Auckland Development Committee Agenda - May 15

I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Auckland Development Committee will be held
on:
Date:
Time:
Meeting Room:
Venue:
Thursday, 14 May 2015

9.30am
Reception Lounge
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland
Auckland Development Committee

OPEN AGENDA
MEMBERSHIP
Chairperson
Deputy Chairperson
Members
Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse

Cr Chris Darby
Cr Anae Arthur Anae
Cr Cameron Brewer
Mayor Len Brown, JP
Cr Dr Cathy Casey
Cr Bill Cashmore
Cr Ross Clow
Cr Linda Cooper, JP
Cr Alf Filipaina
Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO
Cr Denise Krum
Cr Mike Lee
IMSB Member Liane Ngamane
Cr Calum Penrose
Cr Dick Quax
Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
IMSB Member David Taipari
Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE
Cr Wayne Walker
Cr John Watson
Cr Penny Webster
Cr George Wood, CNZM
(Quorum 11 members)
Rita Bento-Allpress
Democracy Advisor
8 May 2015
Contact Telephone: 09 890 8149
Email: rita.bento-allpress@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
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.
TERMS OF REFERENCE
Responsibilities
This committee will lead the implementation of the Auckland Plan, including the integration of
economic, social, environmental and cultural objectives for Auckland for the next 30 years. It will
guide the physical development and growth of Auckland through a focus on land use planning,
housing and the appropriate provision of infrastructure and strategic projects associated with these
activities. Key responsibilities include:
Unitary Plan
Plan changes to operative plans
Designation of Special Housing Areas
Housing policy and projects including Papakainga housing
Spatial Plans including Area Plans
City centre development (incl reporting of CBD advisory board) and city transformation projects
Tamaki regeneration projects
Built Heritage
Urban design
Powers
(i)
All powers necessary to perform the committees responsibilities.

Except:
(a)
powers that the Governing Body cannot delegate or has retained to itself (see
Governing Body responsibilities)
(b)
where the committees responsibility is explicitly limited to making a recommendation

only
(ii)
Approval of a submission to an external body
(iii)
Powers belonging to another committee, where it is necessary to make a decision prior to the
next meeting of that other committee.
(iv)
Power to establish subcommittees.
EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC WHO NEEDS TO LEAVE THE MEETING

Members of the public
All members of the public must leave the meeting when the public are excluded unless a resolution
is passed permitting a person to remain because their knowledge will assist the meeting.
Those who are not members of the public
General principles
Access to confidential information is managed on a need to know basis where access to the
information is required in order for a person to perform their role.
Those who are not members of the meeting (see list below) must leave unless it is necessary for
them to remain and hear the debate in order to perform their role.
Those who need to be present for one confidential item can remain only for that item and must
leave the room for any other confidential items.
In any case of doubt, the ruling of the chairperson is final.
Members of the meeting
The members of the meeting remain (all Governing Body members if the meeting is a Governing
Body meeting; all members of the committee if the meeting is a committee meeting).
However, standing orders require that a councillor who has a pecuniary conflict of interest leave
the room.
All councillors have the right to attend any meeting of a committee and councillors who are not
members of a committee may remain, subject to any limitations in standing orders.
Staff
All staff supporting the meeting (administrative, senior management) remain.

Only staff who need to because of their role may remain.
Local Board members
Local Board members who need to hear the matter being discussed in order to perform their role
may remain. This will usually be if the matter affects, or is relevant to, a particular Local Board
area.
IMSB
Members of the IMSB who are appointed members of the meeting remain.
Other IMSB members and IMSB staff remain if this is necessary in order for them to perform
their role.
CCOs
Representatives of a CCO can remain only if required to for discussion of a matter relevant to
the CCO.

14 May 2015
ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Apologies
Declaration of Interest
Confirmation of Minutes
Petitions
Public Input
5.1
Public Input - Karen Wilson, on behalf of Te Akitai Waiohua - Update

on the Puhinui Structure Plan
Local Board Input
Extraordinary Business
Notices of Motion
Private Plan Change 315 (1370-1378 Dominion Road) to be made

Operative
10
Private Plan Change 209 (178 Balmoral Road and 16 Rocklands Avenue,
Balmoral) to be made operative
15
11
Update on the Puhinui Structure Plan
25
12
Auckland 30 Year Infrastructure Strategy
33
13
Review of the Resource Consent Processes for development of sites at

40 and 42 Paturoa Road, Titirangi
39
14
Port Future Study: Design Proposals
43
15
Reports Pending Status Update
57
16
Summary of information memos and briefings - 14 May 2015
61
17
Consideration of Extraordinary Items
PUBLIC EXCLUDED
18
Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public
63
C1
Port Future Study: Appointment of Independent Chair
63
C2
Special Housing Areas: Deferred Request
C3
Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan submissions - Zoning Principles
64
C4
Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan - Interim Guidance from the Independent

Hearings Panel
64
Confidential Reports Pending Status Update
64
C5
Page 5

14 May 2015
1
Apologies
At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.
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 a member and any private or other external
interest they might have.
Confirmation of Minutes
That the Auckland Development Committee:
a)
confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 16 April 2015,
including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.
Petitions
At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.
Public Input
Standing Order 3.21 provides for Public Input. Applications to speak must be made to the
Committee Secretary, in writing, no later than two (2) working days prior to the meeting
and must include the subject matter. The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to
decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders. A
maximum of thirty (30) minutes is allocated to the period for public input with five (5)
minutes speaking time for each speaker.
5.1
Public Input - Karen Wilson, on behalf of Te Akitai Waiohua - Update on the

Puhinui Structure Plan
Purpose
1.
To provide an opportunity for Karen Wilson to speak to the Auckland Development
Committee, on behalf of Te Akitai Waiohua, regarding the Update on the Puhinui
Structure Plan.
Executive Summary
2.
The Chair of the Auckland Development Committee has approved the request from
Karen Wilson to speak in public input, on behalf of Te Akitai Waiohua, regarding the
Update on the Puhinui Structure Plan.
Recommendation/s
a)
thank Karen Wilson, speaking on behalf of Te Akitai Waiohua, for her public input
regarding the Update on the Puhinui Structure Plan.
Page 7

14 May 2015
6
Local Board Input

Standing Order 3.22 provides for Local Board Input. The Chairperson (or nominee of that
Chairperson) is entitled to speak for up to five (5) minutes during this time. The
Chairperson of the Local Board (or nominee of that Chairperson) shall wherever practical,
give two (2) days notice of their wish to speak. The meeting Chairperson has the
discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing
Orders.
This right is in addition to the right under Standing Order 3.9.14 to speak to matters on the
agenda.
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)
(b)
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
no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item

except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further
discussion.
Notices of Motion
At the close of the agenda no requests for notices of motion had been received.
Page 8

14 May 2015
Item 9
Private Plan Change 315 (1370-1378 Dominion Road) to be made

Operative
File No.: CP2015/06055
Purpose
1.
To make Private Plan Change 315 (PC315) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Isthmus
Section) 1999 (the District Plan) operative.
Executive Summary
2.
PC315 is a privately initiated plan change by the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA)
that seeks to rezone the land at 1370-1378 Dominion Road, Mt Roskill from a mix of Special
Purpose 3 (transport corridor) and Residential 6b (medium intensity) zones, to Residential
6b in its entirety. PC315 was publicly notified on 26 June 2013 with two submissions
received.
3.
On 17 February 2015, a Hearing Panel of Independent Commissioners appointed to

determine the plan change released its decision to approve the plan change. A copy of the
approved plan change is provided in Attachment A. No appeals were received on that
decision.
4.
The Council is now required to amend the District Plan to give effect to the Hearing Panels
decision and make PC315 operative.
Recommendation/s
a)
approve Private Plan Change 315 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Isthmus
Section) 1999 in accordance with Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the Resource
Management Act 1991.
b)
authorise the Manager, Planning Central and Islands to complete the necessary
statutory processes required to make Plan Change 315 to the Auckland Council
District Plan (Isthmus Section) 1999 operative in accordance with Clause 20 of the
First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.
Comments
5.
PC315 relates to a request by NZTA for a private plan change to the District Plan. The
purpose of the plan change is to change the zoning of an area of surplus motorway land
fronting 1370-1378 Dominion Road, Mt Roskill which is no longer required for transport
purposes. The land is to be rezoned from a mix of Special Purpose 3 and Residential 6b
zones, to Residential 6b in its entirety (Refer Attachment A).
6.
The plan change requires a change to Sheet 1 of Planning Map G06 of the District Plan. No
other amendments or additions to the District Plan are required.
7.
The plan change was publicly notified on 26 June 2013 with two submissions received
raising matters on water infrastructure and cultural values. Councils noise expert also
identified a potential concern regarding noise and reverse sensitivity for future residential
uses adjacent to State Highway 20. In response, NZTA undertook to place an encumbrance
on the affected properties at 1370-1376 Dominion Road at the time of disposal requiring the
construction of an acoustic fence and the use of appropriate construction techniques and
mechanical ventilation.
Private Plan Change 315 (1370-1378 Dominion Road) to be made Operative
Page 9

14 May 2015
A Hearing Panel of Independent Commissioners was appointed to determine the plan
change. At the request of NZTA, the panel agreed a hearing was not required as neither of
the submitters had requested to be heard and all outstanding issues had been resolved. On
17 February 2015, the panel released its decision to approve the plan change. No appeals
were received on that decision.
9.
The Council is now required to amend the District Plan giving effect to the Hearing Panels
Item 9
8.
Consideration
Local Board views and implications
10.
This report addresses a procedural matter in making PC315 operative. This stage does not
require input from the Puketapapa Local Board. Notwithstanding, the Puketapapa Local
Board will be notified once the plan change becomes operative.
Mori impact statement

11.
12.
All relevant iwi were notified of the Plan Change including:
Huakina Development Trust
Ki Tamaki Tribal Trust
Nga Puhi
Ngaati Te Ata (Awaroa Environment)
Ngati Maru Runanga
Nagti Paoa Trust
Ngati Rehua-Ngatiwai Ki Aotea Trust Board
Ngati Wai Trust
Ngati Whatua O Orakei Maori Trust Board
Te Kawerau A Maki Trust
Te Uri o Hau
Ngati Whatua o Orakei was a submitter to PC315 and noted the proximity of the sites to
Puketapapa/ Mt Roskill, a significant maunga for mana whenua and which has a history of
Maori use and occupation. In response to the submission, NZTA engaged Rod Clough to
prepare an archaeological assessment which indicated little likelihood of archaeological
evidence being present. NZTA also engaged Ngati Whatua o Orakei to provide a cultural
values assessment which recommended consideration of reduced height controls to
maintain views to the maunga. The Hearing Panel determined the matters raised in the
submission had been satisfactorily addressed and noted the existing District Plan volcanic
viewshaft provisions, which seek to protect views to the volcanic cone, would apply to the
subject sites. No appeal was received from Ngati Whatua o Orakei and they will be advised
when PC315 is made operative. No other iwi group has expressed an interest in PC315.
Page 10

14 May 2015
13.
Pursuant to Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the RMA, the Auckland Development
Committee can now approve PC315 and once approved, notify the plan change as operative
under Clause 20 of the First Schedule of the RMA.
14.
As this is a private plan change, any administrative costs associated in making PC315
operative and consequential updating of the District Plan will be met by the plan change
requester, NZTA.
Attachments
No.
Title
Decision on Private Plan Change 315
Page
13
Signatories
Authors
Kate McKessar - Principal Planner
Authorisers
Penny Pirrit - GM - Plans & Places

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer
Page 11
Item 9
Implementation
Attachment A
Item 9

14 May 2015
Page 13
Private Plan Change 209 (178 Balmoral Road and 16 Rocklands Avenue,
Balmoral) to be made operative
File No.: CP2015/07407
Purpose
1.
To make Private Plan Change 209 (PC209) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Isthmus
Section 1999) (The District Plan) operative.
Executive Summary
2.
PC209 is a privately initiated plan change by Eldamos Investments Limited and The
Warehouse Limited that seeks to rezone land at 16 Rocklands Avenue and part of 178
Balmoral Road, Balmoral from Residential 6a and Residential 6b to Business 2 under the
District Plan.
3.
On 24 February 2015, a Hearing Panel of Independent Commissioner appointed to

determine the plan change released their decision to approve the plan change, with
amendments. A copy of PC 209 as amended by the Independent Commissioners is
included as Attachment A.
4.
No appeals were received on this decision.
5.
The Council is now required to amend the District Plan and make the plan change operative.
Recommendation/s
a)
approve Private Plan Change 209 in the Auckland Council District Plan (Isthmus
Section 1999), in accordance with Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the Resource
Management Act 1991.
b)
authorise the Manager, Planning Central and Islands to complete the necessary
statutory processes required to make Private Plan Change 209 to the Auckland
Council District Plan (Isthmus Section 1999) operative in accordance with Clause 20
of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991.
Comments
6.
PC209 is a private plan change requested by Eldamos Investments Limited and The
Warehouse Limited. The purpose of the plan change is to rezone 16 Rocklands Avenue and
part of 178 Balmoral Road, Balmoral from Residential 6a and Residential 6b to Business 2
zone.
7.
Councils consultant planner recommended that the plan change be approved in part (as it
relates to 178 Balmoral Road) and declined in part (as it relates to 16 Rocklands Avenue).
8.
During the hearing, the independent commissioners requested the Councils consultant
planner and the applicants consultant planner to draft additional controls on 16 Rocklands
Avenue. The purpose of these controls is to restrict uses and future developments that can
occur on the site, should the commissioners decide to approve the plan change in its
entirety. While the planners from both sides agreed on the wording of the additional controls
in their joint statement, Councils consultant planner retained her opposition to the rezoning
of 16 Rocklands Avenue.
Private Plan Change 209 (178 Balmoral Road and 16 Rocklands Avenue, Balmoral) to be made
operative
Page 15
Item 10

14 May 2015
Item 10

14 May 2015
9.
On 24 February 2015, the Hearing Panel released their decision to approve PC209, subject
to the imposition of additional controls that restrict the activities and future developments that
can occur on 16 Rocklands Avenue.
10.
This decision requires amendment to: Sheet 1 and 2 of Planning Map E07; Appendix A to
the Planning Maps, and Appendix B Additional Limitations controls and diagrams
(Planning Maps) of the District Plan.
11.
No appeals were received on the decision.
12.
The Council is now required to amend the District Plan, giving effect to the Hearing Panels
Consideration
13.
This report addresses a procedural matter in making PC209 operative. This stage does not
require input from the Albert-Eden Local Board. Notwithstanding, the Local Board will be
notified once the plan change becomes operative.

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

Huakina Development Trust
Ki Tamaki Tribal Trust
Nga Puhi
Ngaati Te Ata (Awaroa Environment)
Ngati Maru Runanga
Nagti Paoa Trust
Ngati Rehua-Ngatiwai Ki Aotea Trust Board
Ngati Wai Trust
Te Uri o Hau
15.
No submissions were received from any iwi groups.
Implementation
16.
Pursuant to Clause 17 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA),
the Auckland Development Committee can now approve PC209 and once approved, notify
the plan change as operative under Clause 20 of the First Schedule of the RMA.
operative
Page 16

14 May 2015
As this is a private plan change, any administrative costs associated in making PC209
operative and consequential updating of the Auckland Council District Plan (Isthmus
Section) 1999 will be met by the plan change requester, The Warehouse Limited.
Item 10
17.
Attachments
No.
Title
Decision on Private Plan Change 209
Page
19
Signatories
Authors
Mel Chow - Planner
Authorisers

operative
Page 17
Attachment A
Item 10

14 May 2015
operative
Page 19
Attachment A
Item 10

14 May 2015
operative
Page 20
Attachment A
Item 10

14 May 2015
operative
Page 21
Attachment A
Item 10

14 May 2015
operative
Page 22
Attachment A
Item 10

14 May 2015
operative
Page 23

14 May 2015
Item 11

File No.: CP2015/05883
Purpose
1.
To receive an update on the Puhinui structure plan.
2.
To note the need to urgently address planning for major capital investments to upgrade
State Highway 20 (Puhinui Road), which is a key part of the strategic roading network in the
Puhinui area and a strategic route to Auckland International Airport.
3.
To confirm that the council will present an integrated response to address matters raised in
submissions to the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan regarding the Rural Urban Boundary
and land use provisions in the Puhinui area to the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan
Independent Hearings Panel.
Executive Summary
4.
The Puhinui structure plan area comprises approximately 1100 hectares of land located in
close proximity to the Auckland International Airport to the north-west, between the Manukau
Harbour in the west and the South Western Motorway in the east (refer Attachment A).
5.
The area currently lies outside the Metropolitan Urban Limits (MUL) identified in the
operative Auckland Regional Policy Statement (ARPS), and the proposed Rural Urban
Boundary (RUB) identified in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP). There are
submissions to the PAUP seeking an extension of the RUB to include some or all of the
Puhinui structure plan area. Submissions also seek a Future Urban Zone (FUZ) or live
urban zones to parts of the Puhinui structure plan area.
6.
Part of the area is also subject to a notified private plan change request to the operative
Auckland Council District Plan (Manukau Section) from the Southern Gateway Consortium
(SGC) to rezone 150 hectares of land from rural zoning to business zoning. Council staff
have requested further information from SGC on cultural, ecology and stormwater matters
arising from the plan change. A hearing date for the plan change has not yet been set
down.
7.
Since reporting to this Committee in October 2014 (refer to Attachment B for resolutions
from this meeting), Council staff have been working closely with Auckland Transport (AT) to
progress transport modelling to inform the planning for the strategic and local roading
network, in order to support staged future development in the Puhinui area.
8.
Auckland International Airport Ltd (AIAL) and New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) have
participated in discussions to advance this work. The existing limitations of the strategic
roading capacity, challenges to provide additional connections to the South Western
Motorway system, and the timing of NZTAs business case investigation for capital works
improvements to Puhinui Road remain a concern.
9.
The Puhinui structure plan area has significant cultural, historic heritage and landscape
values. One of the core components of the Puhinui structure plan work is the interpretation
and integration of these values into plan provisions to manage future development. Council
staff have worked in partnership with Te Atikai Waiohua to progress this work stream.
10.
Further consultation with Mana Whenua and stakeholders is planned for June 2015 to begin
initial discussions on the draft Puhinui structure plan provisions on a without prejudice, and
without commitment basis prior to completing the work for the PAUP hearing process.
Page 25
Item 11

14 May 2015
Recommendation/s
a)
endorse the following principles and approach to advance planning for future
development in the Puhinui structure plan area:
i)
work with New Zealand Transport Agency to urgently address planning for
major capital investments to upgrade State Highway 20 (Puhinui Road) which
is a key part of the strategic roading network in the Puhinui area and a strategic
route to Auckland International Airport.
ii)
continue to work in partnership with Te Akitai Waihoua to complete the Puhinui

Structure Plan provisions.
iii)
undertake further consultation with Mana Whenua and stakeholders in June

2015 to commence discussions on the draft Puhinui structure plan provisions
on a without prejudice and without commitment basis prior to completing the
work for the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan hearing process.
iv)
present an integrated response to address matters raised in submissions to the

Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan regarding the Rural Urban Boundary and land
use provisions in the Puhinui area to the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan
Independent Hearings Panel.
Comments
Background
11.
The committee resolved in February 2014 to approve the development of the Puhinui
structure plan to guide the councils position on the future land use and development of the
wider Puhinui area in response to a private plan change initiated by the Southern Gateway
Consortium. This change proposes rezoning approximately 150 hectares of land from rural
to business within the structure plan area.
12.
The committee also directed that any decision to initiate a change to the MUL in response to
the private plan change request should not occur until the Puhinui structure plan was
completed.
13.
Progress on the Puhinui structure plan was reported back to the committee on 16 October
2014, where a number of resolutions were adopted, including the resolution that any
proposal to shift the RUB boundary to include parts of the Puhinui structure plan area be
considered through the PAUP hearings process.
14.
This approach will enable the planning provisions for the Puhinui structure plan, and the
submissions to the PAUP on Puhinui to be considered and heard together by the Auckland
Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel.
Transport modelling
15.
In partnership with Auckland Transport, transport modelling is underway to determine which

sections of the State Highways and regional road networks will need to be improved to cater
for the future development of the Puhinui structure plan area. AIAL, NZTA and the Southern
Gateway Consortium have been involved in discussions to advance the modelling work.
16.
Initial modelling work focussed on agreeing modelling parameters, including the refinement
of the extent of the possible development area (i.e. development area net of constraints,
local roads, esplanade reserves and with application of airport height restrictions) to arrive at
a more robust and feasible trip generation to test the network capacity.
Page 26

14 May 2015
Possible transport links to be investigated as part of the modelling include:
a new road link connecting McLaughlins Road with Kiwi Tamaki Road
a new road bridge over State Highway 20, connecting to Noel Burnside Road.
18.
There are physical constraints to the feasibility of these new links which will require further
investigation, and has reinforced the need to model staged development of the Puhinui
structure plan area.
19.
Auckland Transport has advised that NZTA will need to complete a strategic case identifying
options to improve Puhinui Road, in order for the modelling to be completed. However, work
to investigate the strategic long term future of State Highway 20 (Puhinui Road) is currently
not in NZTAs work programme or a funding priority.
20.
In the interim, Auckland Transport are modelling roading solutions to support the first stage
of development of the Puhinui structure plan area.
21.
The results from the modelling will inform the development of triggers for the implementation
of improvements and/or upgrades to the roading network needed to support the staging of
the future development within the structure plan area. An example of this approach is the
servicing and development sequencing provisions of the operative Drury South Plan Change
to the Auckland Council District Plan (Papakura and Franklin sections).
Consultation
22.
Council staff intend to meet with Mana Whenua and stakeholders in June 2015 to begin
discussions on the draft Puhinui structure plan provisions on a without prejudice and without
commitment basis prior to completing the work for the PAUP hearing process. This process
provides opportunity for these parties to provide feedback on councils initial response to
matters raised in submissions to the PAUP.
23.
It is envisaged, that the planning provisions will show new urban zones from the PAUP for
those parts of the structure plan area that may be urbanised, and include special provisions
to recognise, maintain and where possible, enhance cultural and natural landscape values,
and controls around servicing and sequencing of development.
24.
Council staff have sent a letter to the submitters to the private plan change by the SGC and
the key stakeholders within the Puhinui structure plan area, updating them on the plan
change and structure plan process.
Consideration
25.
The Puhinui structure plan area is within the boundaries of the Otara-Papatoetoe and the
Mangere-Otahuhu Local Boards. To date, council staff have informed both local boards on
progress on the structure plan work, and intend meeting with the Chairs of both these two
local boards to provide them an update on the matters outlined in this report. The Local
Boards will be invited to provide feedback on the draft structure plan provisions after the
meeting with Mana Whenua and stakeholders in June 2015.

26.
The rohe of Puhinui is a place of deep cultural and spiritual significance to Mana Whenua
and in particular to Te Akitai Waiohua. The policy framework of the PAUP seeks to enable
Mana Whenua to identify, articulate and integrate their values in the resource management
processes affecting ancestral lands.
27.
A cultural heritage assessment for the Puhinui peninsula has been prepared by Te Akitai
Waiohua, which identifies a series of key sites of significance that connect the people of Te
Akitai Waiohua to the Puhinui peninsula.
Page 27
Item 11
17.

14 May 2015
Item 11
28.
Council staff have worked with Te Akitai Waiohua to better recognise and provide for
Puhinuis unique identity and cultural landscape values within the draft structure plan
provisions for the PAUP. Council staff will continue to work with Te Akitai Waiohua to
achieve the best outcomes.
Implementation
29.
Adopting the planning provisions for the Puhinui structure plan will be by way of the PAUP
hearings process. Significant investment in new and upgrades to existing infrastructure,
especially the transport network will be required for future development of the structure plan
area to occur.
30.
An infrastructure funding agreement will be required to ensure that development is coordinated with the provision of infrastructure in progressive stages. The agreement will need
to be developed in collaboration with key stakeholders and land owners to determine a fair
and equitable contribution for the upgrading of infrastructure, and investment in new
infrastructure.
Attachments
No.
Title
Page
Map of Puhinui Structure Plan Area
29
Minutes from the Auckland Development Committee 16 October 2014
31
Signatories
Authors
David Wong - Principal Planner
Authorisers

Page 28
Attachment A
Item 11

14 May 2015
Page 29
Attachment B
Item 11

14 May 2015
Page 31

14 May 2015
Item 12

File No.: CP2015/08056
Purpose
1.
To receive an outline of the feedback on the Draft Auckland 30 Year Infrastructure Strategy
(the strategy) as part of consultation on the Long-term Plan (LTP) 2015-25, including the
subsequent changes that are recommended to the strategy.
2.
To recommend the strategy to the Governing Body for approval as part of the Long-term
Plan 2015-2025.
Executive Summary
3.
The strategy forms part of the LTP, setting out how the council intends to manage its
infrastructure assets, what significant decisions it expects to make about infrastructure, and
outlines a 30 year summary of infrastructure investment.
4.
Councils are required to address water supply, wastewater, stormwater drainage, flood
protection and control works, and road and footpath infrastructure assets in their strategies.
Auckland Council has also included open space and community facilities to recognise their
important roles. While privately owned infrastructure is not covered in the strategy, the
signalling of councils long-term intentions does provide direction for other infrastructure
providers and the wider community.
5.
The strategy illustrates the importance of infrastructure as a foundation of society and its
potential role in transforming Auckland as it grows, to help reach the Auckland Plan vision of
being the worlds most liveable city. The strategy highlights the significant pressures on
infrastructure demand in Auckland over the next three decades, councils funding constraints
and a package of coordinated mechanisms that the council will deploy in response.
6.
Proposed changes to the strategy as a result of feedback from the LTP 2015-25 consultation
introduce an additional mechanism to recognise the application of sustainability and
resilience principles to infrastructure planning, delivery and operations, and strengthening
the framework around future infrastructure needs in greenfield areas.
Recommendation/s
a)
recommend the Auckland 30 Year Infrastructure Strategy, with changes incorporated

as proposed in this report, to the Governing Body for approval as part of the Longterm Plan 2015-2025.
Comments
7.
The completion of an infrastructure strategy as part of the LTP is a new requirement

introduced by the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Act 2014. Councils are required
to identify the significant infrastructure issues over the next 30 years, the significant
decisions it expects to make to respond to those issues, and the principal options for the
decisions.
8.
Water supply, wastewater, stormwater drainage, flood protection and control works, and
road and footpath infrastructure assets are required to be included in the strategy. Councils
have the discretion to include other infrastructure groups and Auckland Council has also
incorporated public transport, community facilities and public open space assets within its
strategy.
Page 33

14 May 2015
Item 12
9.
In developing the strategy council took into account the matters outlined in section 101B(3)
of the Local Government Act 2002. These are the need to:
i)
renew or replace existing assets
ii)
respond to growth or decline in the demand for services reliant on those assets
iii)
allow for planned increases or decreases in levels of service provided through those
assets
iv)
maintain or improve public health and environmental outcomes or mitigate adverse

effects on them
v)
provide for the resilience of infrastructure assets by identifying and managing risks
relating to natural hazards and by making appropriate financial provision for those
risks.
10.
The draft strategy identified the significant pressures on infrastructure led by the demand
from Aucklands future growth, demographic change, service level expectations,
sustainability, resilience and the condition of existing assets.
11.
There is a gap between the demand for infrastructure and the funding sources currently
available to the council. The draft strategy set out councils approach to planning, delivering
and managing infrastructure, ensuring investment in projects that have the potential to be
transformative and which allow for the significant trade-offs between costs, risk and service
levels to be considered and safely managed.
12.
In response to the infrastructure demands and funding constraints that Auckland faces the
draft strategy provided a package of seven mechanisms which comprised:
13.
i)
The Auckland Plan Development Strategy Implementation and Spatial Prioritisation
ii)
Management of the demand for infrastructure
iii)
Smart investment / transformative infrastructure investment
iv)
Strategic long-term network and systems planning
v)
Efficient and innovative asset management
vi)
New funding and delivery mechanisms
vii)
Monitoring programme for growth.
The strategy also lists the significant decisions council expects to make in the next 30 years.
Feedback on Draft Infrastructure Strategy

14.
Material to be incorporated into the councils draft strategy was presented to the Auckland
Development Committee at its December 2014 meeting.
15.
The strategy was included as section 1.2 within the Draft LTP 2015-2025 and elements of
the strategy were also incorporated in the LTP consultation document.
16.
There were relatively few submission points directly on the draft strategy received as part of
the consultation on the Draft LTP 2015-25. However, there was a high level of feedback on
infrastructure generally - in total, over 939 feedback points were received in relation to
councils proposed infrastructure investments. This included feedback on the lack of
infrastructure in areas of growth and the issue of timing between new development being
built and infrastructure being completed. Lack of transport infrastructure (both public
transport and roading) across Auckland was a key matter raised in submissions.
17.
Investment in infrastructure was supported with feedback that investment is required to

renew ageing infrastructure, improve services and provide for growth. The role of
infrastructure in achieving improved environmental outcomes was also recognised, with
support by mana whenua and other submitters for increased investment in stormwater
assets. Submissions highlighted the inherent tensions between the investment levels in
Page 34
different types of infrastructure over the same timeframe, with investment in transport,
stormwater, water and wastewater most strongly supported.
18.
Feedback on the strategy itself endorsed the proposed approach as a suitable foundation for
driving infrastructure investment in Auckland. The issues identified in the strategy were
noted as also relevant for services delivered by other organisations, including in the
telecommunications and health sectors. This is in line with the intention to use the strategy in
councils engagement with other infrastructure providers about Aucklands future
infrastructure needs.
19.
The New Zealand Council for Infrastructure Development called for clearer pathways within
the strategy that demonstrate how Auckland Council is responding to issues, the inclusion of
an infrastructure gap analysis targeted by investment, and objective monitoring that holds
the council accountable for delivering on the strategy.
20.
Respondents generally supported increased funding contribution by government for core

infrastructure in Auckland, disposal of non-strategic surplus assets and pursuit of alternative
funding sources, including private sector capital. Ngati Paoa proposed that specific
infrastructure investment be allocated toward sites owned by mana whenua.
21.
Submissions from individuals and partner agencies, such as the New Zealand Transport
Agency and Waikato Regional Council, supported the need to align planning for growth and
the need to target investment. There was clear support to focus resources in areas
prioritised for development and sequence delivery of infrastructure with staged release of
greenfield land. Where an area is zoned for development it was considered important that
infrastructure providers lead and meet the demands of growth.
22.
Feedback highlighted the need for investment in renewals and to address gaps in provision,
particularly within the existing open space and community facilities networks. The strategy to
maximise the ensuing benefits and utilisation of existing assets was endorsed. There was
also consistent support for the demand management measures within the strategy that have
the potential to defer investment in new infrastructure, such as harvesting, storing and use of
rainwater to reduce demand for water.
Changes to the final version of the Infrastructure Strategy

23.
The following key changes to the strategy are proposed arising from the feedback.
Smart /transformative infrastructure investment (section 5.3)

24.
This section has been broadened to include reference to using robust methodologies for
better decision making and to guide planning, investment and project development. This
aligns with a collaborative, cross-agency approach to decision making.
Monitoring and review programme (section 5.7)

25.
The draft strategy focused on monitoring growth. The updated strategy recognises that
there is a need to have wider monitoring of the strategy, of which growth will be an important
component, and for the results of monitoring to inform future strategy review processes.
Application of sustainability and resilience principles (section 5.8)

26.
An eighth mechanism to respond to infrastructure demand and funding constraints has been
added, recognising that sustainability and resilience principles are woven throughout the
strategy, these include consideration of water sensitive design and achieving resilience by
managing risks and building adaptive capacity within communities, businesses and
infrastructure.
Page 35
Item 12

14 May 2015

14 May 2015
Item 12
Future infrastructure needs in greenfield areas (section 6.8)

27.
Providing infrastructure for greenfield areas will be a major challenge in Auckland over the
next 30 years. As part of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan development, a number of
greenfield areas have been identified in the south, north-west and north of Auckland. This
land, within the Rural Urban Boundary, is currently in rural use and lacks infrastructure to
enable an urban scale of development. Tables have been added to the strategy that provide
a snapshot of the possible future infrastructure needs in these greenfield areas, principal
options for managing the issues and the associated collaborative processes and decision
making requirements around what infrastructure the council will need to deliver, where and
when.
Assumptions (Appendix 1)
28.
Appendix 1 of the strategy document will contain additional information about the levels of
service, demand and asset lifecycle assumptions which underpin the strategy.
Capital works programmes (Sections 6.2 6.7)

29.
These sections are now being amended by separating out projects that are at the planning
stage from those being implemented for each infrastructure type in the most likely scenario
of infrastructure investment. More information has also been provided about the options and
associated implications for stopping, delaying or scaling back projects in the most likely
scenario of infrastructure investment.
Alignment with the financial strategy

30.
The strategy is being aligned to the financial strategy in the LTP. Transport infrastructure
investment in the draft strategy was based on the Basic Transport Network included in the
Draft LTP 2015-2025. The final strategy will be updated to reflect the councils decisions
though the LTP regarding transport and other investment over the next 10 years.
Consideration
31.
Presentations on the strategy were made to the local board cluster meetings during
September and October 2014. The comments received at these meetings were used to
inform the development of the draft strategy.

32.
The Auckland Plan outcome, a Mori identity that is Aucklands point of difference in the
world, and the Mori responsiveness framework provide the lenses through which to
recognise and understand the importance of infrastructure management and investment for
Mori. Infrastructure planning, investment, delivery and maintenance impacts can enable
Mori outcomes. Preservation of the mauri or life essence of the flora and fauna, land,
water and waterways is a matter of great importance to Mori and is an issue that is central
to many infrastructure projects.
33.
In developing the strategy mana whenua submissions to the Unitary Plan were analysed to
understand mana whenua interests, needs and aspirations. The Independent Mori
Statutory Board secretariat also provided comment. Their views were taken into account in
the development of the strategy.
34.
There was no specific feedback on the strategy from Mori through the LTP consultation
process. However, the council did receive strong feedback on marae and papakinga
development and the role of mana whenua as kaitiaki in partnering with and influencing
council processes. Both of these are acknowledged and can be enabled through the
infrastructure strategy. Further, the strategy acknowledges Mori rights and interests, needs
and aspirations and the councils role in leading and influencing better outcomes with Mori.
Further work is required through implementation to ensure that these are woven through
planning and management.
Page 36

14 May 2015
35.
The strategy is part of the LTP 2015-25 and will be reported to the Governing Body on 25
June 2015 for approval.
36.
This is the first time Auckland Council will have a 30-year infrastructure strategy. It provides
a basis for infrastructure providers across the council group to coordinate future planning,
including their response to the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy, currently under
development, that will set out the sequencing and timing of future urban areas.
37.
The strategy will also provide an opportunity to signal councils longer-term view and
direction to the wider community, including other infrastructure providers, which will inform
and support their long-term planning. It is anticipated that this will enable dialogue with
others involved in infrastructure provision and skills and labour market development on an
ongoing basis.
Attachments
There are no attachments for this report.
Signatories
Authors
Dawne Mackay Team Leader Growth and Infrastructure Strategy
Authorisers
Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Page 37
Item 12
Implementation
Review of the Resource Consent Processes for development of sites at

40 and 42 Paturoa Road, Titirangi
File No.: CP2015/08220
Purpose
1.
To report back to the Auckland Development Committee on the review led by the Chief
Planning Officer on the process by which resource consents were granted for the
development of residential sites at 40 and 42 Paturoa Road, Titirangi.
Executive Summary
2.
A review has been completed of the processes followed to grant resource consents at 40
and 42 Paturoa Road on a non-notified basis for land use for residential dwellings, garaging
and vegetation clearance including the removal of a 22 metre Kauri tree. A copy of the
reviews Terms of Reference is included as Schedule 1 in the attached report. The focus of
the report has been on reviewing the process followed rather than commenting on the
decision itself.
3.
The review sets out the Resource Management Act decision making context which takes
into account the Operative District Plan and the relevant provisions of the Proposed
Auckland Unitary Plan. It also includes consideration of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage
Area Act, biosecurity matters raised by the presence of Kauri dieback, and Council resource
consent procedures. Engagement with the Waitakere Ranges Local Board and with relevant
iwi groups together with their responses are also assessed.
4.
The report finds that the procedures followed by resource consent staff to process and,
Independent Commissioners to grant, the resource consents on a non-notified basis was in
line with the provisions of relevant Council plans and procedures. It concludes with a
number of recommendations for improving resource consent processing practice.
5.
The review has not raised any specific recommendations for submissions to central
government on its current review of the Resource Management Act 1991.
Recommendation/s
a)
agree to the implementation of the following recommendations of the report:
Resource Consents Team

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

Local Boards and iwi clearer language that better describes the nature of the
proposal, include activity status, aerial photograph of site, ensure that all
relevant information (such as ecologist and arborist reports) are provided, and
establish a process to provide feedback to Local Boards and iwi on
applications that they have made comment on.
ii)
for the West Resource Consents team, provide regular training and refreshers
on the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area (WRHA), its Act, and how activities in
the WRHA are managed, and the iwi statements within the operative District
Plan.
iii)
relevant conditions to Auckland Council Resource Consent Conditions Manual

which will apply standard controls on developments relating to PTA (Kauri
dieback disease) e.g. involving earthworks or vegetation / tree clearance.
Review of the Resource Consent Processes for development of sites at 40 and 42 Paturoa Road,
Titirangi
Page 39
Item 13

14 May 2015

14 May 2015
Item 13
iv)
continue relationship building and develop a service level agreement with

Biodiversity Operations and Biosecurity Teams in relation to the management
of PTA, including consideration of whether testing for PTA as part of resource
consent applications is appropriate.
Local Board Services

v)
offer training to Local Board members about the resource consents process,
legal issues associated with resource consent applications and the Local
Boards role and how the delegations to commissioners from the Hearings
Committee operates (possibly at the time of their induction).
vi)
work with Local Boards, after each election, to review the triggers that each
Local Board has established to confirm that those triggers identify the matters
the Local Board has an interest in.
Cultural Impact Assessment Project Working Group

vii)
refer this report on the process of these resource consents to the Cultural
Impact Assessment (CIA) project working group for their information.
Comments
6.
At its meeting of 12 March 2015, the Auckland Development Committee resolved as follows
(Resolution no. AUC/2015/34):
a) request that officers undertake a review of the process involved in assessing and
granting the consent applications to undertake development on sites at 40 and 42
Paturoa Road, with the specific and sole purpose of identifying matters that could be
improved in future council processes and to be included in Auckland Councils
submissions to central government on its current review of the Resource Management
Act 1991, and report back to the Auckland Development Committee on Thursday 16
April 2015.
b) direct the Chief Planning Officer of Auckland Council, being independent of the
operational part of Council, to lead the review to be undertaken of the process.
c) edorse Council to continue to work with the landowners of 40 and 42 Paturoa Road, and
the community, to seek a resolution to current concerns.
7.
An additional month giving time to complete the review and engage with iwi and local board
was agreed with the Deputy Mayor.
8.
The resource consent applications for each site requested approval for a residential
dwelling, associated garaging, vegetation clearance, work within the drip-line of trees,
installation of services and stormwater management. A particular issue of concern was the
proposal to remove a 22 metre Kauri tree at 40 Paturoa Road. The area is within the
Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area and has specific district planning provisions as set out in
the attached report to manage both residential living and ecological considerations. None of
these provisions preclude the granting of a resource consent to remove a Kauri tree.
9.
These applications have highlighted the inherent conflict between a landowners reasonable
right to construct a home on a vacant lot in a Bush Living zone and the protection of
significant indigenous vegetation. It is clear that such a right is provided for in the operative
District Plan, provided that the selected location of the house site has the least adverse
effects.
10.
The review outlines the process taken to decide whether or not to publicly notify the
applications and the use of independent Planning Commissioners to make the decisions.
For both applications, ecological reports were prepared to assess alternative locations for
the houses within the sites. It was concluded that the house sites proposed by the
landowner, reasonably close to the road would cause less damage than a site at other
Titirangi
Page 40
locations, for example at the rear of the properties. The applications were therefore
approved with conditions; (refer to attachment).
11.
Issues were also raised through the process in regard to the presence of Kauri dieback
which is widely prevalent through the Waitakere Ranges. Hundreds of trees in the Titirangi
area have been lost to Kauri dieback in the last five years. Appropriate conditions were
therefore included in the consents to avoid the spread of the disease.
12.
The Waitakere Ranges Local Board has suggested that within this area where Kauri dieback
is prevalent, non-infected trees are more important, and the absence of the disease would
be a relevant consideration in protecting the tree. It is known that tests are available to
assess whether a specific tree is infected with Kauri dieback. However there is no test to
confirm that a living tree is resistant to Kauri dieback and the fact that a tree does not show
external signs of Kauri dieback does not mean that it is resistant or uninfected. In addition, a
Significant Ecological Area (SEA) is not defined simply by the presence of Kauri, rather
relating to the high ecological quality of the bush as a whole which includes a range of
species and habitats.
13.
Further work will therefore need to be carried out on the value of requiring such a test as
part of the resource consent process.
14.
The role of the Local Board in the resource consent processes was also considered as part
of the review. The Councils Governing Body has not delegated any of its decision-making
powers under the RMA to local boards. However the Council has developed a process by
which local boards can provide comments on individual applications and these comments
will be included in the planners report. The decision-maker will then consider these
comments when making the decision. In both cases, summaries of the applications were
provided to the Waitakere Ranges Local Board. However the descriptions did not clearly
identify the effects of the proposals (for example, the removal of a Kauri tree) and the time
for raising queries and providing responses is short in order to comply with legislative time
frames.
15.
Similar concerns about the lack of detail and clarity of the resource consent summaries sent
to iwi groups were also raised. While letters were sent by the applicant to seven iwi groups
(in relation to the proposal which included the removal of a 22 metre Kauri tree), of which
five responses were received, the description of the development work proposed and its
effects was too vague to raise concerns.
16.
The report recommends that clearer and more meaningful summaries be sent to both local
boards and iwi.
17.
The Waitakere Ranges Local Board has further requested an additional planner resource to
review the resource consent applications received. Instead it is considered that the
provision of clearer summaries from the Resource Consents Department and a regular
review of the types of consent applications sent to each local board should reduce the
amount of time that local boards need to spend on reviewing applications.
Consideration
18.
During the course of this review, local boards have had several opportunities to provide their
views.
19.
A meeting was held with the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Waitakere Ranges Local Board
at the beginning of the review process to ascertain their views on the scope of the review;
and a further meeting later in the process to discuss the interim conclusions reached. Both
meetings were valuable in understanding concerns and receiving comments to improve the
report.
Titirangi
Page 41
Item 13

14 May 2015

14 May 2015
Item 13
20.
In addition a workshop was held to which all Local Board chairs were invited, specifically to
discuss the role of local boards in the resource consent process and to suggest possible
improvements.

21.
The matter of iwi involvement in these resource consent applications has been outlined in
the attached review report, together with recommendations for improving the process of
providing resource consent summaries to iwi so they can more easily respond in a timely
way.
22.
During the course of this review, a meeting was held with a representative of Te Kawerau a
Maki. The results of the review will be shared with Te Kawerau a Maki and the report will
also be referred to the CIA project working group.
Implementation
23.
In large part, the recommendations of this review will be implemented by staff of the
Resource Consents Department who have reviewed the report and concur with the
recommendations. It will also be important to work with local boards and iwi to ensure that
their ability to respond to the steady flow of resource consent applications is improved.
Attachments
No.
Title
Review of the Process for Resource Consents for 40 and 42 Paturoa

Road, Titirangi (Under Separate Cover)
Schedule 8 - Ecologist Reports (1) (Under Separate Cover)
Schedule 8 - Ecologist Reports (2) (Under Separate Cover)
Schedule 9 - Resource Consent Conditions (1) (Under Separate Cover)
Schedule 9 - Resource Consent Conditions (2) (Under Separate Cover)
Page
Signatories
Authors

Katherine Anderson - General Counsel
Authorisers

Katherine Anderson - General Counsel
Titirangi
Page 42

14 May 2015
Item 14

File No.: CP2015/07793
Purpose
1.
This report outlines the proposed stakeholder engagement process and draft scope of the
Port Future Study as directed by the Auckland Development Committee on 3 April 2015.
Executive Summary
Recommendation/s
a)
endorse the collaborative Mori and stakeholder process, the establishment of the
Stakeholder Reference Group and Consensus Working group, the role and tasks
allocated to these groups, and the resources required to support them, as set out in
the agenda report.
b)
endorse the list (Attachment A of the agenda report) of identified stakeholders to be

invited to participate in the collaborative process, and delegate to the Chief Executive
of Auckland Council the authority to extend this list as additional stakeholders are
identified.
c)
endorse the draft study scope as set out in the agenda report, for referral to the
Consensus Working Group.
d)
note that the project will be funded from the Mayoral Office budget, over the 2014/15
and 2015/16 financial years.
Comments
2.
On 1 April 2015 the Auckland Development Committee resolved to commence the Port
Future Study (Resolution No. AUC/2015/61), and directed the Chief Executive to report back
on the study design as soon as possible. The committee noted that the study should include
collaborative stakeholder input at each critical stage, including the studys scope.
3.
This report gives effect to the committees resolutions by proposing the following:
i)
a collaborative stakeholder process and groups to be established as part of this

process;
ii)
a draft study scope and process by which it is finalised and procured. Note that, once
finalised, the study scope will be formatted into an appropriate Request for Proposal
(RFP) for procurement purposes;
iii)
the resources required to support the project and its processes;
iv)
a broad expected timeline for the project.
Page 43

14 May 2015
Item 14
Collaborative Stakeholder Process

4.
The 1 April 2015 Auckland Development Committee resolution states that the project must
be based on collaborative stakeholder input. It is helpful to reflect on the following principles
of collaboration when considering collaborative processes for this project.
Participation participation of stakeholders from all perspectives need to be included.
This will require developing strategies to work with individuals who dont act collaboratively.
Collective collaboration may require broadening participants perspectives so that they
are able to understand and respect the range of views within the group. The group needs
to reach a consensus and then take action collectively on the decisions they make.
Transparency feedback and trust are essential elements of collaboration. Being
transparent with information is crucial if that is to be achieved.
Independence collaboration requires independent thought, not group-thinking. An
environment where people can think for themselves needs to be maintained.
Emergence the point of collaboration is to achieve great results. Focus must be on the
end goal rather than worrying about how that is achieved. The collaborative group needs to
set their own goals and objectives.
Persistence these principles need to be applied persistently throughout the process.
5.
Given these principles, the proposal is that the project essentially be handed-over to
stakeholders; that they work through and understand the study findings; and that they make
recommendations to the council on the best way forward from their consensus viewpoint.
Council will then make decisions on matters arising from the Port Future Study with these
recommendations in mind.
6.
It is proposed that two groups be established a larger Stakeholder Reference Group

(SRG) and a smaller Consensus Working Group (CWG). There are essentially two drivers
for this:
i)
there is wide interest in the study and many stakeholders that need to be
accommodated hence the larger SRG,
ii)
it is generally accepted that a collaborative group, or any working group for that matter,
becomes dysfunctional once it is larger than around 12 to 15 people hence the
smaller CWG. The CWG is to be self-selected from the SRG.
Stakeholder Reference Group

7.
8.
The SRG is made up of a number of sectors under which stakeholders are grouped. The
proposed sectors are:
i)
Mori
ii)
Business associated with the port both direct and indirect
iii)
community groups e.g. residents, heritage
iv)
environmental groups
v)
recreational marine users
vi)
specialist interest groups
vii)
specialist professional groups
viii)
specialist commercial groups.
Attachment A contains a list of organisations under each sector that will be invited to
participate. It is noted that many of the specialist groups also represent general community
views. This list needs to be as inclusive as possible and is not exhaustive at this stage.
Delegation is sought for the Chief Executive to expand this list over the next two weeks.
Page 44
9.
Each sector would have a number of representatives, who together constitute the SRG. The
representatives are identified through a facilitated self-selection process. The SRG would
ideally have between around 40 to 50 representatives (feasibly around 5 per sector). POAL
would be represented on the SRG, though with fewer representatives than the various
sectors.
10.
The role of the SRG is to:

i)
represent stakeholders and communicate back to organisations within the sector
ii)
engage with and provide feedback / input to the CWG as needed
iii)
undertake work requested by CWG as needed
iv)
receive updates and report-backs from the CWG.
Consensus Working Group

11.
The CWG will be a smaller group of around 15 people. This group will not be sector based,
but selected through a facilitated self-selection process from within the SRG. The two
exceptions are Maori and POAL (one representative) who have automatic representation on
the group. The CWG will be chaired by an Independent Chair.
12.
The role of the CWG is to:
13.
i)
finalise and agree the study scope
ii)
receive progress updates during the study
iii)
provide direction / decisions as required
iv)
identify and request additional critical information / work to be undertaken
v)
receive the final study report
vi)
make recommendations to the Auckland Council on the way forward
vii)
engage with the SRG during the process.
The CWG is where the bulk of the work will be done. It is considered appropriate that
members be remunerated.
Independent Chair
14.
15.
The CWG needs to be expertly chaired to ensure the principles of collaboration are applied
and the group works towards consensus building and recommendations to the council. The
role of the Independent Chair is to:
i)
chair the CWG
ii)
engage with the SRG
iii)
engage with consultants and technical experts\
iv)
liaise with the project manager
v)
stakeholder management and communication
vi)
be a spokesperson for the project.
There are three feasible options by which the Independent Chair can be selected:
i)
selected and appointed by the council
ii)
selected by the SRG
iii)
selected by the CWG either from within or outside the CWG.
Page 45
Item 14

14 May 2015
Item 14

14 May 2015
16.
It is recommended that the council selects and appoints an appropriate chair. Proposals in
this regard are captured in a report, titled Port Future Study: Appointment of Independent
Chair, under separate cover.
17.
Chairing the CWG would be time demanding. It is therefore appropriate that the chair be
remunerated.
18.
Figure 1 illustrates the broad proposed process for establishing the SRG and CWG.
Broad-based Invitation to Participate

Sector
Sector
Sector
Maori
POAL
Stakeholder Plenary Meeting

(facilitated)
Purpose and timeframe of study

Role and task of SRG and SWG
Request for sector representation on SRG
AC administers
Stakeholder Reference Group Establishment
(facilitated)
Agreement on role of SRG and CWG

Agreement on size of CWG
Requests for nominations for CWG
AC administers
Consensus Working Group Nominee Session
(facilitated)
Self-selection process to finalise CWG membership
AC administers
CWG Establishment
Figure 1: Process for establishing SRG and CWG
19.
The proposal does not include any general community consultation during the study. This is
because:
i)
it would be unreasonable to expect the community to keep up to date and informed on

what is likely to be a highly technical study
ii)
it would be more reasonable to engage the community on specific proposals that the
council may wish to put forward once the study is completed.
20.
Based on this, there is no immediate need for a decision on general community consultation.
This is something the council can consider once it has a better understanding of potential
proposals itself.
21.
The SRG does not include a central government sector, and there is thus no central
government representation on the CWG either. It is considered more appropriate that central
government be involved at an officer level. This will include agencies such as the MoT,
NZTA, MBIE, Treasury, NZ Navy and Kiwirail.
Page 46
22.
The same approach applies to council CCOs. Involvement of Waterfront Auckland and
Auckland Council Property Ltd (or Development Auckland should it be established) and
Auckland Transport will be at an officer level. This also applies to other relevant council
groups, such as CCI, and affected partners, such as UNISA partners.
23.
Lastly, neither group includes political representation. This governance function will be
expressed through decisions made by the council at the conclusion of the study.
Study Scope
24.
The objective of the Port Future Study is to provide Auckland Council, as the port companys
owner, with recommendations about a long-term strategy for the provision of facilities to
accommodate sea-based imports and exports (and the cruise industry) flowing to and from
Auckland. In doing this, the study will consider the economic, social, environmental and
cultural costs and benefits, and the feasibility, of a range of options that will include:
i)
relocating part or all of the port, or the ports functions, within the Auckland region
ii)
closing Aucklands ports, thus requiring imports and exports to and from Auckland to
arrive by sea at other ports and be freighted to Auckland by land
iii)
constraining the port to its current footprint, while planning for future development of
additional facilities at another location(s)
iv)
enabling limited growth within the existing port precinct, while planning for future
development of additional facilities at another location(s).
25.
For clarity purposes, all options need to consider how port activities could be reconfigured
(both current and future), and therefore also consider the wider impacts on and requirements
of the waterfront and its surrounds, for example the central wharfs and cruise ship
requirements. The study is therefore not restricted to the current port precinct.
26.
In considering the costs and benefits of the various options, consideration will be given to
the full spectrum of costs and benefits, such as:
Economic
Investment needed for

option:
Opportunity costs:
Market impacts on
road / rail / motorways
/ waterways
Cost impacts:
Economic benefits &
impacts for Auckland:
Economic benefits &
impacts for NZ:
for POAL
for others e.g. government, other local
authorities, other port companies
cost of supporting infrastructure
cost of reconfiguration options
of land with the port in its current
location
of rail-line utilisation
of other transport infrastructure
investment choices
value of travel time
to supply chain
to customers
GDP
import / export sector
cruise industry
tourism industry
GDP
import / export sector
capacity of other Upper North Island
ports
freight distribution and movements
Page 47
Item 14

14 May 2015

14 May 2015
Item 14
POAL
Maori:
Environmental Marine ecology:
Hydrodynamic:
Natural values:
Carbon footprint:
Pollution:
Impacts other:
Social
Employment:
Public access:
Recreational use:
Cultural
Maori:
Heritage:
Urban form & amenity:
business profitability
size of dividend
POAL ownership (in context of North
Island port operations and freight
distribution)
impact of Te Ao Maori
marine mammals
fish and benthic organisms
tidal flows
channel depths / dredging
sediment loads
sea level rise
harbour capacity
water
coastal access
land based
sea based
air quality
land based
sea based
visual
noise
light
port core - job gains, losses and
relocation
wider e.g. supply chain - job gains,
losses and relocation
access to employment (equity)
employment opportunities for future
generations
including employment opportunities for
Maori
to and from the harbour and the gulf
of the harbour and gulf
of the waterfront
historical grievances
cultural values
port or maritime history related
city related
waterfront as gateway to the city
how the port and city integrates
how a growing & denser city and port
relate / exist side-by-side
transport impacts
27.
In addition, the study will also assess the opportunities that the range of options affords
Mori.
28.
As the study looks at both current and future freight projections and requirements, the term
future is defined as follows:
i)
for the purposes of future locational options, it must project forward 50 years or more
ii)
for the purposes of freight estimations, it must project forward no less than 30 years .
Page 48
29.
It is proposed that, once options are developed, a high-level assessment of all options is
undertaken. Viable options then proceed to a more detailed analysis. This is to maintain
momentum and ensure resources are not spent on non-viable options or scenarios.
30.
It should be noted that the study, and recommendations made by the CWG are likely to
result in direction on the future footprint of the port (if it finds that the some, or all, of the port
should remain in its current location). It is, however, unlikely to provide absolute answers on
detailed matters within that footprint such as the extension, or not, of a specific wharf. This
would be more appropriately addressed through the resource consenting process. The
findings may, however, lead to recommendations for Unitary Plan changes.
31.
The draft scope endorsed by committee will be considered by the CWG and amended as
necessary. The group will be made aware of funding limitations. Final approval of the scope
will be the responsibility of the CWG.
32.
Lastly, it is proposed that matters such as organisational arrangements and culture of POAL
be excluded from the study. The council can at any time use other processes to consider
such matters.
Study Procurement
33.
The Committee is requested to endorse the draft study scope as set out in the previous
section. This section sets out the process for finalising the scope. Once finalised, the scope
will be formatted into an appropriate Request for Proposal (RFP) for formal procurement
purposes.
34.
Given the complexity of the study and the need for the successful tendered to engage
extensively with the CWG, it is suggested that the RFP requires a detailed study
methodology to be proposed, rather than prescribing it in the RFP. That is, it should be left to
tender parties to develop a tailored methodology that is both cost efficient and best serves
the needs of the CWG. However, all parties will be required to adhere to:
i)
the framework of economic, environmental, social and cultural impacts, and

opportunities for Maori,
ii)
a methodology that targets viable options for further detailed analysis as soon as is
feasible.
35.
Various pieces of legislation are relevant to the study scope. The Hauraki Gulf Marine Park
Act 2000 is one example. All such legislation will be required to be accounted for in the
study.
36.
Figure 2 illustrates the proposed process for finalising and commissioning the study. It is
noted that figure 2 shows a simplified process and that in reality the tendering and selection
process may consist of two stages, rather than a single stage as shown.
Page 49
Item 14

14 May 2015
Item 14

14 May 2015
ADC endorsed draft study scope
CWG finalises & agrees study scope

AC develops RFP
ADC ratifies study scope
AC issues RFP
AC analyses RFPs & submits to CWG
CWG considers RFPs & requests

clarification / adjustments as needed
AC supports & administers
CWG selects proposal
AC commissions study
Figure 2: Process for finalising and commissioning study
Project Resourcing
37.
This section identifies the resources required to support the project. There is currently no
specific funding allocated for the Port Future Study.
38.
Until the study scope is finalised, any accurate cost estimate is problematic. The draft scope
is wide and far reaching and it is unlikely that the CWG would narrow it down significantly. It
has not been possible to test the market on the draft scope in the time available. However,
based on past experience, this work could cost between $500,000 and $600,000.
39.
The Chair, CWG and SRG will require the following supporting resources:
Project Management
Administrative Support
meetings, agendas and minutes as needed

general CWG support as needed
general SRG support as needed
project plan development

preparation of reports and information
consultant management and support
budget, timeline and deliverables management
stakeholder relationships
general support to Chair and CWG as needed
general SRG support as needed
Page 50
Communication support
as needed
Independent technical advice
peer review of technical information & study findings

independent resource to CWG as may be required
40.
The estimated cost of all of the above, including remuneration of the chair and CWG
members, is $543,000.
41.
In addition to the above there would also be other costs not directly attributed to the scope,
CWG or SRG work, which can be funded internally and is not included in the project costs
indicated.
42.
The total cost estimate for the project is between $1,043 million and $1,143 million, which
needs to be funded over two years 2014/15 and 2015/16. The project will be funded from
the Mayoral Office budget.
Project Timeline
43.
It is estimated that the project will take 52 weeks to complete, as indicated in figure 3.
Subject to the committees resolutions on the proposals in this report, the project will
effectively start in early June this year, with completion at the end of June 2016.
Establish
SRG & CWG
10 weeks
Finalise study
scope, RFP &
procure
services
12 weeks
Port study and CWG work
20 weeks
CWG prep
recommendations
10 weeks
52 weeks
June 15
June 16
Figure 3: Broad project timeline
Page 51
Item 14

14 May 2015

14 May 2015
Item 14
Consideration
44.
The views of Local Boards have not specifically been taken into account for the purposes of
this report, other than the extent they were accounted for in previous committee resolutions.
45.
The proposals in this report suggest that, given the governance role Local Boards have, they
not be directly involved in the collaborative process. Rather, that Local Boards exercise their
governance responsibility at the time when recommendations and/or concrete proposals are
to be considered.

46.
The views of neither Mori nor the Independent Mori Statutory Board have specifically
been elicited for the purposes of this report, other than the extent they were accounted for in
previous committee resolutions.
47.
The port sits within a cultural, economic, environmental and social context for Maori, due to
its relationship to the Waitemata Harbour which is a taonga and source of identity for Maori,
as well as a source of economic and social well-being. The Waitemata is also seen as a key
gateway into Auckland by the Ngati Whatua, Waiohua -Tamaki and Marutuahu tribes. Also,
the ports have provided a source of employment for Maori over many generations.
48.
Council has made key commitments to Maori through the Auckland Plan, PAUP, LTP and
the Maori Responsiveness Framework. These need to be taken into account and provided
for in Council's consideration of:
how to recognise and protect Maori rights and interests and how to address and
contribute to Maori needs and aspirations
incorporating Treaty Settlements in the thinking, including the pending Waitemata
Harbour Settlements.
49.
The advice of the IMSB is to be taken into account, especially in the design of the projects
processes. Previous input has been taken into account in the design and further input is now
sought on the proposed processes. The IMSBs input is also sought on the appointment of
the Independent Chair (through a report under separate cover), including the persons
appropriate experience and competence in understanding and working with Maori through a
collaborative process.
50.
With regard to mana whenua, Ngati Whatua, Waiohua-Tamaki and Marutuahu are the
primary mana whenua groupings associated with the Waitemata and the ports. These
groupings are made up of 13 individual mana whenua iwi. Given the strategic impact of the
ports on broader economic, social, and environmental well-being, the views of mataawaka
also need to be sought through this process.
51.
The Transport Funding Consensus Working Group and Sea Change - Tai Timu Tai Pari
present existing models of practice for partnering with Maori in collaborative processes.
These approaches centre on a collaborative partnering approach and the fundamental view
that mana whenua, in particular, are not a stakeholder, but a Treaty partner. Given the
broader issues at play, the opportunity exists to include mataawaka subject matter experts to
be involved as well.
52.
Mana whenua will be invited to appoint representatives to both the SRG and CWG. The
composition and representation on these groups will be worked through with mana whenua.
Work will similarly be done to identify mataawaka representation.
Page 52

14 May 2015
No.
Title
Stakeholder Reference Group sectors and organisations
Page
55
Signatories
Authors
Authorisers

Page 53
Item 14
Attachments
Attachment A
Item 14

14 May 2015
Page 55
Attachment A
Item 14

14 May 2015
Page 56

14 May 2015
Item 15

File No.: CP2015/08543
Purpose
1.
To update the committee on the status of Auckland Development Committee resolutions

from February 2015, requiring follow-up reports.
Executive Summary
2.
This report is a regular information-only report that provides committee members with
greater visibility of committee resolutions requiring follow-up reports. It updates the
committee on the status of such resolutions. It covers committee resolutions from February
2015 and will be updated for every regular meeting.
3.
This report covers open resolutions only. A separate report has been placed in the
confidential agenda covering confidential resolutions requiring follow up reports.
Recommendation/s
a)
note the status of Auckland Development Committee resolutions requiring follow up

reports as at 14 May 2015.
Attachments
No.
Title
Auckland Development Committee - Reports Pending Status Update - 14

May 2015
Page
59
Signatories
Authors
Rita Bento-Allpress - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers
Page 57
Attachment A
Item 15

14 May 2015
Page 59

14 May 2015
Item 16

File No.: CP2015/08546
Purpose
1.
To receive a summary and provide a public record of memos or briefing papers that have
been distributed to committee members since 16 April 2015.
Executive Summary
2.
This report is a new regular information-only report being trialled for the Auckland
Development Committee (ADC) with the aim of extending it to other committees in the
future.
3.
Since 16 April 2015, the following memos, briefing papers and workshop materials have
been distributed to ADC members:
17 April 2015 Workshop PowerPoint presentations:
- Tamaki Regeneration Project
- Housing for Older Persons
4.
22 April 2015 Memo: Sea Change - Tai Timu Tai Pari (Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan) Project Outline and Update
5 May 2015 Memo: Update on Auckland Development Committee decisions on Special
Housing Areas Programme
7 May 2015 Memo: Auckland Transports Parking Strategy
These documents can be found on the Auckland Council website, at the following link:
http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/
5.
o at the top of the page, select meeting Auckland Development Committee from the
drop-down tab and click View;
o Under Attachments, select either HTML or PDF version of the document entitled
Extra Attachments
Note that, unlike an agenda report, staff will not be present to answer questions about
items referred to in this summary. Committee members should direct any questions to
memo/briefing paper authors.
Recommendation/s
a)
receive the summary of information memos and briefings as per the 14 May 2015
agenda report.
Page 61

14 May 2015
Item 16
Attachments
No.
Title
17 April 2015 Workshop PowerPoint presentation - Tamaki Regeneration Project

(Under Separate Cover)
17 April 2015 Workshop PowerPoint presentation - Housing for Older Persons

(Under Separate Cover)
22 April 2015 Memo: Sea Change - Tai Timu Tai Pari (Hauraki Gulf Marine
Spatial Plan) - Project Outline and Update (Under Separate Cover)
5 May 2015 Memo: Update on Auckland Development Committee decisions on

Special Housing Areas Programme (Under Separate Cover)
7 May 2015 Memo: Auckland Transport's Parking Strategy (Under Separate

Cover)
Signatories
Authors
Rita Bento-Allpress - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers
Page 62

14 May 2015
Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information

and Meetings Act 1987
a)
exclude the public from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting.
The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for
passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of
the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution
follows.
This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official
Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 or
section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the
proceedings of the meeting in public, as follows:
C1
Port Future Study: Appointment of Independent Chair
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)(a) - The withholding of the

information is necessary to protect
the privacy of natural persons,
including that of a deceased
person.
s48(1)(a)
In particular, information will be

provided on candidates for the role
of Independent Chair in the Port
Future Study Consensus Working
Group. This information needs to
be withheld to protect the privacy of
those individuals.
C2

Special Housing Areas: Deferred Request


(where applicable)


s7(2)(b)(ii) - The withholding of the

information where the making
available of the information would
be likely unreasonably to prejudice
the commercial position of the
person who supplied or who is the
subject of the information.
s48(1)(a)
In particular, the report contains

commercially sensitive information
regarding development proposals.
s7(2)(c)(i) - The withholding of the
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
Public Excluded
Page 63

14 May 2015
same source and it is in the public
interest that such information
should continue to be supplied. In
particular, the report contains
C3
Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan submissions - Zoning Principles


(where applicable)


s7(2)(g) - The withholding of the

information is necessary to
maintain legal professional
privilege. In particular, the report
contains legal advice.
s48(1)(a) The public conduct of the

part of the meeting would be likely
to result in the disclosure of
information for which good reason
for withholding exists under section
7.
C4
Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan - Interim Guidance from the Independent Hearings
Panel


(where applicable)


s7(2)(g) - The withholding of the

information is necessary to
maintain legal professional
privilege. In particular, the report
contains legal advice.
s48(1)(a) The public conduct of the

part of the meeting would be likely
to result in the disclosure of
information for which good reason
for withholding exists under section
7.
C5
Confidential Reports Pending Status Update


(where applicable)


s7(2)(b)(ii) - The withholding of the

information where the making
available of the information would
be likely unreasonably to prejudice
the commercial position of the
person who supplied or who is the
subject of the information. In
s7(2)(c)(i) - The withholding of the
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
s48(1)(a)
Public Excluded

Page 64

Auckland Development Committee Agenda - May 15

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Auckland Development Committee Agenda - May 15

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

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

Thursday, 14 May 2015

Auckland Development Committee

Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse

Plan changes to operative plans

Designation of Special Housing Areas

Housing policy and projects including Papakainga housing

Spatial Plans including Area Plans

Tamaki regeneration projects

All powers necessary to perform the committees responsibilities.

where the committees responsibility is explicitly limited to making a recommendation

Approval of a submission to an external body

Power to establish subcommittees.

EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC WHO NEEDS TO LEAVE THE MEETING

Members of the meeting

All staff supporting the meeting (administrative, senior management) remain.

Local Board members

Auckland Development Committee

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

Local Board Input

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

Update on the Puhinui Structure Plan

Auckland 30 Year Infrastructure Strategy

Review of the Resource Consent Processes for development of sites at

Port Future Study: Design Proposals

Reports Pending Status Update

Summary of information memos and briefings - 14 May 2015

Consideration of Extraordinary Items

Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public

Port Future Study: Appointment of Independent Chair

Special Housing Areas: Deferred Request

Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan submissions - Zoning Principles

Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan - Interim Guidance from the Independent

Confidential Reports Pending Status Update

Auckland Development Committee

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

Auckland Development Committee

Local Board Input

The local authority by resolution so decides; and

The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and

That item may be discussed at that meeting if(i)

the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time

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

Auckland Development Committee

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

On 17 February 2015, a Hearing Panel of Independent Commissioners appointed to

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

Auckland Development Committee

Mori impact statement

All relevant iwi were notified of the Plan Change including:

Huakina Development Trust

Ki Tamaki Tribal Trust

Ngaati Te Ata (Awaroa Environment)

Ngati Maru Runanga

Nagti Paoa Trust

Ngati Rehua-Ngatiwai Ki Aotea Trust Board

Ngati Wai Trust

Ngati Whatua O Orakei Maori Trust Board

Te Kawerau A Maki Trust

Ngati Whatua O Orakei Maori Trust Board

Te Kawerau A Maki Trust

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

Auckland Development Committee