Auckland Future Vision Agenda #2

I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Auckland Future Vision Committee will be held on:
Date: Time: Meeting Room: Venue:
Tuesday 7 February 2012 12.30pm Reception Lounge Level 2 Auckland Town Hall 301-305 Queen Street Auckland
Auckland Future Vision Committee OPEN AGENDA

MEMBERSHIP Chairperson Deputy Chairperson Councillors Mayor Len Brown, JP Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse Cr Anae Arthur Anae Cr Cameron Brewer Cr Dr Cathy Casey Cr Sandra Coney, QSO Cr Alf Filipaina Cr Hon Chris Fletcher, QSO Cr Michael Goudie Cr Ann Hartley, JP Cr Mike Lee Member Anahera Morehu
Cr Des Morrison Cr Richard Northey, ONZM Cr Calum Penrose Cr Dick Quax Cr Noelene Raffills, JP Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM Member Glen Tupuhi Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE Cr Wayne Walker Cr Penny Webster Cr George Wood, CNZM
(Quorum 12 members) Crispian Franklin Committee Secretary 1 February 2012 Contact Telephone: (09) 373 6205 Email: crispian.franklin@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.
Auckland Future Vision Committee 07 February 2012 ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Apologies Declarations of Interest Confirmation of minutes Petitions Public Input Local Board Input Extraordinary Business Notices of Motion PAGE 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6
Reports of Chief Executive 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Draft Economic Development Strategy Submission Summary and Hearing Process Area Plan Programme - Sequence and Governance The Draft City Centre Masterplan - Hearings Process Tikapa Moana/Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan Governance Options 53 Council's Submission to the Productivity Commission's Draft Report on Housing Affordability Recommendation from the Environment and Sustainability Forum Consideration of Extraordinary Items 75 77 7 27 49
Page 3
Auckland Future Vision Committee 07 February 2012 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 making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have. 3 Confirmation of minutes That the minutes of the Auckland Future Vision Committee held on Wednesday 19 October 2011 and the minustes of the extraordinaory Auckland Future Vision Committee held on Wednesday 2 November 2011 be confirmed as true and correct records of the meeting.
Petitions At the close of the agenda no requests for 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. At the close of the agenda no requests for public input had been received.
Local Board Input Standing Order 3.22 provides for Local Board Input. The Chairperson (or nominee of that Chairperson) is entitles 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 3.9.4 to speak to matters on the agenda. At the close of the agenda no requests for local board input had been received.
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) (b) The local authority by resolution so decides; and The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-
Page 5
Auckland Future Vision Committee 07 February 2012 (i) (ii) The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.
Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states: Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,(a) That item may be discussed at that meeting if(i) That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and 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
(ii)
(b)
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.
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.
Page 6
Auckland Future Vision Committee 07 February 2012
File No.: CP2012/00385
Executive Summary
This report provides a summary of submitters feedback on the draft economic development strategy (EDS), and recommends a process for hearing oral submissions to the EDS, including a recommendation on Councillors to be on the hearings panel. On the request of the Economic Forum, officers have sought advice on whether Local Board members are able to form part of the Hearing Panel for the Economic Development Strategy. It is clear that decision making for regional strategies, plans and policies resides with the Governing Body (as per the allocation of non-regulatory decision making). There is not a clear legal position or answer to the question of whether local boards can have a role in hearing submissions on regional 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 boards from being represented on the hearings panel. Officers propose a process which provides all local boards a further final opportunity to engage on the draft EDS during the hearings phase, rather than provide for limited local board representation on a hearings panel. It is also proposed that the Auckland Future Vision Committee invite the Chairman of the Independent Maori Statutory Board to nominate a member of the board to sit on the hearings panel for the draft economic development strategy. Consultation on the draft EDS occurred between 20 September and 31 October, 2011. During this 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 Auckland Plan process were on the economy section of the draft Auckland Plan, which provides the overarching strategic framework for the EDS. Submissions have generally been supportive of the EDSs strategic directions and actions, with submissions seeking clarification on actions, prioritisation and funding. To date, 70 EDS submitters have registered their interest in being heard. Councillors have three days scheduled in their diaries for hearings on the EDS. It is proposed, that similar to submitter feedback sessions on the Waterfront Plan, each EDS submitter (person or group) would be given 10 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 Auckland Plan. This timing also allows for stronger alignment with the governments economic agenda, which is due to be refreshed in February 2012.
Draft Economic Development Strategy Submission Summary and Hearing Process
Page 7
Item 9
Item 9
Recommendation/s
a) b) That the report be received. That the Auckland Future Vision Committee endorse a panel of six Councillors to hear submitters on the draft economic development strategy and make recommendations 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. 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 any substitute appointments if members become unavailable. That the Auckland Future Vision Committee invites the Chairman of the Independent Maori Statutory Board to nominate a member of the board to sit on the hearings panel for the draft economic development strategy. That the Auckland Future Vision Committee endorse the proposed process outlined in this report which provides local boards with a further final opportunity to engage on the draft economic development strategy during the hearings phase. That this report be referred to all local boards for their information. That this report be referred to all Council Advisory Panels and to the Independent Maori Statutory Board.
c)
d)
e)
f) g)
Background
In August, the Auckland Future Vision Committee (AFVC) endorsed the draft EDS and approved its 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 Economic Development Forum at its December 2011 meeting. The Economic Development Forum resolved the following: b) That the Council officers report to the February meeting of the Auckland Future Vision Committee on a proposed process for hearing the submissions to the Economic Development Strategy, including a recommendation on which Councillors could hear the submissions. That officers report to the February meeting of the Auckland Future Vision Committee on whether legislatively local board members are able to form part of the Hearing Panel for the Economic Development Strategy.
c)
Decision Making
Proposed hearing process To date, 70 submitters have registered their interest in being heard. Consideration has been given to the most appropriate process to hear these submitters, and whether a traditional hearing format versus the workshop format undertaken for the draft Auckland Plan is more suitable. In reviewing the experience with the Auckland Plan, it was evident that corporate/business submitters tended to elect for the more traditional hearing process. The majority (90%) of submitters 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 already presented 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
Draft Economic Development Strategy Submission Summary and Hearing Process Page 8
Auckland Future Vision Committee 07 February 2012 Wednesday, 28 March 2012 has been scheduled as an interim direction-setting meeting to aid content development for the deliberations meeting scheduled for Monday, 21 May 2012. It may also provide some additional time for hearings if required. The aim of this meeting is to determine whether any further investigations are required by officers to help Councillors in their final deliberation on the draft EDS on the 21 May. It is proposed that a sub committee of the Auckland Future Vision Committee is established to hear 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 Christine Fletcher 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 5 minutes for questions. This is similar to submitter feedback sessions on the Waterfront Plan. the role of the panel is to hear submissions and ask questions on matters of clarification. hearings will be held in the Council Chamber from 10:00 am to 5:00 pm, with the last hearing being scheduled for 4:30. 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 the themes, issues, recommendations for amendment, etc. this report be provided to the panel to inform deliberations on the draft EDS. It will also formally record the attendees and will ask the panel to receive the submissions and outputs of the hearing forum (report) to ensure transparency in the decision making process. This report will be additional information and should be read alongside the submitters written submissions. an interim meeting is held on the 28 March to identify issues or further areas of work for officers to under take before final deliberations on the draft EDS. deliberations are held by the panel on Monday 21 May.
2. 3. 4.
5.
6. 7.
Local Board Involvement Officers have sought advice from Legal Services on whether legislatively local board members are able to form part of the hearing sub-committee for the draft EDS, as per resolution (b) from the December 2011 Economic Development Forum meeting. Decision making for regional strategies, plans and policies resides with the Governing Body (as per the allocation of non-regulatory decision making). However, in terms of whether local boards can have a role in formally hearing submissions on regional strategies and plans, there is not a strict legal position or answer. Eight local boards made formal submissions on the draft EDS, of which three local board wish to be formally heard. As a general principle of good governance, parties which have made a submission on a matter should not then hear that matter. This would rule out the 8 local boards from being able to nominate members for potential local board representation on the hearings sub-committee. Given the above, rather than provide for local board representation on the hearings subcommittee, a process is proposed that provides all local boards a further and final opportunity to engage on the draft EDS during the hearings phase. This is in addition to the earlier engagement with local boards in the development of the draft EDS, which has included; an update report to all local board meetings on process and timings for development of the draft strategy (July 2011), a workshop with the Economic Development Forum on the draft EDS to which local board chairs were 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
Item 9
Item 9
sessions, with some local boards electing to use these notes as their formal submission on the draft EDS. In recognition of the co-governance model, the three local boards that wish to be formally heard could be accorded a half hour presentation window, which is greater than the 15 minutes accorded to the other submitters. On the third day of hearings, a two hour workshop style session is proposed for local boards with the hearings sub-committee members, which any local board can attend and raise any further feedback on the draft EDS. Other local boards which made submissions, but do not wish to be formally heard can also attend this session. The workshop is likely to be structured around the 5 strategic directions of the draft EDS. The notes from this workshop session will provide additional technical information to assist in finalising the EDS and will not constitute a formal submission. Finalising the Economic Development Strategy The final EDS will be brought to the Auckland Future Vision Committee late in the second quarter of 2012 for adoption. This follows councils adoption of the Auckland Plan and will allow the EDS to include any amendments made to the Auckland Plan as a result of councils deliberation process 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 Decision
The draft EDS will set the regional direction for economic development initiatives in the region and within the region. As such, it is a key guiding document for the council, local boards and council controlled organisations.
Maori Impact Statement

Submissions from eight iwi/hapu have been received on the draft EDS. In general, iwi/hapu wanted 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 collaboration around Maori economic development, but believed local government had a facilitating, partnering and investment role. They also considered that there were a number of existing and new interventions available to facilitate Maori as an economic powerhouse, and sought an effective relationship with Council. Iwi generally supported the principles in the draft EDS, but wanted stronger focus on the Treaty of Waitangi, the role of Maori in decision making and better alignment with the Auckland Plan in this area. A number of iwi specifically requested targets that monitor equitable distribution, meaningful employment 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 Views

Officers are proposing to implement a process which provides all local boards a further final opportunity to engage on the draft EDS during the hearings phase. This is in addition to the earlier engagement with local boards in the development of the draft EDS, outlined earlier in this report. In recognition of the co-governance model, the three local boards that wish to be formally heard on their submission will be accorded a half hour presentation window. This is greater than the 15 minutes accorded to the other submitters. On the third day of hearings, officers propose there will be a two hour workshop style session exclusively for local boards with the hearings sub-committee members, which any local board can attend and raise any further feedback on the draft EDS.
Consultation
On 17 August 2011 the councils Auckland Future Vision Committee endorsed the release of the draft EDS for public consultation from 20 September, alongside the draft Auckland Plan, EDS, City Centre Masterplan and Waterfront Plan. During the EDS consultation period activities were coordinated and integrated with planned engagement on the Auckland Plan, City Centre Masterplan and Waterfront Plan. This was to maximise 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 Leaders Forum, 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 in Appendix 2. Of the 207 submissions, 63 submissions were made via the online feedback form with most of the remaining received via email and written responses. Online submissions were largely made from individuals, 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 Implications

There are no financial implications associated with this report.
Legal and Legislative Implications

There are no legal or legislative implications associated with this project.
Implementation Issues
The traditional style hearing is a procedure familiar to council and will be executed based on previous experience.
Page 11
Item 9
Attachments
Item 9
No. A B C
Title Summary of EDS submission APPENDIX 2: List of submitters who wish to be heard APENDIX 3 List of submitters/organisations
Page 13 21 23
Signatories
Authors uthorisers Claire Gomas Project Leader Economic Development Strategy Harvey Brookes Manager Economic Development Roger Blakeley Chief Planning Officer
Page 12
Attachment 1: Summary of EDS Submissions

Summary of online submissions The online submission form asked submitters whether they agreed or disagreed with the economic 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). Responses are provided in the table below. Strategic Direction (Priority area) Auckland Priority (Agree) Auckland Councils area of focus (most important and important) 51% 20% 24% 60% 44%
Submitters thought that investing in skills and local workforce were the most important priority to deliver 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 both Auckland 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 comments are included in the analysis below. Summary of EDS submissions General comments Submitters were on the whole supportive of the draft EDS, its strategic directions and cross cutting themes. 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 considered important for improved productivity and employment opportunities by most submitters. While offering support, the majority of submitters took the opportunity to provide considered suggestions on areas where greater recognition or focus could be given. This was particularly with regard 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 to collaborate, align and integrate all the players. A number suggested that the Auckland Council build on existing collaborative efforts to achieve this, while others suggested ideas such as promoting Auckland Inc approach. Funding and prioritisation, in terms of implementing, were also areas where submitters sought more information. Less than five per cent of submitters opposed the draft EDS, either in full or part. Opposition was based on a view that the draft EDS was too city/CBD centric. In some cases, confusion is apparent amongst submitters, with the timing of the release of the draft EDS along with the City Centre and Waterfront Masterplans creating an impression that the city centre was Councils primary area of focus. Other criticisms of the draft EDS was that it was too vague, that it repeated past policies and directions and did not go far enough to reduce inequalities or provide new thinking. Some
Attachment A
SD1 Business Friendly and Well Functioning City SD2 Innovation Hub of the Asia-Pacific SD3 Internationally connected and export driven SD4 Invest in Skills and Local Workforce SD5 Vibrant Creative World City
67% 49% 46% 71% 62%
Item 9
Auckland Future Vision Committee 07 February 2012 submitters noted that not enough attention had been paid to the global context, and pressures arising 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 of Council and its Council Controlled Organisations, in particular ATEED, with some submitters seeking stronger direction in the draft EDS for these CCOs. Goals, Targets and Measures There 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 drive productivity. However, many submitters recognised that they were aspirational and ambitious, and some submitters considered them to be achievable (with the exception of the GDP goal). They noted, however, that this would require commitment and significant investment and wanted to see evidence of this in councils planning. Some submitters took the opportunity to suggest alternative indicators and measures, such as a genuine progress indicator, employment statistics for Maori and Pacific Peoples and air service capacity and air links rather than air passengers.
Attachment A
Item 9
Inter-regional planning and connections A number of submitters supported the Upper North Island Strategic Alliance (UNISA) and the need for greater integrated planning that considers cross-boundary opportunities and issues. This was particularly in the areas of planning for complementary business land specialisation and working with our neighbours to add value in the supply chain. Inter-regional planning and the provision for freight movements were considered critical for growing our export capability and to achieve our goals. These submitters wanted to see a greater emphasis in the EDS on improved collaboration around infrastructure planning, provision and maintenance, including freight planning, water, fuel energy and electricity. Infrastructure providers in these areas wanted recognition as partners. Southern Initiative There was support for the Southern Initiative. Some submitters wanted to see its scope extended to include economic activity, recognising the NZ Food Innovation centre, its role as a gateway for tourism, the potential for sustainable activity using the Manukau Harbour, and opportunities for better integration of education services with business and industry in the area. Others noted that the success of the Southern Initiative would be measured by the extent to which Maori and Pacific peoples living standards rose in the area. Town Centres, BIDs and Local and Community Economic Development A number of town centre organisations took the opportunity to note that the EDS was light on the important role of town centres to Aucklands economy. They noted the importance of tourism/local events, streetscape improvements, community safety and security, parking provision and broadband to their centres and to Aucklands economy. Many were worried that the classification of centres within the Auckland Plan would affect investment and funding in their areas. These local communities 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 economic development and the role Council could play in leveraging off this. They identified a number of areas where Council could direct initiatives, such as social lending, asset transfer to community based organisations, provision of activities on council owned land, and the investment and facilitation of local organisations, community led projects and social enterprise. Feedback on Strategic Directions SD1 A business friendly and well-functioning city
Auckland Future Vision Committee 07 February 2012 There was considerable support for the business friendly and well functioning city strategic direction as a key enabler of economic growth and as a fundamental role for Council. There was strong agreement that the planning environment must provide certainty, flexibility and foresight for ongoing business growth. Council must also provide clear, efficient and consistent council policies for development, regulation and rates; and streamlined and timely regulatory and permit processes 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 submitters as a priority area for council to focus on, along with protecting current industrial and business areas. These submitters offered evidence to support this demand and felt that the draft EDS and Auckland 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 more productive and growth in these areas is required to grow our economy. There was considerable support for greater investment in a sustainable, efficient and integrated transport system that includes improvements to public transport, rail, freight and ferry networks. Some submitters requested that the EDS provide certainty around the councils intentions for expansion 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 business through ongoing consultation and collaboration. They considered that Council should provide the framework for how the Auckland Council group and business might collaborate and work together to 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 over current rating policies, the need to balance environmental needs with economic, and felt that the EDS could be stronger in supporting the innovative capability of rural/niche activities and the role of 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 linkages between research institutions, business and organisations and better relationships between research and commercialisation. A number of players, such as the universities wanted specific recognition of their role and contribution in this area. Some confusion is apparent amongst submitters around the concept of an innovation hub and clusters. While there was support for the waterfront innovation centre, there was concern that this would be at the expense of other innovation hubs. As such, some submitters wanted greater recognition of innovation 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 city centre as the financial and business services centre for Auckland and New Zealand, and as an area that attracts high value, knowledge based businesses rather than promoting it as a residential area. Several submitters supported enhancing innovation through diversity, and through particular sector development (marine, rural (including food) and science sectors).
Attachment A
Item 9
Auckland Future Vision Committee 07 February 2012 SD3 Internationally connected and export driven There was strong support for a shift to an export led economy, and agreement that increasing exports will require planning certainty and infrastructure investment to support sectors, clusters and key exporting businesses. There was support for attracting international business and gaining access to investment and distribution networks to enable greater internationalisation of Auckland firms, but more detail on who and how this would be achieved was requested. Auckland International Airport considered that Council had a role in facilitating air linkages and promoting Auckland as a hub between Asia and South America. They sought stronger wording to this effect in the EDS. Similarly, Ports of Auckland requested stronger recognition in the draft EDS on their role in achieving this strategic direction. Some submitters supported increased collaboration between government, public agencies and the private sector to support the expansion of export industries where Auckland has a comparative advantage and that this would require incentives to change business behaviour. Support for sectors and clusters was mixed, however, with some submitters supporting the promotion of emerging, innovative, high value and competitive sectors. A number suggested alternative sectors such as the equine, aquaculture and sport/recreation sectors. Others noted that the real productivity gains were not in the service sector but in advanced manufacturing and that this requires mores sustainable infrastructure planning and investment, and that this needed to be reflected in the EDS. They cautioned against picking sector winners. There was general support for the role of migrant businesses and communities and the sister city programme, whose experience and connections give Auckland a competitive edge. Others felt that we could do more to make the most of Pacific connections and business opportunities and that 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 economic transformation in Auckland will require significant collaboration and investment in education and skills development, particularly for youth transitioning into the workforce and for Maori and Pacific Peoples. Others, however, wanted greater recognition in the EDS on the importance of providing low 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 be developed 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 education and 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, the role 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 to attract and retain skilled workers. SD5 Vibrant, creative world city There was strong support for establishing Auckland as a destination, and recognition that Auckland needs to leverage its physical attributes and build on its sporting, creative and cultural experiences. Submitters agreed that Auckland must be an attractive visitor destination and that to
Attachment A
Item 9
Auckland Future Vision Committee 07 February 2012 do this we would need to develop the infrastructure to support tourism, e.g. stadium, conference and event centres, ports and airports. Several submitters felt that the tourism destination element within the strategy was too CBD focussed 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 a need for local tourism to be given a stronger directive and that this should help direct ATEEDs activities 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 for Auckland 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 per cent) 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 Auckland Plan. Submissions on Aucklands economy have focused more strongly on the spatial aspects of business activity and the provision of business land component in the Auckland Plan, or perceived lack thereof; and councils role in improving the regulatory environment by streamlining processes and making it more cost effective. A number of submissions also commented on the importance of ports to Aucklands economy and the need to ensure that the Southern Initiative had a stronger economic development focus. More detailed feedback on the economy section of the Auckland Plan will be provided to Council via the Auckland Plan submission/hearing feedback process. Local Board Views The majority of local board feedback on the EDS is closely aligned with the key themes discussed below in the consultation section. In general, local boards are supportive of the direction and intent of the draft EDS but on a whole, would like to see more detail and attention given to the role and contribution of local economic development. This includes the role of town centres, local events and local areas in attracting business investment and supporting the visitor economy. Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) and business associations were identified as key strategic drivers and Auckland Council was seen to be well placed to use its purchasing power and regulatory 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 local boards 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 airport and increased ferry services. The tension between creating a sustainable eco economy and continued economic growth was noted by some local boards, however many identified possibilities around green and clean technology and council procurement processes. Industries and employment growth were considered important, however there were mixed views on which sectors should be supported due to 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 engagement with education providers and tertiary education institutions, to address issues around youth
Attachment A
Item 9
Auckland Future Vision Committee 07 February 2012 transition and pathways from school to higher education, training and employment. For some local boards, the draft EDS lacked emphasis on social infrastructure and outcomes, particularly for Maori 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 a strong interest in being involved in the delivery of the Southern Initiative and suggest that local board plans and existing forums, such as the Southern Strategic Group initiated by the Manurewa and Papakura local boards, be used as a basis and model for further planning and implementation. While it was widely agreed and accepted that a strong, effective and vibrant CBD is required for Auckland to become an international or world city, local boards would like to see a balance between CBD and local projects. Local tourism offerings such as Tiritiri Matangi, Matakana, the Waitakere Ranges and Hauraki Gulf Marine Park need greater recognition, support and inclusion in regional destination marketing initiatives; and arts, culture, heritage, the marine industry and eco tourism opportunities were identified as key points of difference for Auckland.
Attachment A
Item 9
Page 18
Page 19
Attachment A
Item 9
APPENDIX 2: List of submitters who wish to be heard

Submitter/Organisation Accelerating Aotearoa Incorporated Alec and Keith Smith AMP Capital Property Portfolio Limited ASO 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 Trust Carter 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 Inc NZRPG 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 Growth Stevenson Group Limited
Page 21
Attachment B
Item 9

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 Institute The 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 Buckland Ewen Kahr Yu Geoff Houtman
Attachment B
Item 9
Page 22
APPENDIX 3: List of submitters/organisations

Submitter/Organisation Accelerating Aotearoa Incorporated Alec and Keith Smith AMP Capital Property Portfolio Limited Andrew Stewart Ariadne Marinas Oceania Pty Ltd ASO LTD Auckland Airport Auckland Business Forum Auckland Chamber of Commerce Auckland Equine Group Auckland International Airport Limited Auckland University of Technology Bank of New Zealand Bilingual Pacific Leo Coalition Birkenhead Town Centre Association Browns Bay Business Association Business and Housing Group Submission Careers New Zealand Carter Holt Harvey Limited C-Me Mentoring Foundation Trust Comet Committee of Auckland Computer Clubhouse Trust Cook Islands Development Agency New Zealand Cooper and Company Counties Power Limited Creative New Zealand David Forsyth and Associates Ltd. Destination Orewa Beach Drury & Ramarama Protection Society Inc DSI Ltd Eden Park Trust Ellis Gould Employers and Manufacturers Association (Nth) Inc Environment Waikato Regional Council Environs Holdings Trust Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel Federated Farmers of New Zealand Firth Industries a Division of Fletcher Concrete & Infrastructure Ltd Foodstuffs (Auckland) Limited Future Proof Implementation Committee GETBA Great Barrier Local Board Heart of the City Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Holcim (New Zealand) Limited Hunters Corner Town Centre Society Inc iGlobe Treasury Management Jenkin Timber Ltd Kaipatiki Local Board Kingsland Business Society Inc. Kiwi Computer Challenge Mangere Town Centre Manukau Central Business Association Manukau Institute of Technology Massey University Matakana Coast Wine Country
Attachment C
Item 9

Matakana Village and Farmers Market Brick Bay Wines and Sculpture Trail McCallum Bros Ltd McConnell Property Limited Millennium & Copthorne Hotels New Zealand Limited National Road Carriers New Zealand Business Roundtable New Zealand Council for Infrastructure Development New Zealand Government New Zealand Steel Ltd Ngati Mauru Runanga and Te Patukirikiri Incorporated Ngati Paoa Trust Board Ngati Tamaoho Trust Ngati Te Ata Waiohua Ngati Whatua O Orakei Corporate Ltd NZ Horse Recreation Inc NZ Marine Industry Association NZRPG Management Ltd OMEGA Onehunga Business Association Orakei Local Board Orakei Local Board Pacific Islands Board Auckland City Pacific Peoples Advisory Panel Papatoetoe Central Main Street Society Inc Papatuanuku Marae, Kura Kaupapa a Rohe o Mangere Parsons Int. Ltd Philips New Zealand Ports of Auckland Limited Primary Focus Progressive Enterprise Ltd Property Council New Zealand Puhoi Cottage Tea Rooms Puhoi to Pakiri Incorporated Pukaki Maori Marae Committee Te Akitai Waiohua Iwi Authority Pukekohe Business Association Reading Properties Mannukau Limited Remuera Business Association Rodney Local Board Samson Corporation and Sterling Nominees Ltd Sealink Travel Group Skills4Work Smales Farm Corporate Services Limited Smart Growth Snells Beach Ratepayers St Heliers Village Association Stevenson Group Limited Strategic Property Advocacy N Summerset Holdings Limited Takapuna Beach Business Asociation Te Ahiwaru of Makaurau Marae Te Hana Community development Charitable Trust Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority Te Ora o Manukau The New Zealand Dance Company The New Zealand Ridesharing Institutue The North East Coalition The Southern Consortium The Trust Stadium
Attachment C
Item 9

The University of Auckland The Warehouse Todd Property Group Limited Transpower New Zealand Limited UNICEF NZ Unitec Institute of Technology Waiheke Island Community Planning Group Inc Waiheke Local Board Waikato District Council Waitakere Ethnic Board Waitakere Pacific Board Inc Waitemata Local Board Waiwera Valley association Westfield (New Zealand) Limited Whangarei District Council Wilson Hellaby Ltd Winstone Aggregates Workbase: The New Zealand Centre for Workforce Literacy Development
Page 25
Attachment C
Item 9
File No.: CP2012/00384
Executive Summary
The Committee considered a report at its September 2011 meeting regarding the preparation of area plans for the Auckland region. Area plans are a non-statutory second tier of spatial planning for Auckland, applying the directions and outcomes of the Auckland Plan at a local scale and reflecting the aspirations and outcomes in Local Board Plans (where they are consistent with the direction set with the Auckland Plan). Accordingly, they provide a future framework for local board areas over a 20-30 year timescale, with an emphasis on land use and infrastructure elements that can be expected to feature in these areas in the medium to long term. The Committee endorsed the concept of preparing area plans at a local board scale and other aspects 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 Auckland Council; The approach to community and stakeholder engagement hosted through the relevant local board, building on recent community engagement; Support in-principle for a local board area sequence and programme for preparing 21 area plans 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 the area plans programme and sequence following local board reporting. This reporting was undertaken through November and early December, with the resolutions together with officer responses 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 general level of comfort with the sequence proposed. Some adjustments have been made to the sequence to take account of some local board feedback and resolutions, notably the moving forward in the programme of area plans for Kaipatiki and Whau local board areas, and the subsequent shifts required to accommodate this. Many of the local boards in the Southern Initiative area believe that planning 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 sequence and programme for area plans, as a result of local board feedback. It also seeks endorsement to a proposed mechanism whereby the governing body as represented by relevant ward councillors form a working group with (selected or all) local board members to oversee the preparation of the area plan in the relevant local board area. This would exercise a joint co-governance approach to area plans, but would not replace the formal reporting and endorsement of draft and final area plans 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 and analysis 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 the programme starting in their areas.
Area Plan Programme - Sequence and Governance
Page 27
Item 10
Item 10
Recommendation/s
a) b) That the report be received by the Auckland Future Vision Committee. That the Auckland Future Vision Committee notes the resolutions and feedback received 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. That the Auckland Future Vision Committee endorses the following revised sequence and programme for development of area plans across the region: Stage Local Board Area
(initial proposed position in sequence)
c)
1 2 3
1 (1) Mangere-Otahuhu 2 (2) Hibiscus and Bays 3 (3) Devonport-Takapuna 4 (5) Otara Papatoetoe 5 (4) Henderson-Massey 6 (11) Kaipatiki 7 (10) Papakura 8 (8) Manurewa 9 (6) Upper Harbour 10 (7) Franklin 11 (9) Howick 12 (12) Rodney 13 (17) Whau 14 (13) Puketapapa 15 (14) Albert Eden 16 (15) Orakei 17 (16) Waitemata 18 (18) Maungakiekie-Tamaki 19 (19) Waitakere Ranges 20 (20) Waiheke 21 (21) Great Barrier
d) That the Auckland Future Vision Committee supports including Waterview as part of the area plan for the Albert-Eden local board area in stage 6 of the area plans programme, rather than commencing a plan specifically for Waterview (as resolved at the Auckland Future Vision Committee meeting in September 2011). e) That the Auckland Future Vision Committee supports a mechanism for local boards and the governing body to engage directly throughout the preparation of particular area plans, through establishment of a working group of relevant ward councillors and nominated local board members to oversee the development of the area plan.
Background
As reported to the Planning and Urban Design Forum and a working party set up to guide the establishment of a programme, the preparation of new area plans is a tool that enables the council to 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
Page 28
Auckland Future Vision Committee 07 February 2012 Provide a more local level of strategic direction derived from and aligned with the Auckland Plan Reflect Local Board Plan aspirations and directions spatially and provide a strategic spatial framework for the area An emphasis on land use elements such as type and density of development while incorporating 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 Committee considered options and proposed a preferred scale for area plans as a component of a wider planning framework sitting below, and providing an implementation route for, the policies, priorities and direction in the Auckland Plan. An integrated three-tier approach to spatial planning has been adopted 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 resolved at 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 plan programme as proposed to the Committee and to local boards. These criteria include (in order of priority): 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, or where immediate planning work is required to inform the Unitary Plan; The Auckland Plan (draft) direction, particularly areas identified as priorities for planning and investment or where significant infrastructure (for example transport) projects are proposed, where these initiatives and directions are seen as requiring integrated land use planning; The timing for other area planning processes (like the former Auckland City Council Future Planning Framework area plans) or legacy transformation projects which can inform area planning; Whether other agencies have drivers for change that could benefit from alignment to an area 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 Auckland isthmus are considered robust in terms of content and therefore they would only need to be reviewed, adapted and scaled up (e.g. to reflect local board areas). For this reason they are recommended 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 a proposed 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 local boards and their communities, the Auckland Future Vision Committee also resolved that extra
Page 29
Item 10
Item 10
staffing resources to facilitate the Area Plan development be quantified, along with a resolution that 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 plans commenced in early November and concluded in December 2011. A comprehensive agenda item was augmented by presentations by Area Spatial Planning team members on the key aspects of area plans, particularly relating to consultation and engagement proposals that would be informed and hosted by local boards. Resolutions made at the local board meetings have been recorded in the schedule at Attachment 1 along with officer response and actions resulting from these resolutions. The bold text is the response received from the local board regarding the position of their area in the sequence. Some boards resolved to provide feedback directly to the Committee.
Decision Making
Revised area plan sequence In the November-December local board reporting round, recommendations sought local board support for the preparation of area plans, and the provision of feedback to the Committee in relation to the proposed sequence for developing the 21 area plans. Other feedback was invited on the approach and programme for area plans in general. The resolutions received from local boards are contained in Attachment 1. Analysis of the feedback indicates general support for the proposed sequence. There were however some requests for reconsideration of the sequence from some local boards, who wished to be moved forward 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 related to their concern that two significant projects were not considered in the comments indicating priority, i.e. the potential and long-planned Housing New Zealand redevelopment in Northcote Central, and the planning for a third harbour crossing. For these reasons it is proposed to move this 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 the notification of the Unitary Plan in early 2013. Given the start already made on the first two area plans in the sequence, this will not be possible. Subsequent area plans will be considered for introduction by way of changes to the Unitary Plan. The existing area plans from the former Auckland City Council will form an important part of the discussions with the Waitemata Local Board concerning the Unitary Plan. For these reasons it is proposed that the Waitemata area plan be 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 Council for all or part of the local board area. The Whau Local Board also requested consideration of being moved forward in the programme. It is possible to make some adjustment, proposed from 17th to 13th (moving up to stage 5 from stage 6) in the programme, however because some of this area is covered by an existing area plan, it is considered not advisable to move the area plan development too much further forward and detached from the review of the other existing Auckland City Council Future Planning Framework area plans. Adjustments have been made to the place of other local board areas in the sequence, to enable these 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 be beneficial and would result in a speedier delivery in a contiguous manner. This is supported and changes have been made to bring those area plans in the southern initiative area closer together.
Page 30
Auckland Future Vision Committee 07 February 2012 The Committee previously resolved to support an Area Plan for Waterview as part of stage 1 because of the impact of State Highway 20. It is understood that the planning requested for Waterview is at a precinct level rather than at an area plan scale, and therefore moving the AlbertEden area plan up the sequence would not achieve what the Committee envisaged. Waterview is part of the Albert-Eden local board area which has an area plan under the Future Planning Framework. In this respect the development of an updated and refreshed Albert-Eden area plan is proposed to be undertaken at the same time as the other local board areas with area plans developed as part of the Future Planning Framework. There are various initiatives being undertaken by the New Zealand Transport Agency and council under the conditions of the State Highway 20 designation including an upgrade plan for Waterview Primary School and its immediate environment, open space restoration plans for a number of reserves including Waterview and Allan Wood Reserve and Oakley Creek Esplanade, as well as Council led localised planning processes for other reserves. In light of theses initiatives and the recent completion of an area plan by the former Auckland City Council it is recommended that the committee reconsiders its previous resolution to prepare an area plan for Waterview as part of stage 1 on the area plans programme. It is also noted that preparing a new plan specifically Waterview would have an impact on the ability to deliver various legacy area spatial planning initiatives due to limited resources being available. As a result of the proposed changes to the sequencing, the 7 stages remain, however the number of 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 2 3
1 (1) Mangere-Otahuhu 2 (2) Hibiscus and Bays 3 (3) Devonport-Takapuna 4 (5) Otara Papatoetoe 5 (4) Henderson-Massey 6 (11) Kaipatiki 7 (10) Papakura 8 (8) Manurewa 9 (6) Upper Harbour 10 (7) Franklin 11 (9) Howick 12 (12) Rodney 13 (17) Whau 14 (13) Puketapapa 15 (14) Albert Eden 16 (15) Orakei 17 (16) Waitemata 18 (18) Maungakiekie-Tamaki 19 (19) Waitakere Ranges 20 (20) Waiheke 21 (21) Great Barrier
It should be noted that while each stage will take approximately nine months, there will be an overlap 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
Page 31
Item 10
Item 10
A wide range of other feedback has been received from local boards regarding the area plans programme. 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 be provided by local board services teams towards the plans and engagement processes. Feedback was 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 premature before the Auckland Plan is finalised and the scope of some key priorities (such as the Southern Initiative) are clarified. Other local boards request for key town centre or precinct plans to be advanced, before or alongside area plans, as these feature as priorities in their Local Board Plans or for their communities. These comments and feedback have been noted and will be considered as the plan development process continues in general, and when each area plan is scoped and approached. It should also be noted that some local boards request that advanced engagement and preparation is considered well before the formal launch time for an area plan. This will be considered as part of the 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 their areas, but also requested a joint working arrangement with the governing body to consider the development 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 also reflects the key features and outcomes of Local Board Plans. The mechanism proposed to recognise the dual-governance nature of area plan development is the establishment of a working group involving the local ward councillor(s) for the area together with nominated local board members. This working group would meet at least monthly through the preparation 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 would also have a role in advising the Committee and the full local board as to progress and their perspective 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 group early in their tenure, including how often and when/where they meet, and the process of engagement.
Area 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 to undertake them is important to inform the development of the Unitary Plan and for informing future long term plans where facilities and items for capital investment may be required. Preparing them will also require substantial buy-in across the council and Council Controlled Organisations, Local Boards and communities.

The Independent Maori Statutory Board was represented on the working party of the Planning and Urban Design Forum, during the scoping phase on the area plan programme from June 2011. The Board will also be provided with an overview presentation and report on the confirmed programme and proposed engagement strategy. The process of engagement on area plans with mana whenua and matawaaka in the region is being developed in collaboration with the Maori Strategy and Relations Department. The engagement approach proposed will be determined as a general approach across all area plans,
Area Plan Programme - Sequence and Governance Page 32
Local Board Views

There 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 this report.
Consultation
Consultation and engagement with local communities and stakeholders has been a key fundamental component of area spatial planning initiatives of the former councils. This is expected to be the case for new area plans.

The work of area spatial planning, both at a local/place based or precinct level, and also at the area-wide level, is the responsibility of a dedicated team in the Regional and Local Planning Department in collaboration with other parts of the council and Council Controlled Organisations. This will require ongoing resource and staff commitment to integrated planning approaches and project management to coordinate activities. Targeted use of external resources for purposes of consultation, options development or research will be sourced from allocated budgets within the Regional 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 be developed in the sequence and at the rate identified in this report. Committing to the programme proposed would involve a range of inputs and involvement from Auckland Council, Council Controlled Organisations and other agencies to be successful. It is considered that this programme can be managed within existing Council resource. It would be possible to prepare area plans sooner, however, this would require a significant reprioritisation of work and a reduction in the ability to service the legacy area spatial planning programme (a major priority for most local boards). Out of each area plan will fall a range of actions that will need to be considered for funding as part of future Long Term Plan processes.

The requirement to plan for and manage growth, development and protection of the region is provided through the Local Government (Auckland Amendment) Act 2004 and Resource Management Act 1991 (and amendments), often in tandem with the Regional Land Transport Strategy and Land Transport Programme requirements under the Land Transport Management Act. Wider requirements of the promotion of the four well-beings as required in the Local Government Act 2002 compel the Auckland Council to consider more local level place-based planning and implementation to improve and manage quality of life and lifestyle choice, growth and development, employment opportunities, social cohesion etc, which are all considerations of good place-making.
Page 33
Item 10
but also more specifically with iwi and mataawaka related to each area. Area Plans will incorporate key relevant and agreed features of importance to iwi and mataa waka.
Item 10
The preparation of high quality and responsive area plans will require Council-mandated application of resources and staff from across the organisation and beyond, to achieve an appropriate comprehensive place-based picture of the future for areas at the scale selected. The planning and delivery of new local town centre or precinct plans that stem from area plans will require 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. A B Title Local Board Resolutions November December 2011 arising from generic report Area Spatial Planning: Area Plans Programme Sequence Table Page 35 47
Signatories
Author Reviewer Authorisers Michelle Hewitt Acting Manager Area Spatial Planning John Duguid Manager Plan Development Penny Pirrit Manager Regional and Local Planning Dr Roger Blakeley Chief Planning Officer
Page 34
Report recommendations adopted as Local Board resolutions by Local Boards as follows: a) b) c) That the report be received. That the local board supports the delivery of 21 area plans as set out in this report. That the local board provides feedback to the Auckland Future Vision Committee in relation to the proposed sequence for developing the 21 area plans, and also in relation to the 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 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 21 area plans as outlined in the report and notes the following: i) Local Board Plans are a part of the planning hierarchy as they give effect to the Auckland Plan and identify the priorities and direction of local communities; 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 a method of working through any tensions between the Auckland Plan and the Local Board Plan. Noted Response and action
ii)
Noted
c)
That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board would like to workshop with officers the proposed content of area plans as outlined in the report. That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board agrees with the proposed format of area plans as outlined in the report and requests the following matters be addressed as a priority so that: i) The Area Plan process enables communities in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area to fully participate in the preparation of the area plan and the process to do this with the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board be confirmed as a priority; Support those specific communities, like Waiwera and Stillwater, to develop their key inputs into the area plan early in the phase 1 stage and provide a pathway for the Local Board Village planning at Campbells Bay.
Workshop held
d)
Noted and to be addressed in process
ii)
Noted, to be addressed in process
e)
That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board agrees with the proposed sequence of developing area plans as outlined in the report and support that the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board is one of the first local boards to develop its area plans because of the priority afforded to this area, and the analysis that supports the Local Board selection due to its urban rural mix and coastal environment.
Noted - Supportive of area plan sequence
Page 35
Attachment A
Item 10
Attachment 1: Local Board Resolutions November December 2011 arising from generic report Area Spatial Planning: Area Plans Programme
Item 10
f)
That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board agrees with the approach of developing area plans as outlined in the report, including the involvement 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 within the area; The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board will provide support to officers in the community engagement on the area plan; The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board should approve the draft and final versions of the area plan; Noted
ii) iii) g)
Noted Noted and agreed as part of approach Noted and supported by Working Group proposal.
That a joint working party of Hibiscus and Bays Local Board and Governing Body members should be set up to consider the development of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board areas plan.
Great Barrier Local Board
Attachment A
Meeting date 7 November 2011 (from resolution number GBI/2011/248) d) That the Great Barrier Local Board notes with concern the inclusion of much of Great Barrier Island as an indicative waahi tapu investigation area in the draft Auckland Plan and seeks further discussion with officers in regard to the impact of this on Great Barrier. Noted. Refer to Auckland Plan team. No comment on area plan sequence
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 in the Area Spatial Planning for Great Barrier Island and that of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Planning. Noted
Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board Planning Economic Development and Environment Committee Meeting date 8 November 2011 (from resolution number MTPEE/2011/13) a) That the Area Spatial Plan report be received, and that Tanya Fleischer, Area Spatial Planner, and Gurv Singh, Planner - Area Spatial Planning, Plan Development, be thanked for their attendance. That the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board provides feedback to the Auckland Future Vision Committee, for decision in December 2011, in relation to the proposed sequence for developing the 21 area plans, and also in relation to the approach and programme for area plans as follows: i) That the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board supports the delivery of 21 area plans as set out in this report acknowledging that the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board Area Plan currently comprises wholly or parts of the Maungakiekie, Tamaki and Otahuhu Future Planning Framework plans from the legacy Auckland City Council on which the Maungakiekie and Tamaki Community Boards engaged with their communities in 2009/10, and that the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board Area Plan will be updated Noted Noted
b)
Page 36

in 3-4 years. ii) That the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board notes the Onehunga town centre and suburban area as a priority growth area in the draft Auckland Plan, and is well placed planningwise due to the Onehunga and Church Street/Neilson Street Precinct Plans, on which the Maungakiekie Community Board engaged with their community, in 2009/10. That the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board expresses its concern that Tamaki town centres and suburban area as a priority growth area in the draft Auckland Plan, but has had no precinct planning done by Council, and recommends that the Auckland Future Vision Committee make resources available to ensure that this is done as soon as possible. That the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board considers it vital that the Auckland Plan has identified projects in the Onehunga and Tamaki town centres and suburban areas. Noted
iii)
Noted Refer to Auckland Plan team, and for consideration by Committee
iv)
Noted Refer to Auckland Plan team. No comment on area plan sequence
Meeting date 8 November 2011 (from resolution number UH/2011/78) d) That the Upper Harbour Local Board requests that officers report the content and status of the Albany Structure Plan to the board. Refer to ASP team. No comment on area plan 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 Vision Committee to reconsider the sequence for developing the 21 Area Plans. The Board also requests reconsideration of the approach and programme for the Area Plans, with a view to bringing forward the schedule for the Kaipatiki Area Plan from Stage 4, for the reasons stated below: i) That the Kaipatiki Local Board notes that the Northcote Housing New Zealand plans and the Second Harbour Crossing have not been considered in the Area Plan Development Sequence evaluation. ii) That the Kaipatiki Local Board requests that the scheduling of the Kaipatiki Local Board area plan be reviewed to take into account: the Housing New Zealand plans for Northcote, and the Second Harbour Crossing and its approaches. d) That the Kaipatiki Local Board agrees with the approach of developing area plans as outlined in the report, including the involvement of local boards in each of the phases. In particular: i) The local board should provide advice to officers around stakeholder and interest groups within the area. ii) The local board should lead/facilitate community engagement on the area plan. iii) The local board should approve the draft and final versions of the area plan. iv) A joint working party of local board and governing body members should be set up to consider the development of each area plan. Noted Noted Noted and agreed as part of approach Noted and supported by Working Group proposal Noted propose bringing Area Plan forward in sequence
Page 37
Attachment A
Upper Harbour Local Board
Item 10

Waitemata Local Board
Item 10
Meeting date 8 November 2011 (from resolution number WTM/2011/279) b) That Lisa Roberts, Planner and Susan Ensor, Principal Area Spatial Planner be thanked for their attendance. That the Board notes that the City Centre Masterplan and Waterfront Masterplan will have significant impacts on the community and on spatial development within the Waitemata Local Board area. That the Waitemata Local Board notes that the Waitemata area plan is in stage five of the work plan. That the Board only supports the delivery of the 21 area plans as set out in the report if the Waitemata Area Plan is completed before the Unitary Plan notification in 2013. The Board considers it an unacceptable outcome for the Unitary Plan to be notified without completion of the Waitemata Area Plan. Noted it will not be possible to undertake and complete this Area Plan in time for notification of Unitary Plan, and it is proposed to keep in similar sequence due to being reviewed together with other existing former Auckland City Council area plans Noted Noted
c)
Noted
d) e)
f)
Attachment A
g)
That there are two distinct and separate parts to the Waitemata Area Plan; first the City Centre/City Fringe and Newmarket Metropolitan Centre, and secondly, the urban villages, including the residential parts of the urban village of the City Fringe and the remaining suburban parts of Waitemata. These two distinct communities are to be treated separately in engagement processes. That the Waitemata Local Board Heritage, Urban Design and Planning portfolio holders will host a workshop with Planning Policy officers February 2012 to discuss the former Auckland City Councils Future Planning Framework as it applies to our local board area, and that any matters overlooked, missed or deleted are corrected and new documents amended up before community engagement begins. That the Waitemata Local Board host engagement with our communities and lead the recommendations that flow from the engagement. That Planning officers involved in the community engagement have a direct relationship with the Board Heritage, Urban Design and Planning portfolio holders and Board Chair during the engagement and drawing up the final recommendations. That the Waitemata Local Board meet jointly with the Governing Body in development and consideration of the final form of the Area Plan in Waitemata. That the detailed regulatory plan which details the heritage, intensification and ecological issues such as rules, criteria and incentives as they apply in the Waitemata Local Board area plan be completed in consultation with the Waitemata Local Board.
h)
Noted and to be followed up by ASP team
i)
Noted and supported
j)
Noted and supported
k)
Noted and supported by Working Group proposal Noted, for action following area plan completion
l)
Whau Local Board Meeting date 8 November 2011 (from resolution number WH/2011/146) b) That the Whau Local Board supports the delivery of 21 area plans as outlined in the report and notes the following:
Page 38

i. Local Board Plans are a part of the planning hierarchy as they give effect to the Auckland Plan and identify the priorities 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 Local Board Plan. In this, area plans can be a method of working through any tensions between the Auckland Plan and the Local Board Plan. c) That the Whau Local Board agrees with the proposed content of area plans as outlined in the report and notes the inclusion of any utility providers. That the Whau Local Board agrees with the proposed format of area plans as outlined in the report. That the Whau Local Board does not agree with the proposed sequence of developing area plans as outlined in the report and requests the Whau area plan be given a higher priority with the outcome of that review of sequencing reported back to the board. That the Whau Local Board agrees with the approach of developing area plans as outlined in the report, including the involvement on local boards in each of the phases. In particular: i. the local board should provide advice to officers around stakeholder and interest groups within the area; ii. the local board should lead/facilitate community engagement on the area plan; iii. the local board should approve the draft and final versions of the area plan; iv. a joint working party of local board and governing body members should be set up to consider the development of each area plan Noted Noted Noted and agreed as part of approach Noted and supported by Working Group proposal Noted
Noted
Noted
d)
Noted
e)
Noted propose bringing Area Plan forward in sequence
f)
Waiheke Local Board Meeting date 10 November 2011 (from resolution number WHK/2011/238) c) That the Waiheke Local Board requests of the Manager Regional and Local Planning, Penny Pirrit, that there be a mechanism by which the Local Board working with the Waiheke community can begin an early engagement process on the proposed area plan for Waiheke and that this be designed so that it would feed in the later formal process when it begins. Noted, for further consideration in programme No comment on area plan sequence
d)
That Douglas Sadlier, Principal Planner be thanked for his attendance. Manurewa Local Board Meeting date 10 November 2011 (from resolution number MR/2011/227) b) That the Manurewa Local Board requests that the Area Spatial Plan item be considered at a workshop. That the Manurewa Local Board conveys to the Mayor and Chief Executive of Auckland Council, its view that the planning and design for the Auckland region as captured through the draft Auckland Plan represents the single biggest failure of Auckland Council thus far given the lack of context and reference to affected communities, evidence, consultation, detail and funding,
Noted
Noted
c)
Page 39
Attachment A
Item 10

implementation, and acquiescence with the 21 local board plans.
Item 10
d)
That the Manurewa Local Board provides indicative feedback to the Auckland Future Vision Committee in relation to the proposed sequence for developing the 21 area plans, and also in relation to the approach and programme for area plans as follows: i) The Manurewa Local Board is working collaboratively with other southern sector boards to prepare rigorous and evidential policy analysis that would enable a Southern Initiative that gives effect to the need to create jobs, economic development, increasing private home ownership, reducing social deprivation and inequality, and building personal and community wealth. The development of the 21 area plans should be deferred pending completion of a suburb by suburb fine grain analysis, which assesses the ability of every community within the Auckland region to accommodate growth (under both the Auckland Plan and Unitary Plan). It is nonsensical to suggest that the work of area spatial planning is the responsibility of the dedicated Area Spatial Planning Team within the Regional and Local Planning department in collaboration with other parts of the council and council controlled organisation group yet fail to codify: 1) the role of the 21 Local Boards; 2) how the role of the 21 Local Boards will be funded as an operational expense; and 3) how the knowledge and contribution of the 21 Local Boards will be received, analysed and reported by officers. iv) It is impossible to agree with the proposed context of area plans, or the proposed format of area plans as outlined in the report because: There is no evidence to suggest that the draft Auckland Plan is an evidential document; The Southern Development Initiative is not referenced in the draft Auckland Plan, and although the Southern Initiative is referenced, it is too opaque and cannot be assessed at this time to determine the relative merits of the proposed workstream; The funding implications of the Southern Initiative have not been scoped in the draft Auckland Plan. Noted area plan programme underway No specific comment on sequence, other than first needing to clarify/adopt TSI and the Auckland Plan. Propose bringing forward because of Southern Initiative to Noted Manurewa centre has legacy centre plan, Wiri has previous planning
Page 40
Noted
Noted
ii)
Attachment A
iii)
Noted to be considered in the programme approach
Noted
v)
The proposed sequence of the Area Plan Development as set out in the report is premature given the Southern Initiative in particular, and the draft Auckland Plan in general has not been adopted by the Governing Body.
e)
That the Manurewa Local Board requests that the proposed content, format and sequence of developing area spatial plans be amended to reflect the need for area planning in relation to the following areas:

i) ii) iii) Manurewa town centre; Clendon town centre; and the area generally defined and adjacent to the Wiri Business Improvement District. undertaken, Clendon to be considered in context of area plan then may lead to local centre plan
f)
That the Manurewa Local Board will only agree to an approach to developing area plans once its concerns, as outlined in the resolutions pertaining to Item 23, have been addressed. Following resolution of the concerns expressed by the Board, it will abide by the following approach to area plans: i) the local board should endorse policy and planning advice prepared by Local Board Services officers, which informs the Governing Body on stakeholder and interest groups within the area; the local board should lead and facilitate community engagement on area plan workstreams that are endorsed by the Board, and that this workstream is adequately resourced by Local Board Services and the Area Spatial Planning Team; the local board should approve the draft and final versions of the area plan; a joint working party of local board and governing body members should be set up to consider the development of each area plan.
Noted
Noted
ii)
Noted
iii) iv)
Noted and agreed as part of approach Noted and supported by Working Group proposal
Rodney Local Board Meeting date 14 November 2011 (from resolution number RD/2011/220) c) That the Rodney Local Board provides feedback to the Auckland Future Vision Committee in relation to the proposed sequence for developing the 21 area plans, and also in relation to the approach and programme for area plans by the end of November 2011. Feedback awaited No comment on area plan sequence
Howick Local Board Meeting date 14 November 2011 (from resolution number HW/2011/17) d) That the Howick Local Board requests resourcing to complete the following precinct/master plans prior to commencement of the Howick Local Area Plan: i) ii) iii) iv) East Tamaki Pakuranga Half Moon Bay Howick Noted for consideration by governing body No comment on area plan sequence, other than to be started after named local plans completed
Franklin Local Board Meeting date 15 November 2011 (from resolution number FR/2011/237) c) That the Franklin Local Board give the following feedback to the Auckland Future Vision Committee in relation to the proposed sequence for developing the 21 area plans, and also in relation to the approach and programme for area plans as it wishes. i) requests allocation of planning resources located in the south in
Noted for
Page 41
Attachment A
Item 10

the form of a dedicated spatial planner to enable consistent and timely planning work across Franklin. ii) that in addition to the Area Plans Programme roll-out, the Council allocate timely resources to support pockets of small communities that are currently actively engaged in Area planning for their specific areas e.g. Patumahoe, Clevedon etc. Papakura Local Board Meeting date 16 November 2011 (from resolution number PPK/2011/19) c) That the Papakura Local Board provides the following feedback to the Auckland Future Vision Committee in relation to the proposed sequence for developing the 21 area plans, and also in relation to the approach and programme for area plans as it wishes; i) requests allocation of planning resources located in the south in the form of a dedicated spatial planner to enable consistent and timely planning work across Papakura. Noted for consideration by governing body No comment on area plan sequence propose bringing forward because of Southern Initiative consideration by governing body No comment on area plan sequence
Attachment A
Item 10
Waitakere Ranges Local Board Meeting date 23 November 2011 (from resolution number /2011/) a) That the Waitakere Ranges Local Board supports the delivery of 21 area plans as outlined in the report and notes the following: i. Local Board Plans are a part of the planning hierarchy as they give effect to the Auckland Plan and identify the priorities 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 Local Board Plan. In this, area plans can be a method of working through any tensions between the Auckland Plan and the Local Board Plan. c) That the Waitakere Ranges Local Board agrees with the proposed content of area plans as outlined in the report. That the Waitakere Ranges Local Board agrees with the proposed format of area plans as outlined in the report. That the Waitakere Ranges Local Board agrees with the proposed sequence of developing area plans as outlined in the report. That the Waitakere Ranges Local Board agrees with the approach of developing area plans as outlined in the report, including the involvement of local boards in each of the phases. In particular: i. the local board should provide advice to officers around stakeholder and interest groups within the area; ii. the local board should lead/facilitate community engagement on the area plan; iii. the local board should approve the draft and final versions of the area plan; iv. a joint working party of local board and governing body members should be set up to consider the development of each area plan Noted Noted Noted and agreed as part of approach Noted and supported by Working Group proposal Noted
Noted
Noted
d)
Noted
e)
Noted Supportive of area plan sequence
f)
Page 42

g) That the board notes that the Area Plans in most of the boards area are subject to the provisions of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008. Noted and acknowledged
Devonport-Takapuna Local Board Meeting date 23 November 2011 (from resolution number DT/2011/90)
c)
That the board notes Area Spatial Planning for Devonport-Takapuna is a priority, is part of Stage 2 for delivery, and reinforces the recognition given to Takapuna as a priority area That the board notes that Area Spatial Planning will address in part the priorities identified in the Local Board Plan to undertake strategic planning in Milford and Sunnynook. That officers take into account the Deed of Settlement initialled between the Crown and Ngati Whatua o Orakei in respect of the hapus significant future land holding on the Devonport peninsula. That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board agrees with the approach of developing area plans as outlined in the report, including the involvement of local boards in each of the phases. In particular: i) The local board should provide advice to officers around stakeholder and interest groups within the area. ii) The local board should lead/facilitate community engagement on the area plan. iii) The local board should approve the draft and final versions of the area plan. iv) A joint working party of local board and governing body members should be set up to consider the development of each area plan.
Noted supportive of area plan sequence
d)
Noted
e)
Noted
Noted
Noted Noted and agreed as part of approach Noted and supported by Working Group proposal
Puketapapa Local Board Meeting date 24 November 2011(from resolution number PKTPP/2011/238) c) That the Puketapapa Local Board provides the following feedback to the Auckland Future Vision Committee in relation to the proposed sequence for developing the 21 area plans, and also in relation to the approach and programme for area plans: i) that the board note that it was one of the few 21 local boards without a previous area spatial plans and believes that area spatial planning for Puketapapa should be prioritised on this basis Noted relates to local plans not area plans, to be considered by governing body
ii) the board note that the status of the Future Planning Framework is such that it has limited statutory weight in Resource Management Act processes which does not provide any protection for Puketapapa iii) that the board note that Puketapapa is identified as a growth corridor in the Draft Auckland Plan and that other local boards on the same growth corridor have operative area spatial planning documents. Noted No specific comment on area plan sequence
Page 43
Attachment A
f)
Item 10
Item 10
Henderson-Massey Local Board Meeting date 1 December 2011 (from resolution HM/20111/168) b) That the Henderson-Massey Local Board supports the delivery of 21 area plans as outlined in the report and notes the following: i) Local Board Plans are a part of the planning hierarchy as they give effect to the Auckland Plan and identify the priorities 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 Local Board Plan. In this, area plans can be a method of working though any tensions between the Auckland Plan and the Local Board Plan. c) d) That the Henderson-Massey Local Board agrees with the proposed content of area plans as outlined in the report. That the Henderson-Massey Local Board agrees with the proposed format of area plans as outlined in the report, and requests the following additions: i. Areas of ecological significance be identified more accurately on maps for example by using shading. e) f) That the Henderson-Massey Local Board agrees with the proposed sequence of developing area plans as outlined in the report. That the Henderson-Massey Local Board agrees with the approach of developing area plans as outlined in the report, including the involvement on local boards in each of the phases. In particular: i. The local board should provide advice to officers around stakeholder and interest groups within the area; ii. The local board should lead/facilitate community engagement on the area plan; iii. The local board should approve the draft and final versions of the area plan; iv. a joint working party of local board and governing body members should be set up to consider the development of each area plan Noted
Attachment A
Noted Supportive of area plan sequence
Noted Noted
Noted and agreed as part of approach Noted and supported by Working Group Proposal
Albert-Eden Local Board Meeting date 7 December 2011 (from Resolution AE/2011/235) a) c) That Tanya Fleischer, Area Spatial Planner and Lisa Roberts, Planner by thanked for their attendance. That the local board delegates to the Planning Portfolio holders, members Mitchell and Easte to coordinate and compile feedback to the Auckland Future Vision Committee in relation to the proposed sequence for developing the 21 area plans, and also in relation to the approach and programme for area plans. That the Albert-Eden Local Board requests an urgent report on the status and timeline for the completion of the Waterview area plan. Issues concerning the preparation of an area plan for Waterview are addressed in the main body of the report. A report will be prepared Noted
d)
Page 44

for the Albert-Eden Local Board in March. Otara-Papatoetoe, Local Board Meeting date 6 December 2011 (from resolution HM/2011/168) b) c) That the Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board supports the delivery of 21 area plans as set out in this report That the Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board supports the area plan but in relation to the southern initiative and the Boards that have been identified which make up that initiative that planning in the cluster would be advantageous and enhance the result in a speedier delivery and in a contiguous manner. No specific comment on sequence propose bringing forward because of Southern Initiative
Orakei Local Board Meeting date 7 December 2011 (from resolution OR/2011/11) c) That the Orakei Local Board provides feedback via Board Member Thomas to the Auckland Future Vision Committee in relation to the proposed sequence for developing the 21 are plans, and also in relation to the approach and programme for area plans as it wishes. That the Orakei Local Board requests officers to identify what resources would be needed for the completion of the Orakei Area Plan before 2013, prior to the Unitary Plan consultation phase. That the Orakei Local Board notes that Local Plans can be progressed separately and feed discretely into the Unitary Plan. Noted
d)
e)
Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board Meeting date 7 December 2011 (from resolution MO/2011/202) c) That the Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board supports the area plan but in relation to the southern initiative and the Boards that have been identified which make up that initiative that planning in the cluster would be advantageous and enhance the result in a speedier delivery and in a contiguous manner. Noted
Page 45
Attachment A
Item 10
Auckland Future Vision Committee 07 February 2012 Attachment 2: Initial proposed Area Plan sequence with aspects in support of the sequence through application of criteria September 2011
Stage in programme 1
Local Board Area Proposed (1) Mangere-Otahuhu
Comments supporting priority Part of Southern Development Initiative (draft Auckland Plan) South-western airport multi-modal corridor study land use integration Representative of cultural and natural heritage and open space. Environments that could be developed in Unitary Plan include residential, business, major infrastructure (Airport). Silverdale a legacy transformation project and Hibiscus Coast Gateway (retail development) identified in draft Auckland Plan Infrastructure Projects with land use integration: e.g. PENLINK and Northern Busway extension Representative of rural/urban environments and interface Takapuna (priority area in next 10 years draft Auckland Plan) Representative of social heritage and coastal, environments residential and business. Part of NoRSGA Legacy area spatial planning for Henderson, Ranui, Sunnyvale and Te Atatu Massey North Town Centre Processing transport issues around Lincoln Road corridor Part of Southern Development Initiative (draft Auckland Plan) Manukau City Centre South-western airport multi-modal corridor study land use integration Open space development initiatives Hobsonville (draft Auckland Plan priority for planning and investment) Northern Strategic Growth Area (NoRSGA) (draft Auckland Plan) Other priority development projects identified in the Auckland Plan including Whenuapai Airbase, Albany Centre Ministry of Education - Hobsonville Pukekohe (draft Auckland Plan priority for planning and investment) Includes rural area supporting area plan process development Part of Southern Development Initiative (draft Auckland Plan) Flat Bush a legacy transformation project Auckland Manukau Eastern Transport Initiative (AMETI) Takanini Stages 1-3 Includes rural area supporting area plan process development part of southern development initiative (draft Auckland Plan) Wairau Valley identified in later stages of the draft Auckland Plan implementation along with other legacy area spatial plans Warkworth (draft Auckland Plan priority for planning and investment) Note: that substantial planning already undertaken in this area Covered by Future Planning Framework area plans Auckland International City Centre and Waterfront, Onehunga town centre, Tamaki suburban opportunity area (draft Auckland Plan priority for planning and investment New Lynn (draft Auckland Plan priority for planning and investment) Note that this area partly covered by Future Planning Framework area plan (Avondale-Blockhouse Bay)
(2) Hibiscus and Bays
(3) DevonportTakapuna (4) Henderson-Massey
(5) Otara-Papatoetoe
(6) Upper Harbour
(7) Franklin
(8) Manurewa (9) Howick 4 (10) Papakura
(11) Kaipatiki (12) Rodney
(13) Puketapapa (14) Albert-Eden (15) Orakei (16) Waitemata (17) Whau
Page 47
Attachment B
Item 10

(18) MaungakiekieTamaki Covered by Future Planning Framework area plans Auckland International City Centre and Waterfront, Onehunga town centre, Tamaki suburban opportunity area (draft Auckland Plan priority for planning and investment Waitakere Ranges Programme a legacy area spatial planning programme Note: that substantial planning already undertaken in this area through the Waitakere Ranges programme which covers the Local Board Area Rural and Island examples
Item 10
(19) Waitakere Ranges
(20) Waiheke (21) Great Barrier
Attachment B
Page 48
File No.: CP2012/00679
Executive Summary
The Draft City Centre Masterplan was accepted on 31 August 2011 for public release on the 20 September 2011, with the purpose of undertaking further public consultation to ensure alignment with the Draft Auckland Plan. There were 720 submissions received on the Draft City Centre Masterplan with 95% of submitters supporting the general direction of the Draft Masterplan. A total of 111 submitters indicated a desire to be heard on the Draft City Centre Masterplan. Allowance was made in the timetable for written submissions, hearings by Council in February 2012 and adoption in March 2012. However, due to the high number of Auckland Plan submissions the dates allocated for the Draft City Centre Masterplan in February have now been allocated to Auckland Plan deliberations. Accordingly four alternative dates on 6, 8, 12 March and possibly 15 March have been indentified as available for hearings. The report therefore recommends that hearings or forums commence on 6 March 2012. It is also proposed that two options for conducting hearings are proposed to ensure that all individuals and organisations that requested to be heard on the Draft City Centre Masterplan can be heard in a manner they feel most comfortable with. The two alternatives will be either through the traditional formal approach of presenting individually on submissions, or a workshop-style forum which is independently facilitated. Submitters who want to be heard will be given a choice of which option they prefer. It is also proposed that two representatives of the Independent Maori Statutory Board (IMSB) be invited to be on the Draft City Centre Masterplan hearings and forum panel.
Recommendation/s
a) b) That the report be received. That the Committee notes and approves two options for submitters to be heard including a traditional hearing and an alternative option to participate in an independently facilitated workshop-style forum. That the Auckland Future Vision Committee comprising the Mayor and all councillors and two Independent Maori Statutory Board Members be constituted as the hearings and forum panel to hear both traditional hearings (in two parallel streams if necessary) and the workshop-style forum.
c)
Background
The Draft City Centre Masterplan was released for comment from 20 September to 6 November 2011 as part of the wider public consultation on the Draft Auckland Plan. It presented a draft vision statement for the city centre, which was based on the Mayor's vision of creating the worlds most liveable and beautiful city. In September 2011, the Draft Auckland Plan, was released for public comment. The Auckland Plan is the overarching strategic document guiding the development of Auckland and all subsidiary council strategies and plans, including the Draft City Centre Masterplan. The Draft City Centre Masterplan is a set of transformational strategies supporting the delivery of the Auckland Plan, insofar as it affects the City Centre. The Draft City Centre Masterplan is being developed in tandem with the Auckland Plan. The Urban Auckland chapter provided the highThe Draft City Centre Masterplan - Hearings Process Page 49
Item 11
The Draft City Centre Masterplan - Hearings Process
Item 11
level strategic directions for making Aucklands City Centre a stunning city centre full of life and activity that residents can call their home and visitors flock to.
Proposal
Public consultation and enabling people to speak to their submissions is an important part of plan preparation. As the City Centre is one of the two big initiatives identified in the Draft Auckland Plan, the City Centre is of high public interest, with a total of 720 submissions on the Draft City Centre Masterplan. It is proposed to offer submitters who wish to be heard on the Draft City Centre Masterplan the option of a traditional hearing or a workshop-style forum to enable a more conversational style of being heard by the Mayor and Councillors.
Decision Making
This report seeks the endorsement of the setting up of a hearing panel and the commencement of the hearings on 6 March 2012. Four days have been scheduled in Councillors diaries for hearings/forums to be held on the Draft City Centre Masterplan. These being: - Tuesday, 6 March 2012, 2pm to 4.30pm - Thursday, 8 March 2012, 2pm to 4.30pm - Monday, 12 March 2012, 1pm to 4.30pm - Thursday, 15 March 2012, 1pm to 4.30pm
The decision to support the next stage of the consultation process of the Draft City Centre Masterplan will allow council officers to organise hearing or workshop-style forums according to the preferences of submitters, between 6 and 15 March 2012.

A Mayoral-lead hui with Mana Whenua groups, and a Deputy Mayor-led hui with Mataawaka groups were held on the Draft Auckland Plan, Draft Economic Development Strategy, Draft City Centre Masterplan and Draft Waterfront Plan. Also, officers offered to meet with iwi and Mataawaka groups during the consultation process on the four plans. Support was offered to all 18 iwi to engage resources to make submissions on the four draft plans. Submissions were received from 13 iwi. Iwi generally supported the principles in the Draft City Centre Masterplan, but wanted stronger focus on the Treaty of Waitangi, the role of Maori in decision making and better alignment with the Auckland Plan in this area. Submissions concerned how to better involve and consider Mana Whenua perspectives on the city, create a stronger cultural identity, protect and enhance the citys heritage, and the need for the city to be planned in a holistic manner, considering the wider needs and impact on the rest of Auckland.
Consultation
The Draft City Centre Masterplan has involved significant consultation and engagement. The broad timelines for the preparation of the Draft City Centre Masterplan in alignment with all the other plans are set out below. The preparation of the Draft City Centre Masterplan was based on the premise that the Masterplan was contributing to and informed by other plans.
Page 50
Key dates
Feb-July 2011 engagement and development of draft plan (complete) 1 Aug 31 September informal engagement with key stakeholders and partners. 20 September the Draft Auckland Plan, Draft City Centre Masterplan, Waterfront Plan and Economic Development Strategy officially launched for consultation by the Mayor 6 November Submissions close. November December review of the public submissions in preparation for draft consultation feedback document 6 March Auckland Future Vision Committee half day hearing/forum 8 March Auckland Future Vision Committee half day hearing/forum 12 March Auckland Future Vision Committee half day hearing/forum 15 March Auckland Future Vision Committee half day hearing/forum 15 30 March refinement of the Draft City Centre Masterplan based on hearings feedback and strategic alignment with the Auckland Plan. April 2012 final City Centre Masterplan adopted by Auckland Future Vision Committee
Local Board Views

The Local Boards have been fully involved in assisting with the preparation of the Draft City Centre Masterplan. This has included workshops, presentations to Council, assistance with the development of feedback and receipt of drafts and one-on-one discussions with the Chief Planning Officer and senior staff. Officers are proposing to meet with the Waitemata, Waiheke, Orakei and Devonport-Takapuna local boards for a further round of input on the Draft City Centre Masterplan during the hearings/forum phase. This is in addition to the earlier engagement with local boards in the development of the Draft City Centre Masterplan.

The preparation of the Draft City Centre Masterplan is within existing budgets. Investment proposals for key projects over the next 10 years were prepared for councillor consideration as part of the Long Term Plan process. The Mayors proposal incorporated in the Draft Long Term Plan included a budget of $130 million for Draft City Centre Masterplan projects, with Quay Street Boulevard to be the first priority.

The preparation of the City Centre Masterplan will inform the Auckland Plan, which is subject to the Local Government Auckland Council Amendment Act 2010 and the Local Government Act 2002.
The Draft City Centre Masterplans vision and its transformational moves hinge on transport. Auckland Council and Auckland Transport officers are working on a 20 year transport strategy that can assess demand, focus on accessibility to and around the city centre and define the infrastructure and services, revenue mechanisms and other actions needed to realise the vision.
The Draft City Centre Masterplan - Hearings Process Page 51
Item 11
The Objective of the hearings is to listen to the view of submitters on the City Centre Masterplan, and to take those views into account when the Auckland Future Vision Committee deliberates and makes decisions on the Draft City Centre Masterplan.
Item 11
Attachments
There are no attachments for this report.
Signatories
Authors John Dunshea, Manager City Transformation, City Transformation Projects
Reviewer
Ludo Campbell-Reid, Manager Environmental Strategy and Policy Department
Roger Blakeley, Chief Planning Officer Authoriser
Page 52
File No.: CP2012/00687
Executive Summary
The need for a Tikapa Moana/Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan is presented and a joint agency/mana whenua approach to produce the plan is outlined. Collaborative engagement and sharing of resources are key aspects of this proposal. Such an approach is effective and efficient. The outcome will contribute to holistic integrated management of the Gulf which cannot be achieved by individual agencies alone. Agreement is sought in principle for this new approach, and guidance is sought on the form of governance representation.
Recommendation/s
That the Auckland Future Vision Committee a) Receive the report Tikapa Moana/Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan Governance Options. b) Note that provision has been included in the Mayors proposal for the 2012-22 Draft Long Term Plan for $400,000 for Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Planning. c) Agree that the project be supported in principle. d) Direct staff to fully scope the project, costs and timeframes and report back to the Committee to obtain decisions on establishment of the project. e) Agree that a mana whenua governance option be decided through a Mayoral-Chair led summit incorporating respective mana whenua authority chairs and Ministers of the Crown.
Background
Auckland Council, Waikato Regional Council, Territorial Authorities, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, and the Department of Conservation wish to work closely with mana whenua to investigate the development of a joint marine spatial plan for the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park area. The integrated and co-ordinated management of Tikapa Moana has been sought by mana whenua for many years. For example, in 2001 mana whenua representatives on the Hauraki Gulf Forum formally sought a single regional coastal plan but this proposal was not taken up by Auckland and Waikato regional councils. A more proactive planning approach is required to achieve integrated management of the Hauraki Gulf marine area. Failure to develop such an approach will result in continuing decline of some environmental values, increasing conflict between users and failure to adequately provide for future needs. A marine spatial plan can help avoid these shortfalls by aligning complementary uses, providing for partner and stakeholder requirements and ensuring that the ecosystem functions that support many economic, social and cultural uses of the Gulf are sustained.
Tikapa Moana/Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan Governance Options
Page 53
Item 12
Item 12
A project structure (attachment 1) has been proposed to deliver a Hauraki Gulf marine spatial plan. The structure consists of a governance group (representing agencies and mana whenua), a stakeholder group (a large plenary group and a smaller working group, using the collaborative process), a project management team (to administer the project) and an expert advisory group (to ensure robust, credible information for the process). The purpose of this report is to introduce the proposed project and governance structure. The form of mana whenua representation on the governance group is not yet established and this matter is given special attention.
Decision Making Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan

Background
The Hauraki Gulf (as defined by the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act, 2000) covers the whole east coast of the Auckland and Waikato regions. It includes the Waitemata Harbour, Firth of Thames and east coast of the Coromandel Peninsula. Management of the Gulf is covered by several agencies including Auckland Council, Waikato Regional Council, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the Department of Conservation land-based activities, such as farming, in catchments that drain into the Gulf can also have an impact. Therefore management responsibilities, in addition to those listed above, also include Territorial Authorities. The figure below shows the extent of the Hauraki Gulf.
Map of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park. The red line shows the boundary between Auckland and Waikato councils. The darker grey area are catchments that drain into the gulf.
Page 54
Auckland Future Vision Committee 07 February 2012 Need for joint marine planning The coastal and marine area is no longer an abundant frontier with few users and is experiencing increasing use and competing interests for the same resource. The underpinning ecosystem services that provide for successful long-term use of the marine resource are also under increasing pressure. Co-ordinated management, provision for future use and protection of important values is needed. The Gulf is one of New Zealands most valued and heavily used resources. It is a taonga of the Pare Hauraki and other tribes. It is a popular amenity and significant economic asset. Its management involves many matters including cross-boundary issues, indirect urban and rural impacts and direct impacts from use of the marine area. The Gulf is also experiencing increasing pressure from economic and recreational uses and there is potential for conflict between users. Traditionally, statutory management of marine areas has been done by different agencies all managing for their own purposes. For example, fisheries are managed separately to conservation areas, and regulation of terrestrial runoff is managed separately again. However, these activities all affect each other. In response the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act was enacted in 2000. It recognised the national significance of the environment of the Gulf and its Islands and established the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park. It provided a set of objectives for management of the Gulf, its islands and catchments, and created the Hauraki Gulf Forum to promote integration between statutory agencies and tangata whenua in achieving these objectives. The Forums most recent triennial state of the environment report (see below) indicates that additional initiatives need to be employed to address existing problems and to better provide for future social, cultural, environmental and economic aspirations. Internationally, joint marine planning is being accepted as a best practice method of achieving greater integration and improving multiple outcomes. Joint marine planning, in co-operation between agencies, has the advantages of:a) Working for a single purpose across physical and jurisdictional boundaries b) Providing holistic integrated management of the Gulf which cannot be achieved by individual agencies. c) Time and cost efficiencies by pooling resources. d) Promoting more consistent policies and plans across agencies. e) Implementation coordinated across many agencies. f) Building stakeholder support and buy-in. Auckland Council, Waikato Regional Council, Territorial Authorities, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, and the Department of Conservation wish to work closely with mana whenua to carry out a joint marine plan for the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park area. The long standing need for such an approach was again affirmed by a report on marine spatial planning published by the Hauraki Gulf Forum in April 2011. Those who have echoed the previous attempts of mana whenua and others to achieve such an outcome include some environmental groups and government initiatives. SOE report The Hauraki Gulf state of the environment (SOE) report State of the Gulf was publicly released on 9 August 2011. Presentations on the report have been given to various audiences such as the councils Environment and Sustainability Forum (16th August 2011). The findings of the report have been widely reported in the media, including a front page story in the New Zealand Herald, the front page feature in The Aucklander, and an extended interview on the Nine to Noon Show. The SOE report showed decline in several aspects of the Gulf which had occurred over decades. It also highlighted that this decline needed to be reversed if the vision for the Gulf as a diverse, biologically rich, economic asset was to be achieved. The report supported adoption of an integrated and holistic approach toward managing the Gulf to reverse the observed declines.
Tikapa Moana/Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan Governance Options Page 55
Item 12
Item 12
Marine Spatial Planning

Marine spatial planning is a process that brings together multiple users of the coastal and marine environment to decide how to best use marine resources sustainably, including planning which activities should take place where, and what areas should be protected. Marine Spatial Planning helps provide for complementary and competing uses within the coastal marine area, and to meet the economic, cultural, social and environmental goals of our community. It also takes a strategic and long-term approach to ensure future needs are anticipated and provided for. A marine spatial plan will provide zoning to cater for important values and uses of the coastal marine area, to reduce conflict, assist a variety of development, and aid the continued functioning and improved health of important marine ecosystems.. Marine spatial planning is different from conventional marine management in that agencies, industry, interest groups and the general public work together to create a co-ordinated sustainable master plan for the coastal marine area, deciding which areas, values and activities are important and how best to safeguard them now and in the future. Characteristics of marine spatial planning include: Ecosystem-based - complementary, compatible and sustainable development that meets ecological, economic, cultural and social goals; Area-based - integrated across economic sectors and among governmental agencies; Adaptive - capable of learning from experience; Strategic and anticipatory - focused on the long-term; and, Participatory - with stakeholders actively involved in the process. Marine spatial planning (MSP) is a public process of allocating and managing marine areas to achieve ecological, economic, cultural and social objectives. It generally involves a process of assembling information (e.g. GIS maps) of existing environmental resources / values of the coast and the social, cultural and economic uses these provide to the community. This is accompanied by information that helps understanding of such matters as why and how things got to be the way they are, causes and effects, connectivity and other relationships between values and uses, implications for activities on land of decisions made for the coast, conflicts, synergies, management options and their cost-effectiveness and practicability. A wide range of areas might be identified through a MSP exercise. Some indicative examples are provided below: (i) Areas of high spiritual and cultural significance that should be protected from other activities including mataitai, tauranga waka, waahi tapu and other taonga. Areas of high ecological value that should be protected from the impacts of human activities, preserved or perhaps enhanced, such as important marine habitats and associated biological community assemblages of highest value or vulnerability, significant marine mammal feeding, breeding and migration areas, fish spawning areas, juvenile fish feeding and refuge areas, important seabird feeding areas, areas of high natural character, outstanding natural landscapes, ecological areas most at risk from the adverse effects of various human activities, areas of degraded water or habitat quality requiring restoration, etc. Areas of high social use and value that should be protected against degradation from the adverse effects of other competing activities, including marina, mooring and safe anchorage areas, important recreational fishing areas, important diving locations, areas of high amenity such as popular beaches, main yachting, boating, kayaking routes between popular start
Page 56
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
Areas of high economic and commercial use and value that might be compromised by competing activities including aquaculture areas, commercial shipping routes, port and airport management areas, sand extraction sites, areas important for tourism (e.g. charter fishing, dolphin watching), ferry transport routes, existing and future telecommunication and electrical cable routes, locations for other important infrastructure with a functional need to be located in the coast (e.g. wharves, bridges, tunnels, pipelines), sites for potential renewable energy structures, etc.
Councils would use the Resource Management Act (RMA) Schedule 1 process to incorporate relevant MSP zoning into their RMA documents (e.g. Regional Coastal Plan) to establish objectives, policies and rules relevant to mapped management zones. This would set in place resource consenting and compliance requirements for these management zones, along with monitoring requirements. Management of identified areas most relevant to fisheries or conservation management would be implemented through statutory documents by central government departments in accordance with their empowering legislation.
Stakeholder engagement
Stakeholders are those who have the authority to implement the decision, those who will be or potentially will be affected by the decision and those who have the power to influence the implementation of the decision. The collaborative decision-making group must be of a manageable size. Typically, this is accomplished by asking stakeholder groups to select members to represent their interests at the negotiating table. The use of web based decision support tools can greatly assist in increasing opportunities for active stakeholder participation. It is proposed that marine spatial planning will use a collaborative stakeholder process involving a larger stakeholder group and a smaller representative working group. There will also be a local consultative process. These stakeholder groups will be supported by the project team, an expert advisory group, and guided by the Governance Group. The stakeholder group will be involved from the start in designing the collaborative process. In the collaborative process, stakeholders jointly determine their goals and spatial interests. The process is informed by robust knowledge provided by the expert advisory group. Consensus and agreement are important responsibilities in this process. The process requires stakeholders to interact and attempt to resolve or accommodate any conflict in values or space. If agreement is not possible then the governance group may make the final decision. The collaborative stakeholder process can help a range of stakeholders (allies and opponents, public and private sector, communities and individuals) to develop a better understanding of the issues and challenges involved in achieving the different goals. It is important for stakeholders to have the opportunity to come together to develop, share and understand their different visions and agendas
Reasons for the collaborative approach

We need a different approach to this complex problem it is not just a technical problem which requires a technical solution. No agency has the sole mandate to make all the decisions needed to manage the Gulf, or has the resources to implement all the decisions. Many decisions are negotiable and suited to a collaborative process There is a desire to be able to implement in a timely and cost effective way.
Page 57
Item 12
and destination areas, areas of uncluttered open space, important vistas and seascapes, etc.
Auckland Future Vision Committee 07 February 2012 A more collaborative approach gets better more robust participation. This assists when developing a regulatory process. Collaboration is an iterative process where people share the outcomes and are more committed to implementation. Power in decision making and implementation is shared. Collaborative processes often lead to stakeholder groups understanding their common goals, as well as their differences in perspectives. These processes can build trust and confidence among stakeholder groups and agencies.
Item 12
Key characteristics of collaboration are: Inclusive and non-hierarchical participation. Participant responsibility for ensuring success. A common sense of purpose and definition of the problem. Participants educating each other. The identification and testing of multiple options. Participants sharing in the implementation of solutions. People being kept informed as situations evolve.
Governance
A governance group will help guide the Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan process. The group will be composed of representatives from the participating agencies and mana whenua. The numbers in the governance group are yet to be decided. Several models for representation on the governance group have been proposed and are discussed further below. The suggested Terms of Reference for the governance group are given in Attachment 2.
Governance Representation
Agencies and mana whenua compose the governance group. The values and principles for the governance group reflect this important combination of representatives and roles. Values The values that underpin the overall partnership approach with mana whenua is underpinned by Te Tiriti o Waitangi/ Treaty of Waitangi, which provides for the key Treaty partners as represented by mana whenua, central and local government. Within a Treaty context the key driving values include; Rangatiratanga o The recognition of mana whenua as the first peoples of the Tikapa Moana catchment, their respective mana and authority and related customary and Treaty rights. Kawanatanga o The recognition of the rights and responsibilities of central and local government to exercise kawanatanga or governance at a national, regional or local level. Kaitiakitanga o The recognition of the responsibilities and obligations of mana whenua as inherent kaitiaki on behalf of tupuna (past generations) and mokopuna (future generations). Stewardship o The recognition of the responsibilities and obligations of central and local government agencies to manage resources on behalf of residents and stakeholders. Principles Equal representation (agency/mana whenua). Mana of the governance partners is recognised. Value te ao maori - Maori cultural values, perspectives and practices are incorporated.
Page 58
Equal representation means that there are equal numbers of agency and mana whenua representatives. This recognises the important role of the agency and mana whenua partners in sharing and implementing the decision making and management of the Gulf. Mana is recognised means that parties acknowledge each has authority and a unique contribution to make in management of the Gulf. The parties collective mandates can deliver a positive result for the Gulf when they work together and are acknowledged. Value te ao maori means acknowledging and respecting the traditional Maori world view including the principles of tikanga, kawa and matauranga maori. Integrating maatauranga maori means incorporating maori perspectives and knowledge. It is also recognising the traditional and continuing cultural relationships with areas of the coastal environment, including places that have been occupied and fished for generations. Practicable and affordable means that the governance group is sized so as to be able to meet easily and in a timely manner for decision making. Costs are expected to lie where they fall and any studies or investigations requested by the group must be within the scope and budget of the project team members. Political accountability means that agencies have statutory and democratic responsibilities to Parliament and residents/ratepayers respectively to be accountable for decisions, including financial expenditure. Mana whenua representatives have accountability to their organisations. Agency/IMana Whenua collaboration means that agencies and mana whenua have complementary roles and that collaboration is a recognised priority to both parties. This does not mean that parties will always agree. This principle does recognise, however, that parties have worked well together previously and benefit from this process. Technically Robust means that decisions need to be both lawful and be well supported by documentation and evidence. High quality robust decisions are essential. Timely Process means that the project has a limited time window (2 years) for completion. The availability of representatives and their willingness to work with others and their own organisations to enable the project to progress is important. Representation Options There are four options that are being considered. A. Full representation. Full representation would be 26:26 (mana whenua:central/local government). This would be a large group. B. Core representation. A smaller representative group e.g. 8:8 (8 mana whenua: 8 central/local government/Hauraki Gulf Forum). Numbers would be 2x AC, 1x WRC, 1x MAF, 1x DOC, 1x MED, 1x TA, 1x chair HGF).
Page 59
Item 12
Integrating Matauranga Maori into planning and sustainable management practices. Practicable and affordable representation. Political accountability for statutory and democratic responsibilities Agency/Mana Whenua collaboration is in their complementary roles and that co-operation is recognised as a priority to both parties. Technically robust and processes are documented so that decisions are both lawful and well supported by evidence. Timely process as the project has a limited time window (2 years) in which to be completed.
Auckland Future Vision Committee 07 February 2012 C. Assembly representation. Full representation at an Assembly (26:26), and smaller roopu (working group) who drive the process (e.g. 8:8). This is a two level governance model. The large assembly group selects a smaller co-governance group to do the work and reports back to the full assembly. D. Core representation with the option of sub-regional groups being present when discussing their area of interest or jurisdiction. An initial analysis of the options is given in attachment 3 and the list of nga mana whenua in attachment 4. Process for seeking guidance from mana whenua In order to align to the values and principles of a collaborative approach, mana whenua need to be involved in all the key phases associated with a marine spatial plan; Design Development Implementation Monitoring Mana whenua will need to be effectively engaged, throughout each phase, with due consideration of key factors including; participation and contribution in decision-making, capacity and capability needs recognition of tribal decision-making processes and timing. Other demands of participation in other processes, including Treaty of Waitangi Settlements and other central and local government initiatives. It is suggested that the initial engagement with mana whenua should focus on seeding the kaupapa (concept and purpose) of developing a marine spatial plan and seeking guidance on the design of the key elements of the project which includes, Vision, values and principles. Leadership and decision-making, Communication Process and structure. The kaupapa should be initially seeded at a rangatira a rangatira (chief to chief) level supported by respective senior officials. To accord mana to the taonga (treasure), which in this case is the Tikapa Moana catchment and the respective Treaty-partners, the process needs to be elevated through a Mayoral-Chair led summit incorporating respective mana whenua authority, mayors, chairs and Ministers of the Crown to lay the foundation for the marine spatial plan. As an outcome of the summit, staff will follow through with respective partners to complete developing the work programme process and structure.
Item 12
Relationships with other Auckland Plans

The marine spatial plan for the Hauraki Gulf would form part of the planning and management framework for future management of the Gulf, its islands and catchments. It would sit below the Auckland Plan and give further detail to its high level aspirations and directions, particularly as these apply to the east coast marine space of the region. It would inform, and be implemented into an RMA statutory framework, by being incorporated into the Unitary Plan and any other associated Auckland Council planning documents.
Page 60
Auckland Plan
Provision for marine spatial planning has been provided for in the draft Auckland Plan, directive 5.12 (p90) which states: Ensure integrated and sustainable management of significant marine areas through the proposed preparation of marine spatial plans for the Hauraki Gulf, Kaipara Harbour and Manukau Harbour.
Unitary Plan
Aucklands regional coastal plan is currently being reviewed and updated with amendments to be included in the initial Unitary Plan that is anticipated to be publicly notified in early by early 2013. A report has been approved by the Unitary Plan Political Working Party which outlines the proposed integration of the regional coastal plan in the initial unitary plan. It establishes that the bulk of the coastal plan will be reviewed and revised as far as practicable within the initial Unitary Plan timeframe. This includes provisions that apply to all coastal and marine areas, including the Hauraki Gulf, Kaipara and Manukau harbours. A limited number of exclusions are also identified in the report. For example, existing aquaculture policies and rules will be reviewed and updated, however new Aquaculture Management Areas will not be proposed in the initial Unitary Plan due to their complexity and time constraints. These can more appropriately be identified through a marine spatial planning process. Marine spatial planning for the Hauraki Gulf is expected to take approximately two years to complete. This longer time frame than the Unitary Plan is because of the more complex, multiple agency and stakeholder driven process and the inclusion of the entire Hauraki Gulf rather than just the Auckland region. Outcomes from the Hauraki Gulf marine spatial planning will be built into the unitary plan through a variation process after its completion in the same manner to updates from other identified Unitary Plan exclusions. The integrated management of the whole of the Kaipara Harbour (and its catchments), across jurisdictional and agency boundaries, is being actively promoted through the Integrated Kaipara Harbour Management Group (IKHMG) which formed in 2005. Several Auckland Council technical officers are IKHMG participants. A comprehensive information review and gap analysis for the Kaipara and its catchments has been completed by the IKHMG and a resource atlas compiled (including reports and geospatial information gathered from numerous sources including engagement with iwi). This work was presented at hui and to the Environment & Sustainability Forum and Auckland Future Vision Committee of the Council. The information is also being used by the IKHMG project co-ordinator as part of her PhD on marine spatial planning. The information gathered for this thesis, together with the most recent research undertaken on the Kaipara, can be used to undertake marine spatial planning for the Kaipara. The IKHMG will provide key guidance and input into this exercise. This process would follow a somewhat different procedure to that proposed for the Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan but has potential to deliver a similar output within the same overall timeframe. A single future variation to the Unitary Plan could potentially implement outcomes from both Kaipara Harbour and Hauraki Gulf marine spatial planning exercises. Comparison between the two different marine spatial planning processes used and their respective outputs would also provide helpful guidance for any subsequent marine spatial planning initiatives, such as application to the Manukau Harbour. In June 2011 nine local boards around the Manukau Harbour came together with local iwi to form the Manukau Harbour Forum to work together to manage and conserve the harbours resources. This group will be identifying other stakeholders with an interest in the management of the Manukau Harbour. Development of the initial Unitary Plan provides the first opportunity to improve management provisions applying to the Manukau Harbour. In the longer term, a marine spatial planning exercise that builds on the experience from Hauraki Gulf and Kaipara Harbour processes would (subject to approval) also be applied to the Manukau Harbour..
Item 12
Item 12
The figure below provides a diagrammatic representation of the anticipated relationship between the planning documents discussed above.
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Auckland Plan Initial Unitary Plan (notified)

Prep RMA process to make operative
Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan Kaipara Harbour Marine Spatial Plan
Variation
Resource atlas
Variation
Manukau Harbour Marine Spatial Plan
Decision Making
Decision recommended is to agree that the project be supported in principle, direct staff to fully scope the project, cost and timeframes, and agree that a mana whenua governance option be decided through a Mayoral-led summit incorporating respective mana whenua authority Chairs and Ministers of the Crown.
The activities detailed in this report do not trigger the Significance Policy.

Tangata whenua would have full partnership and participation with the process as outlined in this paper.
Consultation
Auckland Council, Waikato Regional Council, Territorial Authorities, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, and the Department of Conservation wish to work closely with mana whenua to investigate the development of a joint marine spatial plan for the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park area. There will be engagement with a wide range of stakeholders in the Gulf as outlined in this paper.
Local Board Views

This paper will be sent to Local Boards for consultation during the first quarter of 2012.

Provision has been included in the Mayors proposal for the 2012-22 Draft Long Term Plan for $400,000 for Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Planning. The principal financial support for Aucklands

There are no legal implications from this report.
There are no immediate implementation issues associated with this report. However, an element of particular interest during scoping will be consideration of implications for the Unitary Plan and/or review of the Coastal Plan through which the RMA aspects of any MSP process would be implemented for the Auckland region.
Signatories
Attachments
No. A Title Attachment 1-4 Proposed Project Structure Page 65
Signatories
Authors
Johnnie Freeland, Pae Arahi Matua - Department Manager, Maori Strategy and Relations, Dominic McCarthy, Team Leader Coastal, Environmental Strategy and Policy Department and Peter Singleton (Waikato Regional Council)
Authorisers
Ludo Campbell-Reid (Manager Environmental Strategy and Policy Department) Roger Blakeley (Chief Planning Officer)
Page 63
Item 12
share of the Hauraki Gulf Maine Spatial Plan will rely on confirmation of funding through the 201222 Long Term Plan that will be adopted by 30 June 2012 after public consultation. Initial work can be carried out in 2011/12 under the existing coastal policy budget in the Planning and Policy Division. Waikato Regional Council is planning to fund its share of the Plan.
Page 65
Attachment A
Item 12
Attachment A
Item 12
Page 66
Page 67
Attachment A
Item 12
Attachment A
Item 12
Page 68
Page 69
Attachment A
Item 12
Attachment A
Item 12
Page 70
Page 71
Attachment A
Item 12
Attachment A
Item 12
Page 72
Page 73
Attachment A
Item 12
File No.: CP2012/00592
Executive Summary
The report was not available at the time of print and will be made distributed under a separate cover.
Recommendation/s
a) That the report be received.
Attachments
There are no attachments for this report.
Signatories
Authors Authorisers Crispian Franklin - Committee Secretary
Council's Submission to the Productivity Commission's Draft Report on Housing Affordability
Page 75
Item 13
Council's Submission to the Productivity Commission's Draft Report on Housing Affordability
File No.: CP2011/09556
Executive Summary
At its meeting of 20 December 2011, the Environment and Sustainability Forum resolved as follows; Resolution number ES/2011/1 MOVED by Cr Walker, seconded Cr Morrison: a) b) c) That the report be received. That the Environment and Sustainability Forum endorse the proposed energy and climate change project plan included as Attachment A to the report. That a workshop with the Governing Body be held in February 2012 to undertake the following; d) discuss potential strategic responses and role options for council, inform part of the Auckland Plan deliberations process, and approve in principle the key options that will be in the discussion document.
That it be recommended to the Auckland Future Vision Committee that it approves the energy and climate change mitigation policy work programme as part of the agreed policy and strategy work programme for 2012. CARRIED
Recommendation d) above is for the approval of the Auckland Future Vision Committee. A copy of the original report and attachments to the Environment and Sustainability Forum is appended under Attachment A.
Recommendations
a) b) That the report be received. That the Auckland Future Vision Committee approves the energy and climate change mitigation policy work programme as part of the agreed policy and strategy work programme for 2012.
Attachments
No. A Title Original Report 'Approaches to Reducing Auckland's Greenhouse Gas Emissions' to the Environment and Sustainability Forum 20 December 2011 Page 79
Signatories
Authors Authorisers
Recommendation from the Environment and Sustainability Forum
Page 77
Item 14
Page 79
Attachment A
Item 14
Attachment A
Item 14
Page 80
Page 81
Attachment A
Item 14
Attachment A
Item 14
Page 82
Page 83
Attachment A
Item 14
Attachment A
Item 14
Page 84
Page 85
Attachment A
Item 14
Attachment A
Item 14
Page 86
Page 87
Attachment A
Item 14
Attachment A
Item 14
Page 88
Page 89
Attachment A
Item 14
Attachment A
Item 14
Page 90
Page 91
Attachment A
Item 14
Attachment A
Item 14
Page 92
Page 93
Attachment A
Item 14
Attachment A
Item 14
Page 94
Page 95
Attachment A
Item 14
Attachment A
Item 14
Page 96
Page 97
Attachment A
Item 14
Attachment A
Item 14
Page 98
Page 99
Attachment A
Item 14
Attachment A
Item 14
Page 100
Page 101
Attachment A
Item 14
Attachment A
Item 14
Page 102
Page 103
Attachment A
Item 14
Attachment A
Item 14
Page 104
Page 105
Attachment A
Item 14
Attachment A
Item 14
Page 106
Page 107
Attachment A
Item 14
Attachment A
Item 14
Page 108
Page 109
Attachment A
Item 14
Attachment A
Item 14
Page 110
Page 111
Attachment A
Item 14
Attachment A
Item 14
Page 112
Page 113
Attachment A
Item 14
Attachment A
Item 14
Page 114
Page 115
Attachment A
Item 14
Attachment A
Item 14
Page 116

Auckland Future Vision Agenda #2

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Auckland Future Vision Agenda #2

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

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

Date: Time: Meeting Room: Venue:

Auckland Future Vision Committee OPEN AGENDA

Auckland Future Vision Committee 07 February 2012

File No.: CP2012/00385

Draft Economic Development Strategy Submission Summary and Hearing Process

Draft Economic Development Strategy Submission Summary and Hearing Process

Auckland Future Vision Committee 07 February 2012

Auckland Future Vision Committee 07 February 2012

Maori Impact Statement

Local Board Views

Auckland Future Vision Committee 07 February 2012

Financial and Resourcing Implications

Legal and Legislative Implications

Draft Economic Development Strategy Submission Summary and Hearing Process

Auckland Future Vision Committee 07 February 2012

Draft Economic Development Strategy Submission Summary and Hearing Process

Auckland Future Vision Committee 07 February 2012

Attachment 1: Summary of EDS Submissions

67% 49% 46% 71% 62%

Auckland Future Vision Committee 07 February 2012

Draft Economic Development Strategy Submission Summary and Hearing Process

Auckland Future Vision Committee 07 February 2012

APPENDIX 2: List of submitters who wish to be heard

Draft Economic Development Strategy Submission Summary and Hearing Process

Auckland Future Vision Committee 07 February 2012

Draft Economic Development Strategy Submission Summary and Hearing Process

Auckland Future Vision Committee 07 February 2012

APPENDIX 3: List of submitters/organisations

Auckland Future Vision Committee 07 February 2012

Auckland Future Vision Committee 07 February 2012

Draft Economic Development Strategy Submission Summary and Hearing Process

Auckland Future Vision Committee 07 February 2012

File No.: CP2012/00384

Area Plan Programme - Sequence and Governance

Area Plan Programme - Sequence and Governance

Auckland Future Vision Committee 07 February 2012

Area Plan Programme - Sequence and Governance

Area Plan Programme - Sequence and Governance

Auckland Future Vision Committee 07 February 2012

Area Plan Programme - Sequence and Governance

Area Plan Programme - Sequence and Governance

Auckland Future Vision Committee 07 February 2012

Maori Impact Statement

Auckland Future Vision Committee 07 February 2012

Local Board Views

Financial and Resourcing Implications

Legal and Legislative Implications

Area Plan Programme - Sequence and Governance

Auckland Future Vision Committee 07 February 2012

Area Plan Programme - Sequence and Governance

Auckland Future Vision Committee 07 February 2012

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

Noted and to be addressed in process

Noted, to be addressed in process

Noted - Supportive of area plan sequence

Area Plan Programme - Sequence and Governance

Auckland Future Vision Committee 07 February 2012

Great Barrier Local Board

Area Plan Programme - Sequence and Governance

Auckland Future Vision Committee 07 February 2012

Noted Refer to Auckland Plan team, and for consideration by Committee

Noted Refer to Auckland Plan team. No comment on area plan sequence