auckland future vision agenda #2

8/3/2019 auckland future vision agenda #2

1/116

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

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

Date:Time:Meeting Room:Venue:

Tuesday 7 February 201212.30pmReception Lounge Level 2Auckland Town Hall301-305 Queen StreetAuckland

Auckland Future Vision Committee

OPEN AGENDA

MEMBERSHIP

Chairperson Mayor Len Brown, JPDeputy Chairperson Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse

Councillors Cr Anae Arthur Anae Cr Des MorrisonCr Cameron Brewer Cr Richard Northey, ONZMCr Dr Cathy Casey Cr Calum PenroseCr Sandra Coney, QSO Cr Dick QuaxCr Alf Filipaina Cr Noelene Raffills, JPCr Hon Chris Fletcher, QSO Cr Sharon Stewart, QSMCr Michael Goudie Member Glen TupuhiCr Ann Hartley, JP Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBECr Mike Lee Cr Wayne WalkerMember Anahera Morehu Cr Penny Webster

Cr George Wood, CNZM

(Quorum 12 members)

Crispian FranklinCommittee Secretary

1 February 2012

Contact Telephone: (09) 373 6205Email: [email protected]: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz


2/116


3/116


07 February 2012

Page 3

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 Apologies 5

2 Declarations of Interest 5

3 Confirmation of minutes 5

4 Petitions 5

5 Public Input 5

6 Local Board Input 5

7 Extraordinary Business 5

8 Notices of Motion 6

Reports of Chief Executive

9 Draft Economic Development Strategy Submission Summary and Hearing

Process 7

10 Area Plan Programme - Sequence and Governance 27

11 The Draft City Centre Masterplan - Hearings Process 49

12 Tikapa Moana/Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan Governance Options

53

13 Council's Submission to the Productivity Commission's Draft Report on

Housing Affordability 75

14 Recommendation from the Environment and Sustainability Forum 77

15 Consideration of Extraordinary Items


4/116


5/116


07 February 2012

Page 5

1 Apologies

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

2 Declaration of interest

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

3 Confirmation of minutes

That the minutes of the Auckland Future Vision Committee held on Wednesday 19 October2011 and the minustes of the extraordinaory Auckland Future Vision Committee held onWednesday 2 November 2011 be confirmed as true and correct records of the meeting.

4 Petitions

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

5 Public Input

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

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

6 Local Board Input

Standing Order 3.22 provides for Local Board Input. The Chairperson (or nominee of thatChairperson) is entitles to speak for up to five (5) minutes during this time. TheChairperson of the Local Board (or nominee of that Chairperson) shall wherever practical,give two (2) days notice of their wish to speak. The meeting Chairperson has the discretionto decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders.

This right is in addition to the right under Standing Order 3.9.4 to speak to matters on the

agenda.

At the close of the agenda no requests for local board input had been received.

7 Extraordinary business

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

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

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

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


6/116


07 February 2012

Page 6

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

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

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

8 Notices of Motion

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


7/116

Item9


07 February 2012

Draft Economic Development Strategy Submission Summary and Hearing Process Page 7

Draft Economic Development Strategy SubmissionSummary and Hearing ProcessFile No.: CP2012/00385

Executive SummaryThis report provides a summary of submitters feedback on the draft economic developmentstrategy (EDS), and recommends a process for hearing oral submissions to the EDS, including arecommendation on Councillors to be on the hearings panel.

On the request of the Economic Forum, officers have sought advice on whether Local Boardmembers are able to form part of the Hearing Panel for the Economic Development Strategy. It isclear that decision making for regional strategies, plans and policies resides with the GoverningBody (as per the allocation of non-regulatory decision making). There is not a clear legal positionor answer to the question of whether local boards can have a role in hearing submissions onregional strategies and plans. Principles of good governance indicate that parties which have

made a submission on a matter should not then hear that matter. This precludes 8 local boardsfrom being represented on the hearings panel. Officers propose a process which provides all localboards a further final opportunity to engage on the draft EDS during the hearings phase, ratherthan provide for limited local board representation on a hearings panel.

It is also proposed that the Auckland Future Vision Committee invite the Chairman of theIndependent Maori Statutory Board to nominate a member of the board to sit on the hearingspanel for the draft economic development strategy.

Consultation on the draft EDS occurred between 20 September and 31 October, 2011. Duringthis period a number of consultation activities took place together with the draft Auckland Plan,City Centre Masterplan and Waterfront Plan. Two hundred and seven submissions were received

on the draft EDS, and approximately 30% of submission points received via the draft AucklandPlan process were on the economy section of the draft Auckland Plan, which provides theoverarching strategic framework for the EDS.

Submissions have generally been supportive of the EDSs strategic directions and actions, withsubmissions seeking clarification on actions, prioritisation and funding.

To date, 70 EDS submitters have registered their interest in being heard. Councillors have threedays scheduled in their diaries for hearings on the EDS. It is proposed, that similar to submitterfeedback sessions on the Waterfront Plan, each EDS submitter (person or group) would be given10 minutes to present their feedback, with 5 minutes for questions.

The EDS will be finalised in the second quarter of 2012 following council adoption of the AucklandPlan. This timing also allows for stronger alignment with the governments economic agenda,which is due to be refreshed in February 2012.


8/116

Item9


07 February 2012


Recommendation/sa) That the report be received.

b) That the Auckland Future Vision Committee endorse a panel of six Councillors tohear submitters on the draft economic development strategy and makerecommendations to the Auckland Future Vision Committee. The Councillors being:

Cr Arthur Anae (Chair), Cr Cameron Brewer, Cr Dr Cathy Casey, Cr George Wood,Cr Christine Fletcher and Cr Des Morrison.c) That the Auckland Future Vision Committee Chair appoint Councillor Anae as the

chair of the hearings panel and that the Chair be given the delegation to make anysubstitute appointments if members become unavailable.

d) That the Auckland Future Vision Committee invites the Chairman of theIndependent Maori Statutory Board to nominate a member of the board to sit on thehearings panel for the draft economic development strategy.

e) That the Auckland Future Vision Committee endorse the proposed process outlinedin this report which provides local boards with a further final opportunity to engageon the draft economic development strategy during the hearings phase.

f) That this report be referred to all local boards for their information.

g) That this report be referred to all Council Advisory Panels and to the IndependentMaori Statutory Board.

BackgroundIn August, the Auckland Future Vision Committee (AFVC) endorsed the draft EDS and approvedits release for public consultation between 20 September and 25 October 2011.

A summary of the submissions received on the draft EDS was presented to the EconomicDevelopment Forum at its December 2011 meeting. The Economic Development Forum resolvedthe following:

b) That the Council officers report to the February meeting of the Auckland Future VisionCommittee on a proposed process for hearing the submissions to the EconomicDevelopment Strategy, including a recommendation on which Councillors could hear thesubmissions.

c) That officers report to the February meeting of the Auckland Future Vision Committee onwhether legislatively local board members are able to form part of the Hearing Panel forthe Economic Development Strategy.

Decision Making

Proposed hearing processTo date, 70 submitters have registered their interest in being heard. Consideration has beengiven to the most appropriate process to hear these submitters, and whether a traditional hearingformat versus the workshop format undertaken for the draft Auckland Plan is more suitable. Inreviewing the experience with the Auckland Plan, it was evident that corporate/businesssubmitters tended to elect for the more traditional hearing process. The majority (90%) ofsubmitters to the draft EDS, who wish to be heard, can be defined as either corporate or business(e.g. Chamber of Commerce, Auckland Airport). A number of these submitters have alreadypresented submissions to the Auckland Plan and elected the traditional hearing format to do so.The traditional hearing format is therefore much more likely to suit these people/organisations.

Three days have been scheduled in Councillors diaries for hearings to be held on the draft EDS.

These being:- Monday, 19 March 2012- Wednesday, 21 March 2012- Monday, 26 March 2012


9/116

Item9


07 February 2012


Wednesday, 28 March 2012 has been scheduled as an interim direction-setting meeting to aidcontent development for the deliberations meeting scheduled for Monday, 21 May 2012. It mayalso provide some additional time for hearings if required. The aim of this meeting is to determinewhether any further investigations are required by officers to help Councillors in their finaldeliberation on the draft EDS on the 21 May.

It is proposed that a sub committee of the Auckland Future Vision Committee is established tohear submissions on the draft EDS. The sub committee could comprise of the following members:Cr Arthur Anae (Chair), Cr Cameron Brewer, Cr Dr Cathy Casey, Cr George Wood, Cr ChristineFletcher and Cr Des Morrison.

It is proposed that the following hearing process is used:

1. each EDS submitter (person or group) is given 10 minutes to present their feedback, with 5minutes for questions. This is similar to submitter feedback sessions on the WaterfrontPlan.

2. the role of the panel is to hear submissions and ask questions on matters of clarification.

3. hearings will be held in the Council Chamber from 10:00 am to 5:00 pm, with the lasthearing being scheduled for 4:30.4. following the completion of each hearings forum, the records taken by the recorders will

be collected and collated. A covering report/memorandum will be produced outlining thethemes, issues, recommendations for amendment, etc.

5. this report be provided to the panel to inform deliberations on the draft EDS. It will alsoformally record the attendees and will ask the panel to receive the submissions andoutputs of the hearing forum (report) to ensure transparency in the decision makingprocess. This report will be additional information and should be read alongside thesubmitters written submissions.

6. an interim meeting is held on the 28 March to identify issues or further areas of work forofficers to under take before final deliberations on the draft EDS.

7. deliberations are held by the panel on Monday 21 May.

Local Board InvolvementOfficers have sought advice from Legal Services on whether legislatively local board members areable to form part of the hearing sub-committee for the draft EDS, as per resolution (b) from theDecember 2011 Economic Development Forum meeting.

Decision making for regional strategies, plans and policies resides with the Governing Body (asper the allocation of non-regulatory decision making). However, in terms of whether local boardscan have a role in formally hearing submissions on regional strategies and plans, there is not astrict legal position or answer.

Eight local boards made formal submissions on the draft EDS, of which three local board wish tobe formally heard. As a general principle of good governance, parties which have made asubmission on a matter should not then hear that matter. This would rule out the 8 local boardsfrom being able to nominate members for potential local board representation on the hearingssub-committee.

Given the above, rather than provide for local board representation on the hearings sub-committee, a process is proposed that provides all local boards a further and final opportunity toengage on the draft EDS during the hearings phase. This is in addition to the earlier engagementwith local boards in the development of the draft EDS, which has included; an update report to alllocal board meetings on process and timings for development of the draft strategy (July 2011), aworkshop with the Economic Development Forum on the draft EDS to which local board chairswere invited (July 2011) and workshops with each individual local board on the draft EDS(September-October 2011). Officers sent back to each board the notes from these workshop


10/116

Item9


07 February 2012


sessions, with some local boards electing to use these notes as their formal submission on thedraft EDS.

In recognition of the co-governance model, the three local boards that wish to be formally heardcould be accorded a half hour presentation window, which is greater than the 15 minutesaccorded to the other submitters. On the third day of hearings, a two hour workshop style sessionis proposed for local boards with the hearings sub-committee members, which any local board canattend and raise any further feedback on the draft EDS. Other local boards which madesubmissions, but do not wish to be formally heard can also attend this session. The workshop islikely to be structured around the 5 strategic directions of the draft EDS. The notes from thisworkshop session will provide additional technical information to assist in finalising the EDS andwill not constitute a formal submission.

Finalising the Economic Development StrategyThe final EDS will be brought to the Auckland Future Vision Committee late in the second quarterof 2012 for adoption. This follows councils adoption of the Auckland Plan and will allow the EDSto include any amendments made to the Auckland Plan as a result of councils deliberationprocess and feedback from the EDS informal hearings process. It also provides an opportunity to

reflect changes to central governments Economic Agenda, expected in February 2012.

Significance of DecisionThe draft EDS will set the regional direction for economic development initiatives in the region andwithin the region. As such, it is a key guiding document for the council, local boards and councilcontrolled organisations.

Maori Impact StatementSubmissions from eight iwi/hapu have been received on the draft EDS. In general, iwi/hapuwanted greater recognition in the EDS of the role of mana whenua and iwi/hapu in the economic

development actions. Many iwi felt that there had not been enough work done on collaborationaround Maori economic development, but believed local government had a facilitating, partneringand investment role. They also considered that there were a number of existing and newinterventions available to facilitate Maori as an economic powerhouse, and sought an effectiverelationship with Council.

Iwi generally supported the principles in the draft EDS, but wanted stronger focus on the Treaty ofWaitangi, the role of Maori in decision making and better alignment with the Auckland Plan in thisarea. A number of iwi specifically requested targets that monitor equitable distribution, meaningfulemployment and progress indicators for Maori well-being.

It is recommended that of the Chairman of the Independent Maori Statutory Board (IMSB), be

invited to nominate a member of the board to sit on the hearings panel for the draft EDS.

Local Board ViewsOfficers are proposing to implement a process which provides all local boards a further finalopportunity to engage on the draft EDS during the hearings phase. This is in addition to theearlier engagement with local boards in the development of the draft EDS, outlined earlier in thisreport.

In recognition of the co-governance model, the three local boards that wish to be formally heardon their submission will be accorded a half hour presentation window. This is greater than the 15minutes accorded to the other submitters. On the third day of hearings, officers propose there willbe a two hour workshop style session exclusively for local boards with the hearings sub-committeemembers, which any local board can attend and raise any further feedback on the draft EDS.


11/116

Item9


07 February 2012


ConsultationOn 17 August 2011 the councils Auckland Future Vision Committee endorsed the release of thedraft EDS for public consultation from 20 September, alongside the draft Auckland Plan, EDS, CityCentre Masterplan and Waterfront Plan.

During the EDS consultation period activities were coordinated and integrated with plannedengagement on the Auckland Plan, City Centre Masterplan and Waterfront Plan. This was tomaximise opportunities, avoid duplication and consultation fatigue. Activities included:

Hui with mana whenua and mataawaka

City Centre Masterplan and Waterfront Plan corporate and property stakeholder briefings Public roadshow at selected transport hubs, malls, shopping centres and markets Library and service centre displays Media campaign including radio and online (website, social media) communications

EDS specific activities included:

Advisory panel presentations Business, Rural, Pacific, Ethnic, Youth, Heritage

21 local board workshops Local board hosted community workshops e.g. Howick business breakfast, Orakei business

meeting Auckland Chamber of Commerce Table Top Expo Promotion via Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (ATEED)

communication channels and local offices (Enterprise Waitakere, Enterprise North Shore,Enterprise Manukau)

Targeted stakeholder meetings e.g. Pacific Business and Economic Development LeadersForum, Committee for Auckland

One-on-one meetings with EDS lead agencies and potential partners e.g. central government,EMA, Capable Auckland

Ethnic Businesses and Ethnic Business Associations

207 submissions were received on the draft EDS. A summary of the submissions is provided inAppendix 2.

Of the 207 submissions, 63 submissions were made via the online feedback form with most of theremaining received via email and written responses. Online submissions were largely made fromindividuals, while email and written submissions tended to be from organisations and businesses.A list of the organisations who submitted is provided in Appendix 3.

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

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

Implementation Issues

The traditional style hearing is a procedure familiar to council and will be executed based onprevious experience.


12/116

Item9


07 February 2012


Attachments

No. Title Page

A Summary of EDS submission 13

B APPENDIX 2: List of submitters who wish to be heard 21

C APENDIX 3 List of submitters/organisations 23

SignatoriesAuthors Claire Gomas

Project Leader Economic Development Strategy

uthorisers Harvey Brookes

Manager Economic Development

Roger Blakeley

Chief Planning Officer


13/116

AttachmentA

Item9


07 February 2012


Attachment 1: Summary of EDS Submissions

Summary of online submissionsThe online submission form asked submitters whether they agreed or disagreed with theeconomic priorities for Auckland, as a whole, in the draft EDS, and then which priorities should the

Auckland Council focus on (rating them from 1 most important to 5 least important). Responsesare provided in the table below.

Strategic Direction (Priority area) Auckland Priority(Agree)

AucklandCouncils areaof focus (mostimportant and

important)SD1 Business Friendly and Well Functioning City 67% 51%SD2 Innovation Hub of the Asia-Pacific 49% 20%SD3 Internationally connected and export driven 46% 24%

SD4 Invest in Skills and Local Workforce 71% 60%SD5 Vibrant Creative World City 62% 44%

Submitters thought that investing in skills and local workforce were the most important priority todeliver economic growth and development for Auckland, and the key focus area for Council.Developing a business friendly and well functioning city were also considered important for bothAuckland and Auckland Council, followed by a vibrant and creative world city.

Submitters were also given the opportunity to comment on the overall EDS and their commentsare included in the analysis below.

Summary of EDS submissions

General commentsSubmitters were on the whole supportive of the draft EDS, its strategic directions and cross cuttingthemes. There was broad agreement that Aucklands future lies in being a more outward-looking,productive and high value economy. Skills and local workforce priorities were consideredimportant for improved productivity and employment opportunities by most submitters.

While offering support, the majority of submitters took the opportunity to provide consideredsuggestions on areas where greater recognition or focus could be given. This was particularly withregard to identifying key players, structural enablers and their role in the economy (ports, airports,universities, local town centres etc), as well as additional action areas within the strategy. Some

noted that the key challenge would be implementation of the strategy, and the ability tocollaborate, align and integrate all the players. A number suggested that the Auckland Councilbuild on existing collaborative efforts to achieve this, while others suggested ideas such aspromoting Auckland Inc approach. Funding and prioritisation, in terms of implementing, were alsoareas where submitters sought more information.

Less than five per cent of submitters opposed the draft EDS, either in full or part. Opposition wasbased on a view that the draft EDS was too city/CBD centric. In some cases, confusion isapparent amongst submitters, with the timing of the release of the draft EDS along with the CityCentre and Waterfront Masterplans creating an impression that the city centre was Councilsprimary area of focus.

Other criticisms of the draft EDS was that it was too vague, that it repeated past policies anddirections and did not go far enough to reduce inequalities or provide new thinking. Some


14/116

AttachmentA

Item9


07 February 2012


submitters noted that not enough attention had been paid to the global context, and pressuresarising in the future from pressures on fuel and energy supply.

A number of submitters also commented on the need for a clearer understanding of the role ofCouncil and its Council Controlled Organisations, in particular ATEED, with some submitters

seeking stronger direction in the draft EDS for these CCOs.

Goals, Targets and MeasuresThere were mixed views on the draft EDS economic goals and the ability to achieve these,particularly the GDP goal given recent global economic activity and Aucklands ability to driveproductivity. However, many submitters recognised that they were aspirational and ambitious, andsome submitters considered them to be achievable (with the exception of the GDP goal). Theynoted, however, that this would require commitment and significant investment and wanted to seeevidence of this in councils planning.

Some submitters took the opportunity to suggest alternative indicators and measures, such as agenuine progress indicator, employment statistics for Maori and Pacific Peoples and air service

capacity and air links rather than air passengers.

Inter-regional planning and connectionsA number of submitters supported the Upper North Island Strategic Alliance (UNISA) and the needfor greater integrated planning that considers cross-boundary opportunities and issues. This wasparticularly in the areas of planning for complementary business land specialisation and workingwith our neighbours to add value in the supply chain. Inter-regional planning and the provision forfreight movements were considered critical for growing our export capability and to achieve ourgoals. These submitters wanted to see a greater emphasis in the EDS on improved collaborationaround infrastructure planning, provision and maintenance, including freight planning, water, fuelenergy and electricity. Infrastructure providers in these areas wanted recognition as partners.

Southern InitiativeThere was support for the Southern Initiative. Some submitters wanted to see its scope extendedto include economic activity, recognising the NZ Food Innovation centre, its role as a gateway fortourism, the potential for sustainable activity using the Manukau Harbour, and opportunities forbetter integration of education services with business and industry in the area. Others noted thatthe success of the Southern Initiative would be measured by the extent to which Maori and Pacificpeoples living standards rose in the area.

Town Centres, BIDs and Local and Community Economic DevelopmentA number of town centre organisations took the opportunity to note that the EDS was light on theimportant role of town centres to Aucklands economy. They noted the importance of tourism/localevents, streetscape improvements, community safety and security, parking provision andbroadband to their centres and to Aucklands economy. Many were worried that the classificationof centres within the Auckland Plan would affect investment and funding in their areas. These localcommunities felt they needed greater support from the Council, including provision of investment,funding and incentives.

Some submitters also felt the EDS could say more about the importance of community economicdevelopment and the role Council could play in leveraging off this. They identified a number ofareas where Council could direct initiatives, such as social lending, asset transfer to communitybased organisations, provision of activities on council owned land, and the investment andfacilitation of local organisations, community led projects and social enterprise.

Feedback on Strategic Directions

SD1 A business friendly and well-functioning city


15/116

AttachmentA

Item9


07 February 2012


There was considerable support for the business friendly and well functioning city strategicdirection as a key enabler of economic growth and as a fundamental role for Council. There wasstrong agreement that the planning environment must provide certainty, flexibility and foresight forongoing business growth. Council must also provide clear, efficient and consistent council policies

for development, regulation and rates; and streamlined and timely regulatory and permitprocesses that reduce consenting delays and compliance costs.

A number of submitters sought support for incentives to attract business activities.

The provision, timing and release of greenfield industrial land was considered by many submittersas a priority area for council to focus on, along with protecting current industrial and businessareas. These submitters offered evidence to support this demand and felt that the draft EDS andAuckland Plan did not give enough attention to business land outside of corridors and centres.This was a concern, as they viewed that activity in these business areas was often moreproductive and growth in these areas is required to grow our economy.

There was considerable support for greater investment in a sustainable, efficient and integratedtransport system that includes improvements to public transport, rail, freight and ferry networks.Some submitters requested that the EDS provide certainty around the councils intentions forexpansion of the Ports of Auckland and consider specialised service provision for the Whangarei,Tauranga and Auckland ports.

Many submitters saw a role for council in providing better links with government and businessthrough ongoing consultation and collaboration. They considered that Council should provide theframework for how the Auckland Council group and business might collaborate and work togetherto champion and deliver the EDS goals and targets.

Rural submitters commented strongly that rural production should be the primary focus of rural

areas and that regulation of rural areas needed to be light handed. They expressed concern overcurrent rating policies, the need to balance environmental needs with economic, and felt that theEDS could be stronger in supporting the innovative capability of rural/niche activities and the roleof tourism in rural areas.

SD2 An innovation hub of the Asia-Pacific region

There was support for this strategic direction, in particular the need to establish stronger linkagesbetween research institutions, business and organisations and better relationships betweenresearch and commercialisation. A number of players, such as the universities wanted specificrecognition of their role and contribution in this area.

Some confusion is apparent amongst submitters around the concept of an innovation hub andclusters.

While there was support for the waterfront innovation centre, there was concern that this would beat the expense of other innovation hubs. As such, some submitters wanted greater recognition ofinnovation and innovative companies that emerge from business areas other than the CBD.

Other submitters, however, felt that there was a need for greater emphasis on developing the citycentre as the financial and business services centre for Auckland and New Zealand, and as anarea that attracts high value, knowledge based businesses rather than promoting it as aresidential area.

Several submitters supported enhancing innovation through diversity, and through particularsector development (marine, rural (including food) and science sectors).


16/116

AttachmentA

Item9


07 February 2012


SD3 Internationally connected and export driven

There was strong support for a shift to an export led economy, and agreement that increasingexports will require planning certainty and infrastructure investment to support sectors, clusters

and key exporting businesses. There was support for attracting international business and gainingaccess to investment and distribution networks to enable greater internationalisation of Aucklandfirms, but more detail on who and how this would be achieved was requested. AucklandInternational Airport considered that Council had a role in facilitating air linkages and promotingAuckland as a hub between Asia and South America. They sought stronger wording to this effectin the EDS. Similarly, Ports of Auckland requested stronger recognition in the draft EDS on theirrole in achieving this strategic direction.

Some submitters supported increased collaboration between government, public agencies and theprivate sector to support the expansion of export industries where Auckland has a comparativeadvantage and that this would require incentives to change business behaviour.

Support for sectors and clusters was mixed, however, with some submitters supporting thepromotion of emerging, innovative, high value and competitive sectors. A number suggestedalternative sectors such as the equine, aquaculture and sport/recreation sectors. Others noted thatthe real productivity gains were not in the service sector but in advanced manufacturing and thatthis requires mores sustainable infrastructure planning and investment, and that this needed to bereflected in the EDS. They cautioned against picking sector winners.

There was general support for the role of migrant businesses and communities and the sister cityprogramme, whose experience and connections give Auckland a competitive edge. Others feltthat we could do more to make the most of Pacific connections and business opportunities andthat we needed to support and lead the development of international mindsets of local businesses.

SD4 Investing in people to grow skills and local workforce

There was strong support for skill and workforce development and recognition. That economictransformation in Auckland will require significant collaboration and investment in education andskills development, particularly for youth transitioning into the workforce and for Maori and PacificPeoples. Others, however, wanted greater recognition in the EDS on the importance of providinglow skilled jobs, and of the volunteer and public sector contributions to the economy.

There was strong agreement for common goals among education, business and governance to bedeveloped to address skill shortages and mismatch between skills supply and demand.

Some submitters felt that Council had a role to explore opportunities to support career educationand build employability by offering work experience and cadetships within council departments;and coordinate other similar programmes in the city.

Submitters supported the EDS focus on language, literacy and numeracy, life long learning, therole of local boards in this area, and the focus on migrants and need to retain skilled workers.

A few submitters thought that the EDS should address housing affordability and supply in order toattract and retain skilled workers.

SD5 Vibrant, creative world city

There was strong support for establishing Auckland as a destination, and recognition thatAuckland needs to leverage its physical attributes and build on its sporting, creative and culturalexperiences. Submitters agreed that Auckland must be an attractive visitor destination and that to


17/116

AttachmentA

Item9


07 February 2012


do this we would need to develop the infrastructure to support tourism, e.g. stadium, conferenceand event centres, ports and airports.

Several submitters felt that the tourism destination element within the strategy was too CBDfocussed and did not sufficiently acknowledge the contribution of other areas to Aucklands

tourism proposition, particularly the value of the rural areas. These submitters felt that there was aneed for local tourism to be given a stronger directive and that this should help direct ATEEDsactivities in this area.

A couple of submissions specifically identified the need for a Pacific business and cultural centre,and options to be explored for inter-regional/joint visitor packages to increase tourism options forAuckland visitors and boost visitor numbers.

Snapshot of feedback on the Auckland Plan Economy Section

At the time of writing, 1,972 submissions were received on the Auckland Plan with 564 (30 percent) of all submission points commenting on Aucklands Economy. As with feedback received

on the draft EDS, there is general support for the five economic priorities identified in the AucklandPlan. Submissions on Aucklands economy have focused more strongly on the spatial aspects ofbusiness activity and the provision of business land component in the Auckland Plan, or perceivedlack thereof; and councils role in improving the regulatory environment by streamlining processesand making it more cost effective. A number of submissions also commented on the importanceof ports to Aucklands economy and the need to ensure that the Southern Initiative had a strongereconomic development focus.

More detailed feedback on the economy section of the Auckland Plan will be provided to Councilvia the Auckland Plan submission/hearing feedback process.

Local Board ViewsThe majority of local board feedback on the EDS is closely aligned with the key themes discussedbelow in the consultation section. In general, local boards are supportive of the direction andintent of the draft EDS but on a whole, would like to see more detail and attention given to the roleand contribution of local economic development. This includes the role of town centres, localevents and local areas in attracting business investment and supporting the visitor economy.Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) and business associations were identified as key strategicdrivers and Auckland Council was seen to be well placed to use its purchasing power andregulatory functions to support local businesses and create local employment opportunities.

The concept of a business friendly and well functioning city was strongly supported by the localboards with improved public transport links identified as a high priority. Key improvements include

greater investment in the rail infrastructure, more bus connections across town and to the airportand increased ferry services.

The tension between creating a sustainable eco economy and continued economic growth wasnoted by some local boards, however many identified possibilities around green and cleantechnology and council procurement processes. Industries and employment growth wereconsidered important, however there were mixed views on which sectors should be supported dueto resource and infrastructure constraints.

More clarity is sought on economic strategies for rural areas.

Local boards strongly agree with the need for a greater focus on education, upskilling and young

people. There is support for council to champion life-long learning and to have more engagementwith education providers and tertiary education institutions, to address issues around youth


18/116

AttachmentA

Item9


07 February 2012


transition and pathways from school to higher education, training and employment. For somelocal boards, the draft EDS lacked emphasis on social infrastructure and outcomes, particularly forMaori and Pasifika.

There is considerable agreement that the Southern Initiative needs to have a stronger economic

development focus with commitment from central government. The southern local boards have astrong interest in being involved in the delivery of the Southern Initiative and suggest that localboard plans and existing forums, such as the Southern Strategic Group initiated by the Manurewaand Papakura local boards, be used as a basis and model for further planning andimplementation.

While it was widely agreed and accepted that a strong, effective and vibrant CBD is required forAuckland to become an international or world city, local boards would like to see a balancebetween CBD and local projects. Local tourism offerings such as Tiritiri Matangi, Matakana, theWaitakere Ranges and Hauraki Gulf Marine Park need greater recognition, support and inclusionin regional destination marketing initiatives; and arts, culture, heritage, the marine industry andeco tourism opportunities were identified as key points of difference for Auckland.


19/116

AttachmentA

Item9


07 February 2012



20/116


21/116

AttachmentB

Item9


07 February 2012


APPENDIX 2: List of submitters who wish to be heard

Submitter/Organisation

Accelerating Aotearoa Incorporated

Alec and Keith Smith

AMP Capital Property Portfolio LimitedASO LTD

Auckland Airport

Auckland Business Forum

Auckland Chamber of Commerce

Auckland Equine Group

Auckland University of Technology

Birkenhead Town Centre Association

Business and Housing Group Submission

C-Me Mentoring Foundation Trust

Comet

Computer Clubhouse TrustCarter Holt Harvey ltd

Counties Power Limited

DSI Ltd

Eden Park Trust

Environment Waikato Regional Council

Federated Farmers of New Zealand

GETBA

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

Holcim (New Zealand) Limited

Hunters Corner Town Centre Society Inc

Jenkin Timber Ltd

Kingsland Business Society Inc.Kiwi Computer Challenge

Manukau Central Business Association

Manukau Institute of Technology

Massey University

Matakana Coast Wine Country

McCallum Bros Ltd

Millennium & Copthorne Hotels New Zealand Limited

New Zealand Business Roundtable

New Zealand Council for Infrastructure Development

Ngati Tamaoho Trust

Ngati Whatua o Orakei Corporate Ltd

NZ Horse Recreation IncNZRPG Management Ltd

OMEGA

Orakei Local Board

Pacific Islands Board Auckland City

Ports of Auckland Limited

Puhoi to Pakiri Incorporated

Pukekohe Business Association

Rodney Local Board

Retail Holdings Ltd

Smales Farm Corporate Services Limited

Smart GrowthStevenson Group Limited


22/116

AttachmentB

Item9


07 February 2012


Strategic Property Advocacy Networks

Summerset Holdings Limited

Takapuna Beach Business Association

Te Hana Community Development Charitable Trust

Te Ora o Manukau

The New Zealand Ridesharing InstituteThe North East Coalition

The University of Auckland

Todd Property Group Limited

Waikato District Council

Waitakere Pacific Board Inc

Waiwera Valley Association

Wilson Hellaby Ltd

David Woods

John Kirikiri

Lloyd Morris

Noelene BucklandEwen Kahr Yu

Geoff Houtman


23/116

AttachmentC

Item9


07 February 2012


APPENDIX 3: List of submitters/organisations

Submitter/Organisation Accelerating Aotearoa IncorporatedAlec and Keith SmithAMP Capital Property Portfolio Limited

Andrew StewartAriadne Marinas Oceania Pty LtdASO LTDAuckland AirportAuckland Business ForumAuckland Chamber of CommerceAuckland Equine GroupAuckland International Airport LimitedAuckland University of TechnologyBank of New ZealandBilingual Pacific Leo CoalitionBirkenhead Town Centre AssociationBrowns Bay Business Association

Business and Housing Group SubmissionCareers New ZealandCarter Holt Harvey LimitedC-Me Mentoring Foundation TrustCometCommittee of AucklandComputer Clubhouse TrustCook Islands Development Agency New ZealandCooper and CompanyCounties Power LimitedCreative New ZealandDavid Forsyth and Associates Ltd.

Destination Orewa BeachDrury & Ramarama Protection Society IncDSI LtdEden Park TrustEllis GouldEmployers and Manufacturers Association (Nth) IncEnvironment Waikato Regional CouncilEnvirons Holdings TrustEthnic Peoples Advisory PanelFederated Farmers of New ZealandFirth Industries a Division of Fletcher Concrete & Infrastructure LtdFoodstuffs (Auckland) Limited

Future Proof Implementation CommitteeGETBAGreat Barrier Local BoardHeart of the CityHibiscus and Bays Local BoardHolcim (New Zealand) LimitedHunters Corner Town Centre Society InciGlobe Treasury ManagementJenkin Timber LtdKaipatiki Local BoardKingsland Business Society Inc.Kiwi Computer ChallengeMangere Town Centre

Manukau Central Business AssociationManukau Institute of TechnologyMassey UniversityMatakana Coast Wine Country


24/116

AttachmentC

Item9


07 February 2012


Matakana Village and Farmers MarketBrick Bay Wines and Sculpture TrailMcCallum Bros LtdMcConnell Property LimitedMillennium & Copthorne Hotels New Zealand LimitedNational Road CarriersNew Zealand Business Roundtable

New Zealand Council for Infrastructure DevelopmentNew Zealand GovernmentNew Zealand Steel LtdNgati Mauru Runanga and Te Patukirikiri IncorporatedNgati Paoa Trust BoardNgati Tamaoho TrustNgati Te Ata WaiohuaNgati Whatua O Orakei Corporate LtdNZ Horse Recreation IncNZ Marine Industry AssociationNZRPG Management LtdOMEGA

Onehunga Business AssociationOrakei Local BoardOrakei Local BoardPacific Islands Board Auckland CityPacific Peoples Advisory PanelPapatoetoe Central Main Street Society IncPapatuanuku Marae, Kura Kaupapa a Rohe o MangereParsons Int. LtdPhilips New ZealandPorts of Auckland LimitedPrimary FocusProgressive Enterprise LtdProperty Council New ZealandPuhoi Cottage Tea RoomsPuhoi to Pakiri IncorporatedPukaki Maori Marae CommitteeTe Akitai Waiohua Iwi AuthorityPukekohe Business AssociationReading Properties Mannukau LimitedRemuera Business AssociationRodney Local BoardSamson Corporation and Sterling Nominees LtdSealink Travel GroupSkills4WorkSmales Farm Corporate Services Limited

Smart GrowthSnells Beach RatepayersSt Heliers Village AssociationStevenson Group LimitedStrategic Property Advocacy NSummerset Holdings LimitedTakapuna Beach Business AsociationTe Ahiwaru of Makaurau MaraeTe Hana Community development Charitable TrustTe Kawerau Iwi Tribal AuthorityTe Ora o ManukauThe New Zealand Dance Company

The New Zealand Ridesharing InstitutueThe North East CoalitionThe Southern ConsortiumThe Trust Stadium


25/116

AttachmentC

Item9


07 February 2012


The University of AucklandThe WarehouseTodd Property Group LimitedTranspower New Zealand LimitedUNICEF NZUnitec Institute of TechnologyWaiheke Island Community Planning Group Inc

Waiheke Local BoardWaikato District CouncilWaitakere Ethnic BoardWaitakere Pacific Board IncWaitemata Local BoardWaiwera Valley associationWestfield (New Zealand) LimitedWhangarei District CouncilWilson Hellaby LtdWinstone AggregatesWorkbase: The New Zealand Centre for Workforce Literacy Development


26/116


27/116

Item1

0


07 February 2012

Area Plan Programme - Sequence and Governance Page 27

Area Plan Programme - Sequence and GovernanceFile No.: CP2012/00384

Executive Summary

The Committee considered a report at its September 2011 meeting regarding the preparation ofarea plans for the Auckland region.

Area plans are a non-statutory second tier of spatial planning for Auckland, applying thedirections and outcomes of the Auckland Plan at a local scale and reflecting the aspirations andoutcomes in Local Board Plans (where they are consistent with the direction set with the AucklandPlan). Accordingly, they provide a future framework for local board areas over a 20-30 yeartimescale, with an emphasis on land use and infrastructure elements that can be expected tofeature in these areas in the medium to long term.

The Committee endorsed the concept of preparing area plans at a local board scale and otheraspects of area plans including:

Principles for area plans; The connection of area plans to the Unitary Plan through the use of similar environments,

features and elements; The use of the area plan approach developed by the former Auckland City Councils Future

Planning Framework as a model for the development of area plans under AucklandCouncil;

The approach to community and stakeholder engagement hosted through the relevantlocal board, building on recent community engagement;

Support in-principle for a local board area sequence and programme for preparing 21 areaplans across Auckland, using criteria to assist the selection of the sequence.

The Committee also resolved that officers report back on feedback and any changes sought to thearea plans programme and sequence following local board reporting. This reporting wasundertaken through November and early December, with the resolutions together with officerresponses and action points shown in the schedule at Attachment 1.

In general there is wide support for the area plan concept and programme, and also a generallevel of comfort with the sequence proposed. Some adjustments have been made to the sequenceto take account of some local board feedback and resolutions, notably the moving forward in theprogramme of area plans for Kaipatiki and Whau local board areas, and the subsequent shiftsrequired to accommodate this. Many of the local boards in the Southern Initiative area believe thatplanning in the cluster of those boards would be beneficial. There are benefits in a more clustered

approach and changes in the sequence have been proposed accordingly.

This report seeks endorsement from the Auckland Future Vision Committee to a revised sequenceand programme for area plans, as a result of local board feedback. It also seeks endorsement to aproposed mechanism whereby the governing body as represented by relevant ward councillorsform a working group with (selected or all) local board members to oversee the preparation of thearea plan in the relevant local board area. This would exercise a joint co-governance approach toarea plans, but would not replace the formal reporting and endorsement of draft and final areaplans by the local board and the governing body through the Committee.

It should be noted that the programme has already commenced and work on the research andanalysis phase and local board engagement is underway for the first two area plans in the

Hibiscus and Bays and Mangere-Otahuhu local board areas. Both local boards support theprogramme starting in their areas.


28/116

Item10


07 February 2012


Recommendation/sa) That the report be received by the Auckland Future Vision Committee.

b) That the Auckland Future Vision Committee notes the resolutions and feedbackreceived from local boards during November and December on the proposed

sequence and programme for area plans, and the proposed response and actions,as contained in the schedule at Attachment 1.

c) That the Auckland Future Vision Committee endorses the following revised sequenceand programme for development of area plans across the region:

Stage Local Board Area(initial proposed position in sequence)

1 (1) Mangere-Otahuhu12 (2) Hibiscus and Bays3 (3) Devonport-Takapuna24 (5) Otara Papatoetoe5 (4) Henderson-Massey

6 (11) Kaipatiki

3

7 (10) Papakura

8 (8) Manurewa9 (6) Upper Harbour

4

10 (7) Franklin11 (9) Howick12 (12) Rodney

5

13 (17) Whau14 (13) Puketapapa15 (14) Albert Eden16 (15) Orakei

17 (16) Waitemata

6

18 (18) Maungakiekie-Tamaki19 (19) Waitakere Ranges20 (20) Waiheke

7

21 (21) Great Barrier

d) That the Auckland Future Vision Committee supports including Waterview as partof the area plan for the Albert-Eden local board area in stage 6 of the area plansprogramme, rather than commencing a plan specifically for Waterview (as resolvedat the Auckland Future Vision Committee meeting in September 2011).

e) That the Auckland Future Vision Committee supports a mechanism for local boardsand the governing body to engage directly throughout the preparation of particulararea plans, through establishment of a working group of relevant ward councillorsand nominated local board members to oversee the development of the area plan.

BackgroundAs reported to the Planning and Urban Design Forum and a working party set up to guide theestablishment of a programme, the preparation of new area plans is a tool that enables the councilto provide local level resolution of the Auckland Plan. Key features of area plans include:

Developed at local board area scale A non-statutory planning tool


29/116

Item1

0


07 February 2012


Provide a more local level of strategic direction derived from and aligned with the AucklandPlan

Reflect Local Board Plan aspirations and directions spatially and provide a strategic spatialframework for the area

An emphasis on land use elements such as type and density of development whileincorporating local board elements such as location of community facilities

Opportunity to spatially represent the local board area Include planned and aspirational initiatives Inform the Unitary Plan Include sequencing and prioritisation which will therefore assist with financial planning Enable integration of economic, environmental, social and cultural outcomes at a more

local level expressed in both text and map form Formed through engagement with the communities that can be hosted by the local board.

Earlier reporting to the Planning and Urban Design Forum and Auckland Future Vision Committeeconsidered options and proposed a preferred scale for area plans as a component of a widerplanning framework sitting below, and providing an implementation route for, the policies, prioritiesand direction in the Auckland Plan. An integrated three-tier approach to spatial planning has beenadopted for the region. The first tier being the highest level of planning in the Auckland Plan,reflected then by comprehensive area plans at a local board scale, then addressed and resolvedat a local place-based level by a range of local planning initiatives.

Area plan sequence criteria

A range of criteria were developed to inform the selection and sequencing of the area planprogramme as proposed to the Committee and to local boards. These criteria include (in order ofpriority):

The need for area planning to assist in the development of content for the Unitary Plan,

including whether there are the different environments of the region (rural, coastal,residential and business) represented early in the programme for area plan preparation, orwhere immediate planning work is required to inform the Unitary Plan;

The Auckland Plan (draft) direction, particularly areas identified as priorities for planningand investment or where significant infrastructure (for example transport) projects areproposed, where these initiatives and directions are seen as requiring integrated land useplanning;

The timing for other area planning processes (like the former Auckland City Council FuturePlanning Framework area plans) or legacy transformation projects which can inform areaplanning;

Whether other agencies have drivers for change that could benefit from alignment to anarea plan process, for example projects from Housing New Zealand or the New Zealand

Transport Agency; The degree to which the local areas chosen offer a reasonable geographic spread across

the region, also recognising the importance of balancing resource demands.

The existing area plans developed under the Future Planning Framework for the Aucklandisthmus are considered robust in terms of content and therefore they would only need to bereviewed, adapted and scaled up (e.g. to reflect local board areas). For this reason they arerecommended to be reviewed in the later stages of the area plan programme.

Following consideration of these factors, a sequence of local board areas was identified in aproposed programme of area planning. This sequence is contained in Attachment 2.

Following a discussion on the potential requirements of the development of area plans on localboards and their communities, the Auckland Future Vision Committee also resolved that extra


30/116

Item10


07 February 2012


staffing resources to facilitate the Area Plan development be quantified, along with a resolutionthat an Area Plan for Waterview be supported as part of stage 1.

Reporting to all local boards on the concept, approach and proposed programme for area planscommenced in early November and concluded in December 2011. A comprehensive agenda itemwas augmented by presentations by Area Spatial Planning team members on the key aspects ofarea plans, particularly relating to consultation and engagement proposals that would be informedand hosted by local boards.

Resolutions made at the local board meetings have been recorded in the schedule at Attachment1 along with officer response and actions resulting from these resolutions. The bold text is theresponse received from the local board regarding the position of their area in the sequence. Someboards resolved to provide feedback directly to the Committee.

Decision MakingRevised area plan sequence

In the November-December local board reporting round, recommendations sought local boardsupport for the preparation of area plans, and the provision of feedback to the Committee inrelation to the proposed sequence for developing the 21 area plans. Other feedback was invitedon the approach and programme for area plans in general.

The resolutions received from local boards are contained in Attachment 1. Analysis of thefeedback indicates general support for the proposed sequence. There were however somerequests for reconsideration of the sequence from some local boards, who wished to be movedforward in the programme for particular reasons or general concern as to the allocated place.

Of the local boards who requested this consideration, Kaipatiki Local Board gave reasons relatedto their concern that two significant projects were not considered in the comments indicatingpriority, i.e. the potential and long-planned Housing New Zealand redevelopment in NorthcoteCentral, and the planning for a third harbour crossing. For these reasons it is proposed to movethis plan forward from 11th to 6th in the programme, and from stage 5 to stage 3.

Waitemata Local Board considered that the area plan should be completed in time for thenotification of the Unitary Plan in early 2013. Given the start already made on the first two areaplans in the sequence, this will not be possible. Subsequent area plans will be considered forintroduction by way of changes to the Unitary Plan. The existing area plans from the formerAuckland City Council will form an important part of the discussions with the Waitemata LocalBoard concerning the Unitary Plan. For these reasons it is proposed that the Waitemata area planbe undertaken in stage 6 of the programme. This is consistent with the approach proposed for

other local boards where an area plan was recently prepared by the former Auckland City Councilfor all or part of the local board area.

The Whau Local Board also requested consideration of being moved forward in the programme. Itis possible to make some adjustment, proposed from 17th to 13th (moving up to stage 5 from stage6) in the programme, however because some of this area is covered by an existing area plan, it isconsidered not advisable to move the area plan development too much further forward anddetached from the review of the other existing Auckland City Council Future Planning Frameworkarea plans.

Adjustments have been made to the place of other local board areas in the sequence, to enablethese shifts as above. In addition, the Mangere-Otahuhu and Otara-Papatoetoe local boards

believe that clustering the development of the area plans in the Southern Initiative area would bebeneficial and would result in a speedier delivery in a contiguous manner. This is supported andchanges have been made to bring those area plans in the southern initiative area closer together.


31/116

Item1

0


07 February 2012


The Committee previously resolved to support an Area Plan for Waterview as part of stage 1because of the impact of State Highway 20. It is understood that the planning requested forWaterview is at a precinct level rather than at an area plan scale, and therefore moving the Albert-Eden area plan up the sequence would not achieve what the Committee envisaged. Waterview ispart of the Albert-Eden local board area which has an area plan under the Future PlanningFramework. In this respect the development of an updated and refreshed Albert-Eden area plan isproposed to be undertaken at the same time as the other local board areas with area plansdeveloped as part of the Future Planning Framework. There are various initiatives beingundertaken by the New Zealand Transport Agency and council under the conditions of the StateHighway 20 designation including an upgrade plan for Waterview Primary School and itsimmediate environment, open space restoration plans for a number of reserves includingWaterview and Allan Wood Reserve and Oakley Creek Esplanade, as well as Council ledlocalised planning processes for other reserves. In light of theses initiatives and the recentcompletion of an area plan by the former Auckland City Council it is recommended that thecommittee reconsiders its previous resolution to prepare an area plan for Waterview as part ofstage 1 on the area plans programme. It is also noted that preparing a new plan specificallyWaterview would have an impact on the ability to deliver various legacy area spatial planninginitiatives due to limited resources being available.

As a result of the proposed changes to the sequencing, the 7 stages remain, however the numberof area plans per stage has changed.

The proposed revised sequence is as follows:

Table 1: revised sequence and stages for area plans by local board

Stage Local Board Area(initial proposed position in sequence)

1 (1) Mangere-Otahuhu12 (2) Hibiscus and Bays

3 (3) Devonport-Takapuna24 (5) Otara Papatoetoe5 (4) Henderson-Massey

6 (11) Kaipatiki

3

7 (10) Papakura

8 (8) Manurewa9 (6) Upper Harbour

4

10 (7) Franklin11 (9) Howick12 (12) Rodney

5

13 (17) Whau

14 (13) Puketapapa15 (14) Albert Eden16 (15) Orakei17 (16) Waitemata

6

18 (18) Maungakiekie-Tamaki19 (19) Waitakere Ranges20 (20) Waiheke

7

21 (21) Great Barrier

It should be noted that while each stage will take approximately nine months, there will be anoverlap between the completion and final reporting of the previous stages area plans and the

commencement of new area plans.

Other key matters raised by local boards


32/116

Item10


07 February 2012


A wide range of other feedback has been received from local boards regarding the area plansprogramme. This is contained in Attachment 1, with responses and proposed actions listed.Overall, local boards are seeking recognition of Local Board Plans in area plans, the support to beprovided by local board services teams towards the plans and engagement processes. Feedbackwas also provided regarding the role of local boards in approving draft and final area plans.

Some local boards raise concerns about the area plan process, seeing that it may be prematurebefore the Auckland Plan is finalised and the scope of some key priorities (such as the SouthernInitiative) are clarified. Other local boards request for key town centre or precinct plans to beadvanced, before or alongside area plans, as these feature as priorities in their Local Board Plansor for their communities.

These comments and feedback have been noted and will be considered as the plan developmentprocess continues in general, and when each area plan is scoped and approached. It should alsobe noted that some local boards request that advanced engagement and preparation isconsidered well before the formal launch time for an area plan. This will be considered as part ofthe overall communications strategy for the area plans programme.

Proposed co-governance mechanism

Many local boards have made resolutions regarding their role in endorsing area plans for theirareas, but also requested a joint working arrangement with the governing body to consider thedevelopment of their area plan. This reflects the strategic and local nature of an area plan,whereby it translates the Auckland Plan directions into a local, more detailed context, and alsoreflects the key features and outcomes of Local Board Plans.

The mechanism proposed to recognise the dual-governance nature of area plan development isthe establishment of a working group involving the local ward councillor(s) for the area togetherwith nominated local board members. This working group would meet at least monthly through thepreparation of the area plan, and would involve workshops and discussions as the area plan

develops, particularly to review consultation input and emerging area plan content. They wouldalso have a role in advising the Committee and the full local board as to progress and theirperspective on the content and quality of the product being recommended.

The terms of reference of this working group would need to be defined and agreed by the groupearly in their tenure, including how often and when/where they meet, and the process ofengagement.

Significance of DecisionArea plans are a key mechanism to implement the Auckland Plan and enable greater levels of

detail in terms of outcomes and aspirations expected across the region. The commitment toundertake them is important to inform the development of the Unitary Plan and for informing futurelong term plans where facilities and items for capital investment may be required. Preparing themwill also require substantial buy-in across the council and Council Controlled Organisations, LocalBoards and communities.

Maori Impact StatementThe Independent Maori Statutory Board was represented on the working party of the Planning andUrban Design Forum, during the scoping phase on the area plan programme from June 2011. TheBoard will also be provided with an overview presentation and report on the confirmed programmeand proposed engagement strategy.

The process of engagement on area plans with mana whenua and matawaaka in the region isbeing developed in collaboration with the Maori Strategy and Relations Department. Theengagement approach proposed will be determined as a general approach across all area plans,


33/116

Item1

0


07 February 2012


but also more specifically with iwi and mataawaka related to each area. Area Plans willincorporate key relevant and agreed features of importance to iwi and mataa waka.

Local Board ViewsThere has been formal reporting of the area plan concept and proposed sequence to local boards.The resolutions of the November and December round of local boards has been featured in thisreport.

ConsultationConsultation and engagement with local communities and stakeholders has been a keyfundamental component of area spatial planning initiatives of the former councils. This is expectedto be the case for new area plans.

Financial and Resourcing Implications

The work of area spatial planning, both at a local/place based or precinct level, and also at thearea-wide level, is the responsibility of a dedicated team in the Regional and Local PlanningDepartment in collaboration with other parts of the council and Council Controlled Organisations.This will require ongoing resource and staff commitment to integrated planning approaches andproject management to coordinate activities. Targeted use of external resources for purposes ofconsultation, options development or research will be sourced from allocated budgets within theRegional and Local Planning Department.

It is expected the full programme of 21 area plans will take approximately four years to complete.This would be on the basis that each plan takes nine months to complete and that plans would bedeveloped in the sequence and at the rate identified in this report. Committing to the programmeproposed would involve a range of inputs and involvement from Auckland Council, CouncilControlled Organisations and other agencies to be successful. It is considered that thisprogramme can be managed within existing Council resource. It would be possible to preparearea plans sooner, however, this would require a significant reprioritisation of work and a reductionin the ability to service the legacy area spatial planning programme (a major priority for most localboards).

Out of each area plan will fall a range of actions that will need to be considered for funding as partof future Long Term Plan processes.

Legal and Legislative Implications

The requirement to plan for and manage growth, development and protection of the region isprovided through the Local Government (Auckland Amendment) Act 2004 and ResourceManagement Act 1991 (and amendments), often in tandem with the Regional Land TransportStrategy and Land Transport Programme requirements under the Land Transport ManagementAct.

Wider requirements of the promotion of the four well-beings as required in the Local GovernmentAct 2002 compel the Auckland Council to consider more local level place-based planning andimplementation to improve and manage quality of life and lifestyle choice, growth anddevelopment, employment opportunities, social cohesion etc, which are all considerations of goodplace-making.


34/116

Item10


07 February 2012


Implementation IssuesThe preparation of high quality and responsive area plans will require Council-mandatedapplication of resources and staff from across the organisation and beyond, to achieve anappropriate comprehensive place-based picture of the future for areas at the scale selected. Theplanning and delivery of new local town centre or precinct plans that stem from area plans willrequire agreements with delivery partners to manage the realisation of the outputs on the ground

or in other ways such as the Unitary Plan.

Attachments

No. Title Page

A Local Board Resolutions November December 2011 arising from genericreport Area Spatial Planning: Area Plans Programme

35

B Sequence Table 47

SignatoriesAuthor Michelle Hewitt Acting Manager Area Spatial Planning

Reviewer John Duguid Manager Plan Development

Authorisers Penny Pirrit Manager Regional and Local Planning

Dr Roger Blakeley Chief Planning Officer


35/116

AttachmentA

I

tem1

0


07 February 2012


Attachment 1: Local Board Resolutions November December 2011 arising fromgeneric report Area Spatial Planning: Area Plans Programme

Report recommendations adopted as Local Board resolutions by Local Boards as follows:

a) That the report be received.

b) That the local board supports the delivery of 21 area plans as set out in this report.

c) That the local board provides feedback to the Auckland Future Vision Committee inrelation to the proposed sequence for developing the 21 area plans, and also in relation tothe approach and programme for area plans as it wishes.

Additional or amended resolutions adopted by particular Local Boards, as follows:

Local Board and additional/amended resolution Response and action

Hibiscus & Bays Local Board

Meeting date 2 November 2011 (from resolution number HB/2011/40)

b) That the Hibiscus and Bays local board supports the delivery of 21area plans as outlined in the report and notes the following:

i) Local Board Plans are a part of the planning hierarchy asthey give effect to the Auckland Plan and identify thepriorities and direction of local communities;

ii) While area plans need to give effect to the Auckland Plan,they should also reference and give effect to the Hibiscus

and Bays Local Board Plan. In this, area plans can be amethod of working through any tensions between theAuckland Plan and the Local Board Plan.

c) That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board would like to workshopwith officers the proposed content of area plans as outlined in thereport.

d) That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board agrees with the proposedformat of area plans as outlined in the report and requests thefollowing matters be addressed as a priority so that:

i) The Area Plan process enables communities in theHibiscus and Bays Local Board area to fully participate inthe preparation of the area plan and the process to do thiswith the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board be confirmed as apriority;

ii) Support those specific communities, like Waiwera andStillwater, to develop their key inputs into the area planearly in the phase 1 stage and provide a pathway for theLocal Board Village planning at Campbells Bay.

e) That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board agrees with the proposedsequence of developing area plans as outlined in the report andsupport that the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board is one of the firstlocal boards to develop its area plans because of the priority

afforded to this area, and the analysis that supports the Local Boardselection due to its urban rural mix and coastal environment.

Noted

Noted

Workshop held

Noted and to be

addressed in process

Noted, to beaddressed in process

Noted - Supportive ofarea plan sequence


36/116

AttachmentA

I

tem10


07 February 2012


f) That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board agrees with the approachof developing area plans as outlined in the report, including theinvolvement on local boards in each of the phases. In particular:

i) The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board will support officers by

providing information and advice on interest groups withinthe area;

ii) The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board will provide support toofficers in the community engagement on the area plan;

iii) The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board should approve thedraft and final versions of the area plan;

g) That a joint working party of Hibiscus and Bays Local Board andGoverning Body members should be set up to consider thedevelopment of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board areas plan.

Noted

Noted

Noted and agreed aspart of approach

Noted and supportedby Working Groupproposal.

Great Barrier Local BoardMeeting date 7 November 2011 (from resolution number GBI/2011/248)

d) That the Great Barrier Local Board notes with concern the inclusionof much of Great Barrier Island as an indicative waahi tapuinvestigation area in the draft Auckland Plan and seeks furtherdiscussion with officers in regard to the impact of this on GreatBarrier.

Meeting date 5 December 2011 (from resolution number GBI/2011/313)

b) That the board stresses to the relevant Auckland Council

departments that it wishes to be involved at a very early stage inthe Area Spatial Planning for Great Barrier Island and that of theHauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Planning.

Noted. Refer toAuckland Plan team.No comment on areaplan sequence

Noted

Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board Planning Economic Development andEnvironment Committee

Meeting date 8 November 2011 (from resolution number MTPEE/2011/13)

a) That the Area Spatial Plan report be received, and that TanyaFleischer, Area Spatial Planner, and Gurv Singh, Planner - AreaSpatial Planning, Plan Development, be thanked for theirattendance.

b) That the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board provides feedback tothe Auckland Future Vision Committee, for decision in December2011, in relation to the proposed sequence for developing the 21area plans, and also in relation to the approach and programme forarea plans as follows:

i) That the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board supports thedelivery of 21 area plans as set out in this reportacknowledging that the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local BoardArea Plan currently comprises wholly or parts of theMaungakiekie, Tamaki and Otahuhu Future PlanningFramework plans from the legacy Auckland City Council onwhich the Maungakiekie and Tamaki Community Boards

engaged with their communities in 2009/10, and that theMaungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board Area Plan will be updated

Noted

Noted


37/116

AttachmentA

I

tem1

0


07 February 2012


in 3-4 years.

ii) That the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board notes theOnehunga town centre and suburban area as a priority growtharea in the draft Auckland Plan, and is well placed planning-wise due to the Onehunga and Church Street/Neilson Street

Precinct Plans, on which the Maungakiekie Community Boardengaged with their community, in 2009/10.

iii) That the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board expresses itsconcern that Tamaki town centres and suburban area as apriority growth area in the draft Auckland Plan, but has had noprecinct planning done by Council, and recommends that theAuckland Future Vision Committee make resources availableto ensure that this is done as soon as possible.

iv) That the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board considers it vitalthat the Auckland Plan has identified projects in the Onehungaand Tamaki town centres and suburban areas.

Noted

Noted Refer toAuckland Plan team,and for considerationby Committee

Noted Refer toAuckland Plan team.No comment on areaplan sequence

Upper Harbour Local Board

Meeting date 8 November 2011 (from resolution number UH/2011/78)

d) That the Upper Harbour Local Board requests that officers reportthe content and status of the Albany Structure Plan to the board.

Refer to ASP team.No comment on areaplan sequence

Kaipatiki Local Board

Meeting date 8 November 2011 (from resolution number KT/2011/4)

c) That the Kaipatiki Local Board advises the Auckland Future VisionCommittee to reconsider the sequence for developing the 21 Area

Plans. The Board also requests reconsideration of the approach andprogramme for the Area Plans, with a view to bringing forward theschedule for the Kaipatiki Area Plan from Stage 4, for the reasonsstated below:

i) That the Kaipatiki Local Board notes that the Northcote HousingNew Zealand plans and the Second Harbour Crossing have notbeen considered in the Area Plan Development Sequenceevaluation.

ii) That the Kaipatiki Local Board requests that the scheduling of theKaipatiki Local Board area plan be reviewed to take into account:the Housing New Zealand plans for Northcote, and the SecondHarbour Crossing and its approaches.

d) That the Kaipatiki Local Board agrees with the approach ofdeveloping area plans as outlined in the report, including theinvolvement of local boards in each of the phases. In particular:

i) The local board should provide advice to officers aroundstakeholder and interest groups within the area.

ii) The local board should lead/facilitate community engagement onthe area plan.

iii) The local board should approve the draft and final versions of thearea plan.

iv) A joint working party of local board and governing body membersshould be set up to consider the development of each area plan.

Noted proposebringing Area Plan

forward in sequence

Noted

Noted

Noted and agreed aspart of approachNoted and supportedby Working Group

proposal


38/116

AttachmentA

I

tem10


07 February 2012


Waitemata Local Board

Meeting date 8 November 2011 (from resolution number WTM/2011/279)

b) That Lisa Roberts, Planner and Susan Ensor, Principal Area SpatialPlanner be thanked for their attendance.

c) That the Board notes that the City Centre Masterplan and WaterfrontMasterplan will have significant impacts on the community and onspatial development within the Waitemata Local Board area.

d) That the Waitemata Local Board notes that the Waitemata area planis in stage five of the work plan.

e) That the Board only supports the delivery of the 21 area plans as setout in the report if the Waitemata Area Plan is completed before theUnitary Plan notification in 2013.

f) The Board considers it an unacceptable outcome for the UnitaryPlan to be notified without completion of the Waitemata Area Plan.

g) That there are two distinct and separate parts to the Waitemata AreaPlan; first the City Centre/City Fringe and Newmarket MetropolitanCentre, and secondly, the urban villages, including the residentialparts of the urban village of the City Fringe and the remainingsuburban parts of Waitemata. These two distinct communities are tobe treated separately in engagement processes.

h) That the Waitemata Local Board Heritage, Urban Design andPlanning portfolio holders will host a workshop with Planning Policyofficers February 2012 to discuss the former Auckland City CouncilsFuture Planning Framework as it applies to our local board area, andthat any matters overlooked, missed or deleted are corrected andnew documents amended up before community engagement begins.

i) That the Waitemata Local Board host engagement with ourcommunities and lead the recommendations that flow from theengagement.

j) That Planning officers involved in the community engagement havea direct relationship with the Board Heritage, Urban Design and

Planning portfolio holders and Board Chair during the engagementand drawing up the final recommendations.

k) That the Waitemata Local Board meet jointly with the GoverningBody in development and consideration of the final form of the AreaPlan in Waitemata.

l) That the detailed regulatory plan which details the heritage,intensification and ecological issues such as rules, criteria andincentives as they apply in the Waitemata Local Board area plan becompleted in consultation with the Waitemata Local Board.

Noted

Noted

Noted it will not bepossible to undertakeand complete this AreaPlan in time fornotification of UnitaryPlan, and it isproposed to keep in

similar sequence dueto being reviewedtogether with otherexisting formerAuckland City Councilarea plans

Noted

Noted and to befollowed up by ASPtea

Documents

auckland future vision agenda #2