2



Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 2

3



Item

24


Proposed Plan Change 13 Hobsonville Airbase to the Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section) – to be approved and made Partially Operative

Proposed Plan Change 13 Hobsonville Airbase to the Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section) – to be approved and made Partially Operative File No.: CP2011/03118

Executive Summary Proposed Plan Change 13 Hobsonville Airbase to the Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section) introduces a policy and rule framework to guide the future development of the former Hobsonville Airbase in the former Waitakere City area. Four appeals were lodged following notification of the plan change decision on 31 July 2007. Two of these appeals have been resolved by consent order prior to 1 November 2011. Resolution of the two remaining appeals is on-going, and those appeals only relate to Precinct H within the Base Village Special Area of the Proposed Plan Change. The rest of the provisions for this Proposed Plan Change are now beyond challenge. The purpose of this report is to recommend that specific parts of Proposed Plan Change 13 Hobsonville Airbase to the Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section), which apply within the former Waitakere City Council area and are beyond challenge, be approved and made operative by the Council.

Item

24




b) That the Committee note that parts of Proposed Plan Change 13 Hobsonville Airbase to the Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section) are now beyond challenge.

c) That in accordance with consent orders issued by the Environment Court, the Committee approve the following provisions of Proposed Plan Change 13 Hobsonville Airbase to the Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section) in accordance with Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991, with the exception of Policy and Rules related to subdivision and development in Precinct H of the Hobsonville Base Village Special Area. The approved provisions include: i. Amendments to Policy Section “The City’s Environment” Part 3.5.3 and Part 3.9 ii. Amendments to Policy 1.1 iii. Amendments to Policy 7.1 iv. Amendments to Policy 11.35 v. Amendments to parts of Policy 11.36 vi. Amendments to Policy 11.37A vii. Amendments to Policy 11.37B viii. Amendments to Part 6.2.15 within existing Policy Section 6 ix. Amendments to parts of Special Area Rule 21 (Hobsonville Base Village Special

Area) x. Amendments to Special Area Rule 22 (Hobsonville Future Development Special

Area) xi. Amendments to Special Area Rule 23 (Hobsonville Landing Special Area) xii. Amendments to Special Area Rule 24 (Hobsonville Marine Industry Special Area) xiii. Consequential amendments to Living Environment Rule 13 xiv. Consequential amendments to Working Environment Rules 3, 6, 8 and 10 xv. Consequential amendments to City Wide Hazardous Facilities Rule 1 xvi. Amendments to District Plan Definitions xvii. Amendments to District Plan Maps. And that this approval be effected by affixing the Council seal to these parts of Proposed Plan Change 13 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section).

d) That the Manager Operative Plans be given delegation to complete the statutory processes required to make Proposed Plan Change 13 Hobsonville Airbase to the Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section) part operative, including the determination of the operative date and notification date.

Background Proposed Plan Change 13 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section) (PC 13) was notified and processed by the former Waitakere City Council. It contains four Special Areas that enable development of residential precincts, the landing area and a marine industry area. PC 13 covers the Hobsonville Airbase only. Development is to be staged, and before development begins in each precinct a Comprehensive Development Plan resource consent must be approved. 20 hectares of the former Airbase site is also provided for development by the marine industry. This seeks to take advantage of the proximity of deep water access in the adjacent Waitemata Harbour. This marine industry development is associated with the development of the Hobsonville Landing Special Area, which is located at the adjacent reclamation where boats are able to be launched onto the Waitemata Harbour.

Item

24



Decisions on PC 13 were notified on 31 July 2007 as part of the former Waitakere City Council’s response to the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Act 2004. Four appeals were received, two which (one form the former Auckland Regional Council and one from the former North Shore City Council) have been resolved by consent orders. Negotiations continue on two appeals from the National Trading Company of New Zealand Limited and Progressive Enterprises Limited, with regard to the retail provisions that are applicable in Precinct H of the Base Village Special Area – the westernmost Precinct on the former Airbase. Both the National Trading Company of New Zealand Limited and Progressive Enterprises Limited have agreed that the provisions that are to be made operative do not relate to their appeals, and will not therefore be subject to further litigation. A copy of PC 13, incorporating amendments arising from the two consent orders issued by the Environment Court is attached. The text that is highlighted Green is the text that will be made operative. The two remaining appeals that relate to Precinct H in the Hobsonville Base Village Special Area are distinct. They can be resolved without further reference to the rest of Plan Change 13. Therefore Auckland Council can now approve and make PC 13 operative in part.

Decision Making Two of the four appeals to PC 13 have been resolved by consent orders prior to 1 November 2010. The provisions of PC 13, with the exception of those provisions that relate to Precinct H in the Base Village Special Area are now beyond challenge, and can be made operative. The recommendations contained in this report fall within the Committee’s delegated authority.

Significance of Decision The recommendation to approve and make PC 13 part operative is consistent with the Council’s policies and strategies, and does not trigger the significance policy.

Consultation Consultation was undertaken in the prior stages of the plan change process, that date back to 2003. Parties that have been consulted include affected landowners; local residents, Te Kawerau a Maki and Ngati Whatua who are the iwi for this area, the former Waitakere City Council Massey Community Board, Auckland Regional Council, the former Auckland Regional Transport Authority, and Government departments (Ministry of Housing, Ministry of Education). The requirement to approve and make the plan change part operative does not require any further consultation.

Local Board Views The resolution of the Auckland Regional Council and North Shore City Council appeals occurred prior to the creation of the Upper Harbour Local Board on 1 November 2010. This report seeks approval to make PC 13 partially operative, which is a matter that is not within the delegated authority of the Local Board. Consequently the view of the Local Board has not been sought.

Financial and Resourcing Implications There will be some administrative costs involved in making the plan change operative and consequential updating of the Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section). These costs are provided for in the Regional and Local Planning departmental budget.

Legal and Legislative Implications PC 13 now requires formal approval and subsequent statutory processing to become part operative in terms of Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the RMA. This approval is effected by affixing the Council seal.

Item

24



The approved parts of PC 13 will be notified as becoming operative at least 5 working days before the date on which they will become operative.

Implementation Issues There are administrative tasks involved in making PC 13 operative and updating the Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section).

Attachments No. Title Page A Plan Change 13 Hobsonville Airbase - Location of Airbase in Wider

Context 151

Signatories Author Eryn Shields, Team Leader Area Planning & Policy West Reviewer Warren MacLennan, Manager Operative Plans Authorisers Penny Pirrit, Manager Regional and Local Planning Dr Roger Blakeley, Chief Planning Officer

Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 2

4



Item

25


Proposed Plan Modification 54: Additions to the Heritage Schedule, Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Central Area Section 2004) - Operative

Proposed Plan Modification 54: Additions to the Heritage Schedule, Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Central Area Section 2004) - Operative File No.: CP2011/03359

Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to complete the statutory process required to make operative the Proposed Plan Modification 54 (Additions to the Heritage Schedule) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Central Area Section 2004). The proposed plan change introduced the following items to the district plan’s heritage schedule:

• The building at 35-37 High Street, and • A tram pole in Emily Place, at the intersection of Emily Place, Britomart Place, Customs

Street East, and Fort Street. The proposed plan change was notified in May 2010 and a hearing was held in August 2010. The former Auckland City Council released its decision on the plan change in September 2010. One appeal to the plan change was lodged with the Environment Court and relates to the heritage scheduling of the building located at 35-37 High Street by the owner Kegg Investments Limited. The building was notified as a Category B building in the Plan. The owner appellant opposed the scheduling of the building and sought that it be deleted from the Plan Change or alternatively to revise the definition of what was covered by the heritage scheduling particularly in relation to the the interior definition. The New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT), Art Deco Society (Auckland) Inc and Allan Matson lodged a notice under section 274 opposing the relief sought by the appellant in relation to the appeal. As a result of meetings and negotiations with the appellant and interested parties, this matter has been resolved by way of the owner withdrawing the appeal. The Council is now able to make the Proposed Plan Modification 54 operative.


b) That the Manager Operative Plans be authorised to complete the necessary statutory steps required to make operative Proposed Plan Modification 54 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Central Area Section 2004), the addition to the heritage schedule of the following items: i) 35-37 High Street

ii) Tram Pole, Emily Place. in accordance with the decision version attached as Attachment 1 to this report.

Background Proposed Plan Modification 54 (Additions to the Heritage Schedule) (the ‘proposed plan change’) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Central Area Section 2004) (the ‘Plan’) introduced additions to the Plan’s built heritage schedule. The proposed plan change introduced the building at 35-37 High Street and a tram pole in Emily Place as heritage items. The proposed plan change was initiated by the former Auckland City Council along with three others, namely

Item

25



Plan Change 55 (made operative in May 2011), and plan changes 199 and 292 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Isthmus Section). These plan changes were initiated to introduce iconic or exceptional built heritage items that had been identified by research at the time by Council and others including the New Zealand Historic Places Trust. These items are regarded as being of sufficient value that they warrant scheduling in the district plan. The proposed plan change was notified in May 2010 and a hearing was held in August 2010. The former Auckland City Council released its decision on the proposed plan change 54 in September 2010 (a copy of the decision version is attached as Attachment 1). 35-37 High Street

One appeal to the proposed plan change was lodged with the Environment Court and relates to the heritage scheduling of the building located at 35-37 High Street by the owner Kegg Investments Limited. The building was notified as a Category B building in the Plan. The owner appellant opposed the scheduling of the building and sought that it be deleted from the Plan Change or alternatively to revise the definition of what was covered by the heritage scheduling particularly in relation to the the interior definition. The Historic Places Trust (NZHPT), Art Deco Society (Auckland) Inc and Allan Matson lodged notices of interest under section 274 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the ‘RMA’) opposing the relief sought by the appellant. As a result of meetings and negotiations with the appellant and interested parties, this matter has been resolved by way of the owner withdrawing the appeal. This means the Council’s decision is retained and thus the Category B scheduling status for the building remains unchallenged. The Council is now able to make the Proposed Plan Modification 54 operative.

35 – 37 High Street, Auckland Central

Item

25



Tram Pole at Emily Place

No appeals were lodged to the scheduling of the tram pole located at the intersection of Emily Place, Britomart Place, Customs Street East, and Fort Street.

Decision Making There are no outstanding appeals to the proposed plan change. The appeal in respect of 35-37 High Street by the owner of the building Kegg Investments Limited v Auckland Council (Environment Court reference ENV-2010-AKL-000288) has been resolved by way of the owner withdrawing the appeal. The Council is now able to make the Proposed Plan Modification 54 operative in accordance with the statutory process under the RMA.

Significance of Decision Delegating to officers the powers to make the Proposed Plan Modification 54 operative is consistent with the Council’s policies and strategies and does not trigger the Significance Policy.

Consultation The Proposed Plan Modification 54 has been through the statutory requirements for public consultation in accordance with the First Schedule of the RMA. The requirement to make the proposed plan change operative does not involve further consultation with staff across the Council or external agencies. The proposed plan change is past the disputes resolution stage mediated through the Environment Court processes. Mediation has been limited to the parties legally involved in the appeal. No specific consultation with iwi is required.

Local Board Views At 1 November 2010, the proposed plan change was partly through the period within which notices of appeal could have been lodged. The proposed plan change is now at an advanced stage in the statutory process, being past the Environment Court-administered formal mediation

Tram Pole – at the intersection of Emily Place, Britomart Place, Customs Street East, and Fort Street

Item

25



process (alternative disputes resolution), which involved only parties who had submitted or lodged appeals to the proposed plan change. The appeal was resolved by the appellant withdrawing the notice of appeal, which in itself does not require a formal resolution from the Council. Therefore, the views of the Waitemata Local Board have not been sought specifically in regards to this plan change.

Financial and Resourcing Implications There will be some administrative costs involved in making the proposed plan change operative and updating the Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Central Area Section 2004). These costs are provided for within the Regional and Local Planning Department’s budget.

Legal and Legislative Implications The First Schedule of the RMA allows the Council to approve all or part of a plan when it is beyond challenge by submission or appeal. The First Schedule of the RMA also requires the Council to publicly notify the proposed plan change as being operative.

Implementation Issues There will be some relatively minor administrative tasks involved in making the proposed plan change operative and updating the Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Central Area Section 2004).

Attachments No. Title Page A Copy of Decision version of Proposed Plan Midification 54: Plan Change

and photos of 35 - 37 High Street and Emily Place Tram Pole 157

Signatories Author Angela Borich, Principal Planner, CBD and Islands, Operative Plans,

Regional and Local Planning Reviewer Joao Machado, Team Leader - CBD and Islands, Operative Plans,

Regional and Local Planning

Reviewer Warren Maclennan, Manager Operative Plans, Regional and Local Planning Authorisers Penny Pirrit, Manager Regional and Local Planning


Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 2

5



Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 2



Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 2

5



Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 2



Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 2

5



Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 2



Item

26


Classification of 19, 21, 23, 25 and 27 Tiraumea Drive, 10 and 12 Bolina Crescent and 13 Undine Street, Pakuranga

Classification of 19, 21, 23, 25 and 27 Tiraumea Drive, 10 and 12 Bolina Crescent and 13 Undine Street, Pakuranga File No.: CP2011/03143

Executive Summary The former Manukau City Council (‘MCC’) received the properties at 19, 21, 23, 25 and 27 Tiraumea Drive, 10 and 12 Bolina Crescent and 13 Undine Street, Pakuranga as part of the Regional Roads Fund distribution in January 2010 (see Appendix **). At the Policy and Activities Committee meeting held on 7 September 2010, it was resolved as follows:

MINUTE NO. PA/SEP/891/10 – COMMITTEE DECISION 1. That the land at 19, 21, 23, 25 and 27 Tiraumea Drive, 10 Bolina Crescent and part of 13 Undine

Street being Lots 45, 50, 51, 52,53 and 335 Deposited Plan 48712 and part of Lot 61 DP 49217 to be defined by survey to exclude the pumping station, be set apart for reserve as a local work, pursuant to section 52(4) of the Public Works Act 1981 and the chief executive write on behalf of the council to the Minister of Lands, requesting a declaration to this effect.

2. That, subject to survey and the declaration of the minister of Lands and the completion of other

necessary statutory processes, the following parcels of land be declared recreation reserve pursuant to a delegation from the Minister of Conservation and section 14 of the Reserves Act 1977: Lots 45, 50, 51, 52, 53 and 335 Deposited Plan 48712 and part of Lot 61 DP 49217 to be defined by survey to exclude the pumping station.

3. That the remaining part of Lot 61 DP 49217 which includes the pump station, as shown on the

appended plan, be defined by survey and retained in fee simple ownership until its status is determined by the Auckland Council.

4. That the land at 12 Bolina Crescent being Lot 44 DP 48712 and which is held by the Council for

roading purposes be declared Road Reserve pursuant to Section 14(1) of the Reserves Act 1977.

In terms of item 1 of the above decision, the land being Lots 45, 50, 51, 52, 53 and 335 Deposited Plan 48712 and part Lot 61 Deposited Plan 49217 (now defined as Section 2 SO 436184) have been set apart for recreation reserve as a local work pursuant to section 52(4) of the Public Works Act 1981 see Appendix **). The land set apart for recreation reserve was published in the New Zealand Gazette 16/12/2010, No. 173, p. 4281 (GN 8667275.1) (see Appendix**). As the land is currently held as recreation reserve, the decision of the committee to declare land to be recreation reserve pursuant to section 14 of the Reserves Act 1977 is technically incorrect. The correct process should be classification of the land to be recreation reserve in terms of section 16(2A) of the Reserves Act 1977 and notify the Minister of Conservation of the classification in terms of section 16(2B) of the Reserves Act 1977.


b) That item 2 of the decision of the Policy and Activities Committee be partly rescinded and amended as in resolution c).

c) That Lots 45, 50, 51, 52, 53 and Lot 335 Deposited Plan 48712 and Section 2 SO436184) be classified as recreation reserve pursuant to a delegation from the Minister of Conservation and Section 16(2A) of the Reserves Act 1977.

Item

26



Background The Local Government Commission made a Determination dated 21 September 1992 pursuant to section 97 of the Local Government Amendment Act 1992 (‘the Determination’) and established the Auckland Regional Roading Designation Fund (‘the Fund’) comprising cash, land and buildings and other assets which had been accumulated by the former Auckland Regional Authority from regional levies paid by the former territorial authorities making up the Auckland region. The former Auckland City Council (‘ACC’) was appointed to operate and manage the Fund. During the management of the Fund, ACC had sold surplus land with proceeds going back into the Fund for other purchases. All revenue from renting or sale of assets was either credited or charged against the Fund. The fund was wound up as at 30 June 2008 and any surplus assets standing to the credit of the Fund, after deduction of reasonable costs associated with the administration of the Fund, the sale of surplus land/buildings and the winding up of the Fund, were distributed among the region’s territorial authorities in the manner set out in the Determination. Under the Determination, MCC received 21% of the balance of the Fund. Part of the balance of the Fund comprises the land at 19, 21, 23, 25 and 27 Tiraumea Drive, 10 Bolina Crescent, part of 13 Undine Street and 12 Bolina Cresent. The receipt of the land as part of the terms of the distribution of the Fund was recorded in the agreement entered into between ACC and MCC on 25th January 2010. The former Pakuranga Community Board discussed this land at its August 2010 meeting and supported Council’s determination that it should be kept for recreation and roading purposes to meet the present and future recreational and civic needs of Manukau’s growing population. However, it has now been determined that the declaration of land to be recreation reserve pursuant to section 14 of the Reserves Act 1977of the Reserves Act 1977 was technically incorrect and classification of the land to be reserve pursuant to section 16(2A) of the Reserves Act 1977 is required for the purpose of notification to the Minister of Conservation.

Decision Making The recommendation in this report complies with the statutory requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 and the Reserves Act 1977. The evaluation, rationale and the decision for reservation of land for recreation and road purposes was considered and resolved by MCC. The declaration of land to be recreation reserve pursuant section 14 of the Reserves Act 1977 was technically incorrect and classification of the land to be recreation reserve pursuant to section 16(2A) of the Reserves Act 1977 is recommended.

Significance of Decision The decision to set apart land for recreation reserve is made in accordance with the policies and strategies of MCC’s Parks Acquisition Strategic Plan 2008 – 2019 and supported by the community. It does not trigger the Significance Policy.

Consultation Internal Council staff, the former local board and iwi groups have been consulted throughout the process and no objection to the reservation of the land for recreation and road purposes has been received.

Local Board Views N/A.

Item

26



Financial and Resourcing Implications There will be no cost for Council to resolve in terms of its powers under section 16(2A) of the Reserves Act 1977 to classify the land as a recreation reserve. Council is only required to send a copy of the resolution to the Department of Conservation in terms of section 16(2B) of the Reserves Act 1977.

Legal and Legislative Implications The legal and legislative implication in terms of the Local Government Act 2002, the Public Works Act 1981 and the Reserves Act 1977 have been considered and complied with.

Implementation Issues Council is only required to send a copy of the resolution to the Department of Conservation in terms of section 16(2B) of the Reserves Act 1977.

Attachments No. Title Page A Map showing 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27 Tiraumea Drive and 13 Undine Street,

Pakuranga being Lots 45, 50, 51, 52, 53, 335 DP 48712 and Section 2 SO 436184

166

B Computer Freehold Register 543898 167C Gazette Notice (GN 8667275.1) 168

Signatories Authors Allan Walton, Acquisitions and Disposals Advisor; Frances Ting, Technical

Statutory Advisor Authorisers Ian Wheeler, Manager Property

Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 2



Atta

chm

ent B

Ite

m 2

6



Atta

chm

ent C

Ite

m 2



Item

27


Private Plan Change 22: Smales Rd to the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section)

Private Plan Change 22: Smales Rd to the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) File No.: CP2011/03119

Executive Summary Private Plan Change 22 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) was lodged by Envirowaste Services Limited and accepted by the former Manukau City Council for notification on 27 March 2009. The request sought to rezone 1.15 hectares of land at 80 and part of 82 Smales Road (part of the closed Greenmount Landfill) from Future Development Stage 1 and Open Space Stage 2 to Business 5, Public Open Space 2 and Road Zone.

A hearing was held on 6 September 2010 and the decision was notified on 8 October 2010. The closing date for lodging appeals with the Environment Court was around 23 November 2010. No appeals were lodged. The statutory processing of this Plan Change is now complete.

A Deed currently exists between the former Manukau City Council and the previous land owners. This Deed outlines vesting of the majority of the area subject to this Private Plan Change to Council as recreational reserves when the quarrying, sanitary land filling and restoration of the sites is complete. The remainder of the area, which is a small area fronting Smales Road will be retained for business development. This is highlighted in pink on the Zoning Plan contained in Attachment B. This Deed needs to be amended to reflect new land ownership and to correspond to the rezoned areas.

The purpose of this report is to recommend that the Private Plan Change 22 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) be made operative by the Council and that the amended Deed be executed.


b) That pursuant to Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Council approve Private Plan Change 22: Smales Road (contained in Attachment C) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section).

c) That the Manager Operative Plans be authorised to complete the statutory processes required to make Private Plan Change 22 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) operative, including the determination of the operative date.

d) That the Manager Operative Plans be given delegation to complete the execution

of the amended Deed between the Auckland Council and Envirowaste Services Limited.

Background Private Plan Change 22: Smales Road (PPC22) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) was first lodged in October 2007 by Envirowaste Services Limited (ESL). This was subsequently amended in April 2008 and the final details were lodged in March 2009. It was accepted for notification on 27 March 2009. The request was to change the zonings of 1.15 hectares of land at 80 and part of 82 Smales Road (part of the closed Greenmount Landfill). These sites are described as Part Lot 2 Deposited Plan 81107 (Identifier NA37D/195) and Lot 1 DP 54818 Deposited Plan 54818 (Identifier NA7A/695); and are under the ownership of ESL. A Locality Plan is contained in Attachment A.

Item

27



The purpose of PPC22 is to make land available for future business development alongside ancillary open space and road zones. Consequentially, new text is to be added to Chapter 14 (Business Section) of the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) to manage any potential effects to and from the adjoining landfill site.

A Deed between the former Manukau City Council and the previous owners W. Stevenson and Sons Limited (Stevenson’s) applies to the site. The Deed is an agreement between the two parties for the majority of the plan change site to be vested in Council as recreational reserves once the quarrying, sanitary land filling and restoration of the site is complete. The remainder of the area, which is a small area fronting Smales Road will be retained for business development. This is highlighted in pink on the Zoning Plan contained in Attachment B. This Deed needs to be amended to reflect new land ownership and to correspond with the rezoned areas under PPC22.

Decision Making PPC22 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) was notified on 27 March 2009 and Council received five submissions from people and organisations with 1 further submission being received on behalf of the applicant (ESL). A hearing was held on 6 September 2010 with deliberation and a decision being made on the same day [Minute Number: CM/SEP/1008/10].

Manukau City Council notified the decision on 8 October 2010 with the period for lodging appeals with the Environment Court closing around 23 November 2010. No appeals were lodged.

The private plan change can now be approved in accordance with Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) and proceed to be notified as operative in accordance with Clause 20(2) of the First Schedule of the RMA.

Consequential to the completion of the plan change process, the amended Deed between the Auckland Council and Envirowaste Services Limited needs to be executed.

Significance of Decision The recommendation to approve and make Private Plan Change 22 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) operative is consistent with the Council’s policies and strategies and does not trigger the Significance Policy.

Consultation Consultation was undertaken in the prior stages of the plan change request, including consultation with Tangata Whenua of the Te Akitai o Pukaki Marae. The requirement to approve and make the plan change operative does not involve any further consultation.

Additionally, consultation has also been undertaken with ESL who has agreed to the amended deed.

Local Board Views This is a legacy Private Plan Change that has completed its statutory processing. The purpose of this report is to recommend that it be made operative by the Council. Consequently the Local Board views have not been sought.

Financial and Resourcing Implications There will be some administrative costs involved in making the PPC22 operative and consequential updating of the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section). These costs are provided for within existing budget of the Regional and Local Planning Department.

Legal and Legislative Implications Under Clause 17 of the First Schedule to the RMA, a local authority may approve a plan change, if all submissions or appeals have been disposed of. This approval is effected by the affixing of the

Item

27



Council seal. The approved plan change will be notified as becoming operative at least 5 working days before the date that it will become operative.

Implementation Issues There will be some relatively minor administrative tasks involved in making PPC22 operative and updating the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section). The amended Deed needs to be executed.

Attachments No. Title Page A Locality Plan of the Private Plan Change 22 to the Auckland Council

District Plan (Manukau Section) 172

B Zoning Plan of the Private Plan Change 22 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section)

173

C The Private Plan Change 22 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section)

174

Signatories Author Vishal Chandra, Planner Area Planning and Policy South, Regional and Local

Planning Reviewers Anne Cheng, Team Leader Area Planning and Policy South, Regional and Local

Planning Warren MacLennan, Manager - Operative Plans, Regional and Local Planning

Authorisers Penny Pirrit, Manager - Regional and Local Planning Dr Roger Blakeley, Chief Planning Officer

Atta

chm

ent A

Ite

m 2



Atta

chm

ent B

Ite

m 2

7



Atta

chm

ent C

Ite

m 2



Atta

chm

ent C

Ite

m 2

7



Atta

chm

ent C

Ite

m 2



Atta

chm

ent C

Ite

m 2

7



Item

28


Briefing by the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations

Briefing by the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations File No.: CP2011/03395

Executive Summary

This item was withdrawn. A

Signatories Authors Michael Joseph, Liaison Officer, Office of The Mayor Authorisers Phil Wilson, Chief of Staff, Office of the Mayor


Public Excluded

Exclusion of the Public : Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

The following motion is submitted for consideration:

That the public be excluded 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 Extension of Te Arai Regional Park 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)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

The report discussed potential land acquisition that may be subject to future negotiations. Information contained in the report may disadvantage or prejudice council's commercial position..

s48(1)(a)


C2 Public Open Space Proposal

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


s7(2)(c)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information or information from the same source and it is in the public interest that such information should continue to be supplied.

In particular, to identify and discuss the opportunities and risks associated with the revised proposal for regional parkland, with respect to matters relating to ownership, governance, concept planning, and operational management and funding..

s48(1)(a)



Public Excluded

regional development & operations agenda 13 june, 2011 - auckland council

Documents