takapuna beach caravan park - yachting nz lease application

8/3/2019 Takapuna Beach Caravan Park - Yachting NZ lease application

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/takapuna-beach-caravan-park-yachting-nz-lease-application 1/54

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

I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board will be heldon:

Date:Time:Meeting Room:Venue:

Tuesday 18 October 2011

6.00pm

Local Board ChamberTakapuna Service CentreLevel 31 The StrandTakapuna

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

OPEN AGENDA

MEMBERSHIP

Chairperson Chris Darby

Deputy Chairperson Kevin Schwass, QSM Members Joseph Bergin Mike Cohen, QSMDianne Hale, QSO, JPJan O'Connor

(Quorum 3 members)

Sonja TomovskaCommittee Secretary

13 October 2011

Contact Telephone: (09) 486 8593Email: [email protected]: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz



Board Member Portfolio Activity and Responsibilities

Chris Darby, Chairperson94 Stanley Point RoadDevonport 0624

Mob: 021 284 2888DDI: 09 486 8549Ph: 09 446 0504

Governance portfolio lead Board leadership Board-to-Council and Board to Board relationships Civic duties Advocacy (local, regional and central government) Community partnerships Relationships with Maoridom and youth Relationships with government

Town centres and streetscapes lead Town centre renewal, design and maintenance Town centre marketing and community safetyTransport lead Local transport projects (including roading, footpaths, cycleways)Associate for policy and planningAssociate for Civil Defence emergency management

Kevin Schwass QSMDeputy Chairperson33 Killarney StreetTakapuna Beach 0622

Ph: 09 486 3100Mob: 021 976 113

Events lead Community celebration and identity Neighbourhood gatherings and renewal Event complianceEconomic development and tourism lead Key relationship with Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development team Business Improvement Districts Local priorities in relation to economic development Establish and promote local opportunities for increased tourism and economic development

Associate for Town Centres and streetscapesAssociate for Governance portfolioAssociate for Parks, Sport and Recreation

Joseph BerginPO Box 31929Milford 0741

Mob: 021 287 9977

Community, social wellbeing and community safety lead

Community development Neighbourhood relationships Funding for neighbourhood projects Community advocacy Community safety (excluding town centres) and community advocacy Graffiti removal, Liquor Licensing and enforcement

Associate for Libraries, recreation and community facilities

Mike Cohen QSM11a Bayswater AvenueBayswater 0622

Ph: 09 445 9914Mob: 027 290 4942

Civil Defence Emergency Management lead Relationships with Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Community preparedness disaster response relief and recoveryParks, sport and recreation lead

Neighbourhood parks and reserves (inc esplanade reserves and the coastline) Design and maintenance Plantings, playgrounds, tracks, bollards and walkwaysAssociate for Community safetyAssociate for Community and social wellbeing

Dianne Hale QSO JP5 Jubilee AvenueDevonport 0624

Ph: 09 445 0455Mob: 027 243 6043

Policy and planning lead Local Board Plan and Local Board Agreement Peer review of decision-making and submissionsRegulatory lead Oversight of regulatory activities including Bylaws, consent processes, licensing and

complianceLibraries, recreation and community facilities lead Stewardship of libraries, recreation centres and community facilities Events and services relating to libraries and recreation centresAssociate for Transport

Jan O’Connor

1/43 Francis StreetTakapuna 0622

Ph: 09 486 4499Mob: 021 286 4488

Arts and Culture lead Artistic and cultural service levels Promoting artistic endeavour Local arts, facilities and amenitiesNatural environment lead Local priorities in relation to regional environmental management Coastal management including mangrove encroachment and erosion mitigation Restoration of wetlands, streams and waterways

Auckland Council w: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz e: [email protected] p: 09 301 0101

Auckland Transport e [email protected] p: 09 355 3553

Watercare Services(Water supply andwastewater)

w: www.watercare.co.nz e: [email protected] p: 09 442 2222

MAXX(Public transport info)

w: www.maxx.co.nz p: 0800 10 30 80




18 October 2011

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

PROCEDURAL

1 Welcome 5

2 Apologies 5

3 Declarations of Interest 5

4 Confirmation of minutes 5

5 Leave of absence 5

6 Acknowledgements 5

7 Petitions 5

8 Deputations 5

9 Public Forum 5

10 Extraordinary Business 511 Notices of Motion 6

DECISION MAKING

Reports of Chief Executive

12 Landowner consent to install a memorial seat in Quarry Lake Reserve 7

13 Options for the Auckland Council in Dealing with Mangrove Management 21

14 Adoption of the Devonport-Takapunal Local Board Plan 55

15 Report and resolutions from the Parks, Recreation & Heritage Forum -

Sports Field Capacity Development Strategy 105

16 Report of the meeting of the Devonport-Takapuna, Kaipatiki, Upper

Harbour and East Coast Bays Subdivision Local Board Funding

subcommittee on 20 September 2011 121

17 Marine Square Upgrade and Wharf Boardwalk Update Report 135

18 Yachting New Zealand lease application 151

19 Community grants funding 171

20 Consideration of Extraordinary Business Items

INFORMATION

Reports of Chief Executive

21 Takapuna Hurstmere Green Redevelopment 173

22 Minutes from the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board workshop – 27

September 2011 183

23 Minutes from the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board workshop – 4

October 2011 187

24 Reports requested/pending 193

25 Feedback from submitters to the Devonport-Takapuna Draft Local BoardPlan 2011 hearings 199

26 Consideration of Extraordinary Information Items




18 October 2011




18 October 2011

1 Welcome

2 Apologies

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

3 Declaration of interest

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

At the close of the agenda no requests for declarations of interest had been received.

4 Confirmation of minutes

4.1 Meeting minutes Devonport-Takapuna Local Board, 4 October 20114.2 Meeting minutes Confidential Meeting of the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board,

4 October 2011

5 Leave of absence

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

6 Acknowledgements

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

7 Petitions

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

8 Deputations

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

9 Public Forum

A period of time (approximately 30 minutes) is set aside for members of the public toaddress the meeting on matters within its delegated authority. A maximum of 3 minutes peritem is allowed, following which there may be questions from members.

At the close of the agenda no requests for public forum had been received.

10 Extraordinary business

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

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

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

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

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




18 October 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 Notices of Motion

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



I t e m 1

2


18 October 2011

Landowner consent to install a memorial seat in Quarry Lake Reserve

Landowner consent to install a memorial seat in QuarryLake Reserve

File No.: CP2011/06972

Executive SummaryThe applicant, Dorian Scott proposes to install a memorial seat in Quarry Lake Reserve tocommemorate the life of Ray Scott, a long time resident of Takapuna.We are recommending that landowner consent to undertake the installation be granted.

Recommendation/sa) That the report be received.b) That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board grants landowner consent for a memorial seat

to be installed in Quarry Lake Reserve, subject to the following condition.i) That all costs associated with the installation of the memorial seat are covered by

the applicant.

BackgroundThe applicant, Dorian Scott proposes to install a memorial seat in Quarry Lake Reserve tocommemorate the life of Ray Scott, a long time resident of Takapuna.

Ray Scott was a resident of Takapuna for over 60 years and a humanitarian and tireless workerfor the community. Ray was a teacher at Takapuna Grammar, rising to Deputy Principal. He was aJP and contributed his time and effort to the Takapuna Bowling Club. Ray also contributed toTakapuna Rotary Club, serving as Secretary and President (1995). He was made a life member ofServas, Takapuna Rotary Club and Takapuna Bowling Club.

Ray is survived by his wife, Ngaire, four children, 11 grandchildren and several greatgrandchildren, most of whom reside on the North Shore and, like Ray, are fond of Lake Pupuke.The Lake was a favourite spot for Ray, he requested his ashes be scattered near the Lake whichthe family did.

The Parks Advisor has assessed the proposed site and considers that the proposed installation isconsistent with Council interim guidelines for the installation of Plaques and Memorials withinParks.

We are recommending that landowner consent to install a memorial seat at Quarry Lake Reserve

be granted, subject to conditions.

Decision MakingThe recommendations contained within this report fall within the delegated authority of theDevonport-Takapuna Local Board.

Significance of DecisionConsistent with Auckland Council interim guidelines regarding Plaques and Memorials on Parks.

ConsultationConsultation between the applicant and the Parks Advisor have taken place.



I t e m 1 2


18 October 2011


Local Board ViewsLocal Board views are now required to progress the recommendations identified within this report.

Financial and Resourcing ImplicationsThere is ongoing maintenance costs associated with the upkeep of memorial seats. The fundingfor this would come from operational parks budget.

Legal and Legislative ImplicationsN/A

Implementation IssuesNo implementation issues are anticipated in this case.

Attachments

No. Title Page

A Memorial application form 9

B Plaques and Memorials on Parks Interim Guidelines. 13

C Cadastral Plan / Indicative location of proposed memorial. 19

Signatories

Authors Paul Cliffe - Parks Advisor

Gerry Fitzgerald - Team Leader Liaison

Authorisers Martin Van Jaarsveld - Manager Local and Sports Parks North

Mark Bowater - Manager Local and Sports Parks




18 October 2011




A t t a c h m e n t A

I t e m 1

2


18 October 2011





18 October 2011





I t e m 1

2


18 October 2011




A t t a c h m e n t B

I t e m 1

2


18 October 2011





I t e m 1

2


18 October 2011





I t e m 1 2


18 October 2011





I t e m 1

2


18 October 2011





I t e m 1 2


18 October 2011




A t t a c h m e n t C

I t e m 1

2


18 October 2011




I t e m 1

3


18 October 2011

Options for the Auckland Council in Dealing with Mangrove Management

Options for the Auckland Council in Dealing withMangrove Management

File No.: CP2011/06966

Executive SummaryConcerns over the Auckland Council’s (the Council’s) policy approach and role in mangroveremoval activities has been raised by a number of Councillors, Local Boards and communitygroups. Guidance is needed on this matter to ensure a transparent and consistent cross-councilapproach is taken on mangrove management.

Mangrove management activities are controversial and can divide communities. To assist theCouncil in deciding how it wishes to address this matter, a discussion document has beenprepared (attached). This document provides background information on mangroves and themanagement approaches that have been taken in Auckland and in other regions. It alsodiscusses the regulatory and operational options available to the Council in deciding how it wishes

to address this matter in the future.

Regulatory Actions:

The courses of action available to the Council in terms of the regulatory framework that apply tomangrove management activities under the Resource Management Act (RMA) include:

Undertaking mangrove management under the operative policy and rule framework of the

Auckland Regional: Plan Coastal (ARP:C) until such time as the review of the ARP:C is

incorporated into the Unitary Plan;

Directing that the review of the ARP:C incorporate a regional assessment of mangrove

management issues, including consultation on the areas where communities wish to

remove mangroves, and a review of the policies and rules relating to mangrove removal; or

As a separate process from the ARP:C review, direct that as a matter of priority a new plan

change be initiated (Schedule 1 RMA) with the intention of introducing more permissive

policies and rules to the ARP:C (for example by identifying areas where mangrove removal

could be a permitted or controlled activity).

Plan Change 4 (Mangrove Management) to the ARP:C was made operative in March 2011following a four-year RMA process, including obtaining final approval of the Minister ofConservation. Plan Change 4 introduced more permissive policies and rules for mangrove

management than those in the coastal plans of the Northland, Waikato and Bay of Plenty RegionalCouncils, where mangroves are also located.

Some stakeholders have expressed concern over the outcome of Plan Change 4 and are seekinga review and new plan change to further relax the policies and rules for mangrove management.In particular, there is a desire that mangrove removal in some areas be provided for as a permittedactivity so that a resource consent application is not required.

A review of the ARP:C (made operative in 2004 and required to be reviewed every 10 years) willbe undertaken and incorporated into the Unitary Plan. This process will include consultation withcommunity groups and stakeholders, and could include a detailed analysis of the areas where amore permissive mangrove management policy and rule basis is sought. The outcome could be

that some areas are identified where mangrove removal is proposed to be provided for as apermitted or controlled activity.



I t e m 1 3


18 October 2011


Initiating a more immediate plan change process to review Plan Change 4, separate from thecomprehensive review of the ARP:C but within a similar timeframe, would essentially beduplicating the process and resources of the wider plan review. It will therefore be recommendedto the Regional Development and Operations Committee that a review of the mangrovemanagement provisions of Plan Change 4 be incorporated within the wider review.

This recommendation would mean that mangrove management activities would continue to besubject to the ARP:C provisions (Plan Change 4) until such time as any new policy and rulechanges introduced into the Unitary Plan have effect.

Operational Actions:

Local communities who feel that their amenity, access or navigation opportunities are beingcompromised by mangroves are the main initiators of proposals for mangrove management andwant the Council, through Local Boards, to take responsibility for this work. Local Boards haveresponded to these concerns by indicating, through a number of Local Board Plans, that theyanticipate undertaking mangrove management activities within the next three years.

At present, apart from some legacy funding for consented removals at Pahurehure Inlet, theCouncil does not have allocated staff resources or budget to service the range of activitiesassociated with mangrove management.

The Council needs to address the present resourcing and funding gap if it wishes to becomeactively involved in the range of activities associated with mangrove management. Given thelimited timeframes to secure funding, an investment proposal with estimated costs has beensubmitted to the 2012-2022 Long Term Plan (LTP) process. If the investment proposal is rejectedor only partially successful, alternative funding mechanisms, such as targeted rating, may need tobe considered.

How mangrove-related activities would be managed between Local Boards, the Governing Body

and Council department managers will need to be decided. The management of funding betweenany funds in Local Board Agreements and funds in Council department budgets will also need tobe determined. For example, if the investment proposal is approved, a future decision will need tobe made as to whether control of the programme sits within the Governing Body, the LocalBoards, or both.

Officers believe that Local Boards, with their local knowledge, would play a key role in assessingthe merits of proposals for mangrove management and in making decisions on the areas that willproceed through a consent process.



I t e m 1

3


18 October 2011


Recommendation/sa) That the report be received.

b) That the Local Board resolve whether it supports or opposes the recommendations:

i) That mangrove management be undertaken under the existing policy and ruleframework of the Auckland Regional Plan: Coastal (Plan Change 4 – mangrove

management) until such time as the review of the ARP:C is incorporated into the

Unitary Plan.

ii) That the review of the Auckland Regional Plan: Coastal for inclusion in the Unitary

Plan incorporate a regional assessment of mangrove management issues, including

analysis and consultation on the areas where communities wish to remove

mangroves on a more permissive policy and rule basis, either through the initial

notification or a subsequent variation if the timeframe does not allow time for a

regional assessment.

iii) That Local Boards have a key role in assessing the merits of proposals for mangrove

management and in making decisions on the areas that will proceed through a

consent process.

Background

There is much debate over the values of the New Zealand mangrove, particularly over its

ecological role in coastal ecosystems. This has partly arisen as historically many of the ecologicalvalues, physical processes and biological properties commonly associated with tropical and sub-tropical mangrove forests have also been attributed to New Zealand mangroves.

To provide a baseline of information on mangroves in New Zealand to inform the debate on theirmanagement, the Auckland Regional Council (ARC) commissioned a review of the currentinformation on mangroves in New Zealand1 as background to preparing Plan Change 4 (mangrovemanagement) to the coastal plan. (This report is available from www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz ARC website – plans/technical publications May 2007 ARCTP325). Some of the key findings ofthis report include:

New Zealand has only one species of mangrove (Avicennia marina subsp. australisica)

(grey mangrove) also known as manawa. The New Zealand mangrove is an indigenous species that has existed some thousands of

years before human habitation (e.g. silicified woods from the Kaipara Harbour indicate thepresence of mangroves approximately 19 million years ago).

Mangroves are confined to the northern coastline of New Zealand (southern limit OhiwaHarbour on the east coast and Kawhia Harbour on the west), with frosts playing a definingrole in their range.

Mangroves play an important role in erosion control and shoreline protection by slowingthe flow of water and blocking waves.

Mangrove organic matter provides a nutrient source for other organisms in the surroundingenvironment and the role played by mangroves in estuarine foodwebs is thought to be

significant.

1 The New Zealand Mangrove: Review of the Current State of Knowledge; Auckland Regional Council; Technical Publication No. TP325; May 2007



I t e m 1 3


18 October 2011


Mangroves are thought to provide an effective juvenile habitat for some fish species,particularly short-finned eel, parore and grey mullet.

Many bird species, including several native species, make extensive use of mangroves forroosting, feeding and breeding, but no species is totally dependent on mangroves.

At an estuarine scale, it is likely that the loss of habitat diversity as a result of mangroveexpansion will lead to an overall loss in biological diversity, but this loss may also be

caused by the factors that lead to mangrove spread, such as increased sedimentation andreduced water quality.

Although mangrove expansion is a widespread phenomenon, it is also site specific andvariable, and depends on environmental factors such as temperature, salinity, waveexposure, nutrient input and sediment loading. This makes having region-widemanagement approaches difficult.

To date few conclusions have been reached as to the most effective and/or ecologicallysound method of mangrove removal in terms of sediment remobilisation and impacts onother organisms, including other vegetation types, benthic fauna, shellfish, fish and birds.

In terms of the effectiveness of mangrove management initiatives, the overall conclusion of thereport was that regardless of which mangrove management approach is decided upon,sustainable management may only be achieved if evaluation of mangrove areas is undertaken ona site-by-site basis.

Unlike many parts of the world where mangroves are declining, over the last 10 years mangroveshave increased in many estuaries of northern New Zealand. At the same time there has beenincreasing urbanisation around harbours and estuaries, and as a consequence, the contentiousissue of removing mangroves has arisen for regional and district councils in the upper half of theNorth Island where mangroves are located.

The spread of mangroves has generally occurred because of increasing levels of sediment

entering estuarine areas, usually from past or present land use activities (particularly vegetationclearance) or from changes to water flows, often from roads, culverts or causeways. Theseactivities increase the rates of sediment entering or being retained in the coast. In many tidalrivers, estuaries and harbours this has helped to create the mud-dominated habitat that isfavourable for mangroves.

Once established, mangrove stands gradually retain sediment and in turn lead to furtherexpansion of mangrove areas. Long term mangrove management requires wider catchmentinitiatives aimed at reducing levels of sediment entering the coast in conjunction with any removalactivities.

In some areas the spread of mangroves is unpopular amongst local communities as it has an

adverse effect on the recreational use and amenity values of the coast. Increasing urbanisationaround our harbours and estuaries has also led to a desire for mangroves to be removed toimprove access and amenity values.

There are also concerns that mangrove spread is adversely impacting on the feeding and roostingareas used by wading birds and resulting in mangroves dominating over other types of habitat andreducing biological diversity, e.g. encroaching into sand flats and reducing the range of fish, birdsand bottom-dwelling species.

At the present time there is little scientific information on the effects of mangrove removal, e.g. theeffects of the release of fine sediments, nutrients and contaminants. The biological and physicalprocesses affecting the long term recovery and rehabilitation of cleared areas is also little

understood. The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), as part of aGovernment funded research project, is investigating the short- and medium-term effects ofmangrove removal methods and will use this information to develop guidelines for councils andcommunity groups, including:



I t e m 1

3


18 October 2011


Methods for mangrove removals that minimise adverse impacts; Indicative timelines for ecosystem recovery; Key characteristics of sites that are (or are not) associated with successful mangrove

removals. Council responsibilities

The coastal marine area in Auckland is a highly used and valued open space. Mangrove removalhas become a matter of top priority for some communities whose amenity values and use of thecoast has been adversely affected by sedimentation and mangrove spread. As a result, therehave been increasing calls for the Council, including Local Boards, to take responsibility forundertaking mangrove removal activities.

Since November 2010 the Auckland Council has had the combined responsibilities of the formerregional council and the city and district councils for activities undertaken under the RMA 1991

and the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA). Amongst other matters, these responsibilities include:

Under the RMA: Managing the coastal marine area, including controlling mangrove

management activities through the objectives, policies and rules of the Auckland Regional

Plan: Coastal.

Under the LGA process: The ability to support community groups wishing to undertake

mangrove removal through funding resource consent applications and mangrove removal

activities, and through preparing Comprehensive Coastal Management Plans where

appropriate.

Developing catchment management programmes aimed at reducing the level of sediment

and other contaminants entering the coast.

The ARC addressed the RMA component of this responsibility through a recent plan change to thecoastal plan (Plan Change 4 – mangrove management), which introduced more comprehensivepolicies and permissive rules for mangrove removal. The ARC also contributed to the preparationof several ‘pilot trial’ Coastal Compartment Management Plans (CCMPs) jointly with districtcouncils and community groups to address the integrated management of the land and seainterface in defined coastal areas. CCMPs addressed a range of coastal management matters,including identifying areas where mangroves should remain undisturbed for ecological reasonsand areas for mangrove removal to improve access, navigation and amenity values for the localcommunity. CCMPs are non-statutory documents, but establish an agreed management

framework that can be actioned through both RMA and LGA processes.

Papakura and Franklin District Councils addressed mangrove issues in their areas by working withthe ARC on the preparation of CCMPs that identified a suite of actions to meet a vision and social,cultural, economic and environmental objectives established for the coastal compartment. Theseincluded identifying areas where access and facilities would be improved, where significantheritage/cultural sites should be identified and protected, the ecologically significant areas wheremangroves should remain undisturbed, and the locations where mangrove removal should bepursued to enhance access and amenity values.

Both Papakura and Franklin District Councils allocated resources through their LGA Annual Planprocess to fund resource consent applications, removal activities, and to support community

groups. Other district councils also allocated funds to obtain resource consents to removemangroves without developing a CCMP, usually for operational reasons such as to maintaindrainage systems and infrastructure.



I t e m 1 3


18 October 2011


Future options for the Auckland Council are discussed below.

Mangrove removal activities in other regions

Mangrove removal in Northland, Waikato and Bay of Plenty regions has been dealt with through acombination of RMA and LGA processes. All of their regional coastal plans require a resource

consent application for mangrove removal (other than for a minor level of permitted removal forspecific reasons).

Compared to the other regions, Auckland’s coastal plan has the most comprehensive policies andpermissive rules that can be undertaken without a resource consent (permitted activity) orrequiring only a controlled activity consent, particularly for mangrove removal. These revisedprovisions were only recently inserted into Auckland’s coastal plan by Plan Change 4 (mangrovemanagement) which was made operative in March 2011. However, stakeholders continue to raiseissues over the adequacy of Plan Change 4 in providing for removal and often make unfavourablecomparisons to mangrove removal activities that are being undertaken by other regional councils.

The most significant difference in approach between Auckland and other regions is not the rules

that apply under the various coastal plans, but the funding and support provided by the regionalcouncil, including through LGA processes, to undertake mangrove removal activities.

Regional councils in other areas have funded resource consent applications for mangrove removaland/or the removal activities, as well as supporting co-ordination and education of communitygroups.

In Auckland, the ARC largely undertook a regulatory role and confined its activities to processingresource consents and preparing a plan change to the coastal plan. It also supported localcommunities by assisting with the development of Coastal Compartment Management Plans.Operational activities were carried out by district councils. In particular, Papakura and FranklinDistrict Councils planned, funded and managed mangrove removal operations in the Pahurehure

Inlet and at Waiuku.

Future approach to mangrove management in Auckland

In response to the concerns being raised, the Council now has an opportunity to consider how itwishes to provide for mangrove management within its new consolidated structure comprised ofGoverning Body and Local Board decision-makers and a single set of Council staff.

The primary courses of action available to the Council in providing for mangrove managementinclude:

Regulatory Actions

In terms of the (RMA) regulatory framework provided through the Auckland Regional Plan:Coastal, the courses of action available include:

Undertaking mangrove management under the operative policy and rule framework of the

Auckland Regional: Plan Coastal (ARP:C) until such time as the review of the ARP:C is

incorporated as a variation to the Unitary Plan;

Directing that the review of the ARP:C incorporate a regional assessment of mangrove

management issues, including consultation on the areas where communities wish to

remove mangroves and a review of the policies and rules relating to mangrove removal; or

Direct that, as a separate process from the ARP:C review and as a matter of priority, a new

plan change be initiated (Schedule 1 RMA) with the intention of introducing more



I t e m 1

3


18 October 2011


permissive policies and rules of the ARP:C (e.g. by identifying areas where mangrove

removal could be a permitted or controlled activity).

Plan Change 4 – mangrove management to the ARP:C contains more permissive policies andrules for mangrove management than those in the Northland, Waikato and Bay of Plenty regionalcoastal plans, who also manage mangroves. Plan Change 4 was made operative in March 2011

after a costly four-year RMA process, including resolving three appeals and being approved by theMinister of Conservation. As Plan Change 4 has only recently been made operative, there has notbeen enough time (or applications processed) under the new provisions to determine the effect ofthe revised policy and rule framework.

A review of the ARP:C, made operative in 2004 and required to be reviewed every ten years, willbe undertaken and incorporated into the Unitary Plan. This process will include consultation withcommunity groups and stakeholders and could include a detailed analysis of the areas where amore permissive mangrove management policy and rule basis is sought. The outcome could bethat some areas are identified where mangrove removal is proposed to be provided for as apermitted or controlled activity.

Initiating a more immediate plan change process to review Plan Change 4, separate from thecomprehensive review of the coastal plan, would have to follow a RMA (Schedule 1) process thatwould overlap with that required for the comprehensive review. This would essentially result induplicating the process and resources of the wider plan review. Therefore, it is recommended thata review of the mangrove management provisions of Plan Change 4 be incorporated within thewider review of the coastal plan.

This recommendation would mean that mangrove management activities would continue to besubject to the ARP:C provisions (Plan Change 4) until such time as any new policy and rulechanges introduced into the Unitary Plan have effect.

Operational Actions

In terms of the operational side of implementing mangrove management proposals, the GoverningBody could assist and support Local Boards by:

Recognising the role of Local Boards in mangrove management and removal in the

development of the Council’s Long Term Plan, Annual Plan and Local Board Agreements;

Ensuring that support is provided to Local Boards, such as allocating operational staff and

resources to scope out options and likely costs and for the operational aspects once

projects are approved. Support will also be needed for catchment management

programmes and on-going monitoring and maintenance activities.

Local communities who feel that their amenity, access or navigation opportunities are beingcompromised by mangroves are the main initiators of proposals for mangrove management andwant the Council to take responsibility for this work.

Local Boards work closely with local communities and can play a key role in assessing the meritsof proposals and making decisions on the area(s) and extent of removal where a resource consentapplication for mangrove removal will be pursued. Local Boards would need to allocate funds forthe consent process and removal works (and associated costs) through their Local BoardAgreements and other mechanisms.

There appears to be little legacy council funding available for mangrove removal, other thanfunding that may be included within an operational budget associated with a Council-owned asset(such as mangrove removal to maintain the functioning of drainage systems). The Papakura



I t e m 1 3


18 October 2011


Local Board Agreement appears to be the only one that identifies legacy funding (2011-2012) forconsented mangrove removal at Pahurehure Inlet.

Early indications are that a number of the Local Boards intend to pursue mangrove removalactivities through draft Local Board Plans. This reflects that for some communities the removal ofmangroves is a matter of priority that they wish to have addressed as soon as possible.

If the Council wishes to undertake the range of activities associated with mangrove managementactivities, it needs to address the present resourcing and funding gap. Given the limitedtimeframes to secure funding, an investment proposal with estimated costs has been submitted tothe 2012-2022 LTP process. If the investment proposal is rejected or is only partially successful,alternative funding mechanisms such as targeted rating may need to be considered. Theresourcing and costs associated with implementing mangrove removal proposals include:

Initial officer assessment and advice on areas proposed for removal;

Preparing an assessment of effects and resource consent application;

The consent processing, hearing (commissioner) and potential Environment Court appeal

costs (legal and technical expertise);

Mangrove removal works and disposal;

Consent condition monitoring;

On-going monitoring of the impacts and the success / outcome of areas where mangroves

are removed;

On-going maintenance, such as annual mangrove seedling removal to retain cleared

areas;

Community group co-ordination and support, including associated catchment restoration

and enhancement programmes to address sediment issues;

Best practise advice and education.

Any long term solution to mangrove spread requires an integrated approach which aims to reducethe levels of sediment entering the coast from adjoining catchments. Targeted restoration andenhancement programmes need to be initiated in association with mangrove removal activities tohelp address the causes of the problem.

Many mangrove removal projects will also rely on community involvement, particularly to assistwith the ongoing seedling removal that will be required to ensure that mangroves do not rapidly re-establish themselves in cleared areas.

If the investment proposal is approved, a decision will also need to be made as to whether thegovernance of the programme will sit with the Governing Body or the Local Boards.

How mangrove-related activities would be managed between Local Boards, the Governing Bodyand Council department managers will need to be decided. The management of funding betweenany funds in Local Board Agreements and funds in Council department budgets will also need tobe determined. For example, if the investment proposal is approved, a decision will need to bemade as to whether control of the programme sits with the Governing Body, the Local Boards, orboth.

Officers believe that Local Boards, with their local knowledge, would play a key role in assessing

the merits of proposals for mangrove management and in making decisions on the areas that willproceed through a consent process.



I t e m 1

3


18 October 2011


In the interim, and given the need to provide support to Local Boards as soon as possible, Councilofficers are preparing a guideline to assist in:

Outlining the matters that should be considered in the initial assessment of areas proposed

for mangrove removal (incorporating the policy guidance provided in Plan Change 4);

Providing information on options and best practise guidance on removal and disposal

methods and monitoring requirements;

Providing advice on the assistance the Council can provide Local Boards and community

groups, including practical assistance for on-going maintenance activities, such as yearly

seedling removal and catchment restoration projects.

Decision MakingA decision is required from the Council to respond to the concerns being raised about mangrovemanagement issues and to establish a preferred direction for the Council’s future involvement inmangrove management. The decisions sought from Local Boards in this report will inform andassist the Council decision.

Significance of DecisionThe decision will set the direction for how the Council will respond to mangrove removal concerns.

ConsultationInput has been obtained on draft versions of this report from Council officers in the Policy andPlanning, Environmental Services, Consents and Compliance, and Local Board support areas.The resolutions from each Local Board will be provided to the Environment and SustainabilityForum. The feedback from Local Boards will assist the Forum in making their recommendation tothe Regional Development and Operations Committee.

Local Board Views

To be added in once feedback from the Local Boards is obtained.

Financial and Resourcing ImplicationsAdoption of the recommendations will require:

Funds to be available for allocation via Local Board Agreements and other mechanisms.

Council staff to be available to service the ensuing requirements (e.g. managing site

assessment and application for resource consents, overseeing or carrying out approved

mangrove management and monitoring).

Council staff to be available to provide assistance to community groups, both in advising

and undertaking mangrove removal activities, maintenance of cleared areas, and incatchment initiatives aimed at reducing sediment entering the coast.

An investment proposal for estimated costs to service the range of activities associated withmangrove management activities has been submitted to the 2012-2022 Long Term Plan process.

Legal and Legislative ImplicationsThere are no significant legal or legislative implications in adopting the recommendations made.

Any plan change process needs to be in accordance with the sustainable management purpose ofthe RMA and can be appealed to the Environment Court.

Notified resource consent applications for mangrove removal may attract submissions andsubsequent appeals to the Environment Court.



I t e m 1 3


18 October 2011


Implementation IssuesAt the present time no staff or resources are allocated to provide for the range of activitiesassociated with mangrove management. Appropriate budget and resources would need to bemade available to enable implementation of mangrove management in appropriate areas.

AttachmentsNo. Title Page

A Discussion document: Mangrove Management Options for the AucklandCouncil

31

Signatories

Author Alison Stilwell, Specialist - Coastal

Authorisers Chris Hatton, Manager Air Land Water Coastal

AuthorisersLudo Campbell-Reid, Manager EnvironmentalStrategy and Policy

Authorisers Roger Blakeley, Chief Planning Officer