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

Date: Time: Meeting Room: Venue:

Thursday, 6 December 2012 10.00am Reception Lounge Level 2 Auckland Town Hall 301-305 Queen Street Auckland

Regional Development and Operations Committee OPEN AGENDA

MEMBERSHIP Chairperson Deputy Chairperson Members Cr Ann Hartley, JP Cr Sandra Coney, QSO Cr Anae Arthur Anae Cr Cameron Brewer Mayor Len Brown, JP Cr Dr Cathy Casey Cr Alf Filipaina Cr Hon Chris Fletcher, QSO Cr Michael Goudie Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse Cr Mike Lee Cr Des Morrison Cr Richard Northey, ONZM

Cr Calum Penrose Cr Dick Quax Cr Noelene Raffills, JP Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM Mr David Taipari Mrs Patience Te Ao Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE Cr Wayne Walker Cr Penny Webster Cr George Wood, CNZM

(Quorum 12 members) Barbara Watson Democracy Advisor 29 November 2012 Contact Telephone: (09) 307 7629 Email: barbara.watson@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Note:

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

TERMS OF REFERENCE The Regional Development and Operations Committee will have responsibility for determining operational policy decisions for Council and dealing with associated issues. The committee will also have responsibility for developing policy and plans to advance the economic, social, cultural and environmental well-being of Auckland and has authority to delegate powers to subcommittee(s). x x x x The areas covered by this committee may include: To deal with matters within the Councils Governing Body responsibility relating to the formulation of policy, reporting and monitoring to promote the economic, social, environmental and cultural wellbeing of the regional community; To deal with matters within the Councils Governing Body responsibility relating to the navigation and safety functions; To undertake legal responsibilities as defined under the Reserves Act 1977 (e.g. concessionary lease policy and execution, changes in classification, sale of land under the Reserves Act 1977, management plans); note that Local Boards are allocated responsibility for reserve management plans for local parks Acquisition of property assets relating to the committees functions as provided for in the LTP; To deal with all matters within the Councils Governing Bodys responsibility relating to the provision, operation, maintenance, use and conservation of parks; To deal with all matters and implementation relating to the Councils Governing Bodys Heritage and Bio-security functions; and Lead and develop policy, strategy and monitoring of councils Governing Bodys art, culture and recreational activities and to make provisions to meet the demands from growth, social and cultural change; Determining policy and planning for the open space of the region; Determining high level policy for the provision of recreation and leisure opportunities; Promoting the protection, enhancement and value of heritage resources and biodiversity for the community; Determining policies for Councils Governing Body involvement and/or advocacy on social issues; Determining policy and planning for community development and responding to region-wide communities of interest; Plan changes to existing regional and district plans Lodging submissions to applications before the Environmental Protection Authority Board of Enquiry or Environment Court process; Oversight of the Councils international relationship programme; Acquisition and disposal of property assets; and Stopping of roads pursuant to the provisions of the Public Works Act 1981 and the Local Government Act 1974.

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

The Committee will have delegated authority to establish councillor forums focused on specific areas of responsibility These forums do not have decision making powers but can recommend policy and planning amendments to the Regional Development and Operations committee. Relevant legislation includes but is not limited to:
Resource Management Act 1991 Soil Conservation & Rivers Control Act 1941 Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 Biosecurity Act 1993 Litter Act 1979 Land Transport Act 1998 Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 Local Government Act 2002 Maritime Transport Act 1994 Reserves Act 1977 Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Act 2004 Land Transport Management Act 2003 Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012 ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Apologies Declaration of Interest Confirmation of Minutes Petitions Public Input Local Board Input Extraordinary Business Notices of Motion Auckland region-wide swimming pool pricing policy operational guidelines Independent ports technical study final report Due to the size of the attachment, this is available under separate cover, on request. It will however, be available on the Councils website in the Addendum agenda. 11 12 13 14 Recommendations from the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum meeting of 13 November 2012 East Tamaki Business Precinct Plan Extension of Regional Pest Management Strategy Expiry Date Application to Submit on the Environmental Protection Authority's Reassessment of Organophosphate and Carbamate-based Plant Protection Insecticides Wilsher Village Classification of Pukekiwiriki Paa Historic Reserve Recommendation from the Social and Community Development Forum Auckland Libraries Future Directions 2013-2023 Proposed Plan Change 16 to Auckland Council District Plan (Papakura Section): Additions to the Schedule of Trees and Areas of Landscape to be Protected Decision on Plan Modification 196A: Newmarket Growth Area Structure Plan (61-73 Davis Crescent) Consideration of a Request for a Private Plan Change by Atlas Concrete Limited Proposed Private Change 39 to the Auckland Council District Plan (North Shore Section) Proposed Change 18 to the Auckland Regional Policy Statement and Proposed Change 2 to the Auckland Council Regional Plan (Air, Land and Water) to be made Operative Request to make Plan change 296 (321 Rosebank Road, Avondale) operative in the Auckland Council District Plan (Auckland City Isthmus Section) Plan Change 25 (Corban Estate Special Area) to the Auckland Council District Plan (Waitakere Section) to be approved and made operative. 37 79 151 PAGE 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 7 25

155 163 169 173

15 16 17 18

183 227

19 20

239

21

349

22

359 363
Page 3

23

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012 24 Approval of Plan Change 127 - Huapai North: Introduction of Special 29 Zone to the Auckland Council District Plan (Rodney Section) 2011 Due to the size of the attachment, this is available under separate cover, on request. It will however, be available on the Councils website in the Addendum agenda. 25 Proposed Private Plan Change 8 to the Auckland Council District Plan (Papakura Section) : Pararekau Island Countryside Living Zone - To be made Operative Due to the size of the attachment, this is available under separate cover, on request. It will however, be available on the Councils website in the Addendum agenda. 26 27 28 29 Presentation on the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Free Trade Agreements - Recommendation from the Economic Forum Final copy of the Maui's dolphin Threat Management Plan Submission to DOC and MPI Auckland Council Trade Mission to the Republic of Korea and Taiwan October 2012 - post mission report Consideration of Extraordinary Items 385 421 441 379

383

PUBLIC EXCLUDED
30 C1 C2 C3 Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public Acquisition of Land for Local Purpose Reserve, Otahuhu Acquisition of Land for Local Purpose Reserve, Umupuia Confidential Recommendation of the 13 November 2012 Parks, Recreation & Heritage Forum - Auckland Racing Club Ellerslie racecourse inner field Proposal to acquire land in Papatoetoe Proposal to acquire open space at Hobsonville for the purpose of sports fields 459 459 459

459 460 460

C4 C5

Page 4

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 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 Regional Development and Operations Committee held on Thursday, 15 November 2012, be confirmed as a true and correct record. 4 Petitions At the close of the agenda no requests for petitions had been received. 5 Public Input Standing Order 3.21 provides for Public Input. Applications to speak must be made to 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. 6 Local Board Input Standing Order 3.22 provides for Local Board Input. The Chairperson (or nominee of that Chairperson) is entitled to speak for up to five (5) minutes during this time. The Chairperson of the Local Board (or nominee of that Chairperson) shall wherever practical, give two (2) days notice of their wish to speak. The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders. This right is in addition to the right under Standing Order 3.9.14 to speak to matters on the agenda. At the close of the agenda no requests for local board input had been received. 7 Extraordinary Business Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states: An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if(a) The local authority by resolution so decides; and

Page 5

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012 (b) The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,(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.

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

Page 6

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

File No.: CP2012/21063

Purpose
1. To seek endorsement of the operational guidelines for the Auckland region-wide swimming pool pricing policy, which will guide the implementation of the policy, whereby children 16 years and under will have universal free access at councils aquatic facilities.

Executive Summary
2. As part of the 2012-2022 Long-term Plan (LTP), the council adopted a region-wide swimming pool pricing policy, to provide universal free access for children 16 years and under at all council-owned aquatic facilities. Implementation is scheduled for 2 April 2013. The purpose of the operational guidelines, attached as appendix one, is to document the governing bodys decision and guide the operational implementation of the policy. The region-wide swimming pool pricing policy is based on what was reported to the governing body via the LTP process and is summarised as follows: x Children 16 years and under will have universal free access to core facility areas during standard operating hours at council-owned aquatic facilities. x Adults 17 years and over will be charged to access council-owned aquatic facilities, based on existing charges or the lowest equivalent charge across the councils network. This includes provision for subsidies for seniors, disability users and other categories. x Charges will apply to all for non-core facility areas like spas, sauna, steam, special play equipment, dive-boards and hydroslides. x No charge for school groups to book space between 9am and 3pm on school days except for exclusive use of water-space. x No charge for groups serving children 16 years and under to book space during standard operating hours, except for exclusive use of water-space. 4. The estimated financial impact of the pricing policy adopted by the governing body is $450,000 net improvement across councils network of aquatic facilities based on assumptions provided by KPMG. Local board budgets have been adjusted as part of the LTP process to account for the financial impact. The draft operational guidelines were reported to the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum on 9 October and have been reported to all local boards during November. Most of the local boards have received the guidelines with some noted exceptions below. All local boards have expressed some concern over the potential financial implications of the policy, if the actual impact is different to the amount their local board budgets have been adjusted by. Otara-Papatoetoe and Mangere-Otahuhu local boards are concerned the introduction of adults charges will negatively impact on the use of their local aquatic facilities and the wellbeing of their local communities. The Strategy and Finance Committee on 29 November will consider proposals from both local boards for a targeted rate in the draft Annual Plan 2013/14 to fund free or reduced adult entry charges to their local aquatic facilities. The Strategy and Finance Committee will also consider a policy amendment to allow local boards to fund free entry for adults. The operational guidelines in appendix one have been revised in anticipation of the Strategy and Finance Committee approving the policy amendment. The Manurewa Local Board has passed a number of resolutions expressing their disagreement with the policy and are recommending the governing body subsidises free pool usage for gold card holders (65 years plus), disability users and supervising adults (inwater adults accompanying a child under 5 years). This proposal was previously considered by the governing body during the May 2012 LTP considerations but was not pursued.
Page 7

3.

5.

6.

7.

Auckland region-wide swimming pool pricing policy operational guidelines

Item 9

Auckland region-wide swimming pool pricing policy operational guidelines

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Item 9

Recommendation/s
That the Regional Development and Operations Committee: a) Endorses the Auckland region-wide swimming pool pricing policy operational guidelines, attached as appendix one to this report, which will guide the implementation of the policy whereby children 16 years and under will have universal free access at council-owned aquatic facilities.

Discussion
8. As part of the 100 Projects in 100 Days initiative, His Worship the Mayor requested the investigation of the potential provision of free swimming pool access to all council aquatic facilities based on the approach that Manukau City Council had taken. Four pricing scenarios were considered as part of 2012-2022 draft Long-term Plan consultation process. In June 2012, the governing body considered the community and local board feedback, the implications of each scenario and resolved to adopt a new region-wide pricing policy for all council-owned aquatic facilities. The Strategy and Finance Committee resolved on 23 May 2012: b) That the Strategy and Finance Committee notes four swimming pool pricing options were included in the draft Long-term Plan and 1,553 submissions were received with preferences for each option as follows: i) Option one: status quo 18% support ii) Option two: universal free access during standard opening hours 15% support iii) Option three: universal free access for all children 16 years and under 31% support iv) Option four: universal user charges 35% support That the Strategy and Finance Committee notes for all options except option one, there are a number of implementation considerations which means implementation will be phased in after March 2013. That the Strategy and Finance Committee considers the feedback received and the implementation considerations raised in this report as part of its deliberations on swimming pool pricing options in the 2012-2022 Long-term Plan. That the Strategy and Finance Committee adopt option (iii) re swimming pools.

9.

c)

d)

e) 10.

Operational guidelines have been developed to document the governing body decision and to guide implementation of the policy at councils aquatic facilities. The operational guidelines, attached as appendix one, outline the following: x x x x x x Policy background, scope, rationale, goal, expected outcomes and benefits. Role of local boards and governing body relative to the non-regulatory decision-making responsibilities. A breakdown of casual entry charges into different categories and consistent descriptions. What free access means and defining core aquatic facility areas and standard operating hours. How hire groups serving children 16 years and under are categorised and charged depending on the group, make-up of their membership and the purpose of the visit. Guidance on authenticating the age of users and maximising the use of aquatic facilities.

11.

Once the operational guidelines are approved, schedule one of the guidelines will document the prices at each aquatic centre (as these will vary). An indicative schedule of aquatic facility prices is attached as appendix two, although these prices do not include any inflation adjustments required by the Revenue and Finance policy.

Auckland region-wide swimming pool pricing policy operational guidelines

Page 8

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012 12. 13.

The objectives of implementing the policy are to: x x x x Increase the number of children 16 years and under utilising council-owned aquatic facilities. Support groups serving children 16 years and under to provide affordable access to aquatic water-sports. Promote accessibility and contribute to council-owned aquatic facilities being more affordable. Contribute to maximising the use of council-owned aquatic facilities.

14.

The policy applies to all council-owned aquatic facilities excluding: x x Newmarket Pool, where the lease allows the lessee to set fees and charges, Partnership aquatic facilities where Auckland Council does not have the ability to set fees and charges such as Mt Albert Aquatic Centre.

15.

The new pricing policy will not harmonise prices across the facility network apart from establishing universal free access for children 16 years and under. This means there will be different adult charges at each aquatic facility based on either the status quo or the lowest equivalent charge across councils aquatic network. The new pricing policy will not introduce any other operational changes to councils aquatic facilities. The operating hours at all facilities will remain the same. The pricing of programmes, memberships and all other aquatic facility charges will remain the same. In developing the operational guidelines, source documents include the Mayors proposal for the draft Long-term Plan October 2011, reports to the governing body during the 2012-2022 Long-term Plan process on swimming pool pricing scenarios and the legacy Manukau City Council Leisure Pricing Policy, on which the free pools methodology is based.

16.

17.

Consideration
Local Board Views
18. Under the non-regulatory responsibilities, local boards are responsible for setting fees and charges for local activities except when the governing body sets a region-wide policy. In this situation, the governing body has set a region-wide policy for swimming pool pricing and all local boards must adhere to the policy. Under the policy, from 2013/14 local boards will be able to propose changes to the fees and charges at local aquatic facilities provided: x x x x 20. they are consistent with the region-wide policy, where 16 years and under are free the financial impact can be managed within the local board budgets meet the requirements of a special consultative procedure should a local board not be able to fund its proposed pricing changes, this will need to be discussed with the governing body as part of negotiations on its local board agreement.

19.

The draft operational guidelines have been reported to all local boards during November. Local board resolutions are outlined below. A number of local board meetings were not completed at the time of writing this report but any feedback from these local boards will be tabled at the committee meeting as supplementary information.

Auckland region-wide swimming pool pricing policy operational guidelines

Page 9

Item 9

The goal of the policy is to enable all children to access aquatic facilities, promote a sense of belonging, provide equity of access and help raise the level of childrens swimming abilities.

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Item 9

Local Board Devonport-Takapuna Albert-Eden Howick Waitemata Kaipatiki Papakura Hibiscus and Bays

Resolutions x Received the report

Rodney

Manurewa

Otara-Papatoetoe

x Has the ability to seek a review following implementation of the free access for children aged 16 years and under. x Requests that the income to the Hibiscus Coast Leisure Centre be amended to reflect the reduction in revenue following the free access at council-owned aquatic facilities for children aged 16 years and under. x Expresses its concern to the Governing Body regarding the viability of universal free access for under 16 year olds at Council swimming pools and the potential for this to compromise funding for new facilities. x Recommends that the Governing Body subsidises free pool usage for gold card holders, disability users and supervising adults. x Disagrees with the conclusion that free pool access for children 16 years and under, will increase participation and believes that the introduction of fees for supervising adults will decrease participation in the Manurewa Local Board area. x Does not consider that the thrust and content of its feedback is fully reflected in the report on the region-wide swimming pool pricing policy where children 16 years and under will have universal free access at council-owned aquatic facilities. x The Manurewa Local Board area is home to a substantial Maori population, is disappointed with the Maori Impact Statement contained in the report on the region-wide swimming pool pricing policy where children 16 years and under will have universal free access at council-owned aquatic facilities as there is: x no reference to any feedback from Maori; x there is no substantial comment on the potential negative impact on Maori, particularly in the area comprising the Southern Initiative. x Expresses concern that the cost of implementation of the region-wide swimming pool pricing policy has the potential to result in a loss of service levels. x Requests from officers a financial breakdown of the compliance costs incurred by Manukau Leisure Services to implement the region-wide swimming pool pricing policy. x Requests Councillor Penrose to take the above resolutions to the Regional Development and Operations Committee for consideration. x The Manurewa Local Board commission a half-page advertorial space in the Manukau Courier, funded through the Boards communications budget, to outline its response to the Auckland region-wide swimming pool pricing policy and operational guidelines. A. Recommends to the Strategy and Finance Committee: 1. That it proposes for consultation in the draft Annual Plan 2013/2014, that a targeted rate be set as a uniform charge of $31.16 per separately used or inhabited part of a property, on residential properties in the Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board area for the purpose of subsidising entry to swimming pools for persons 17 years and over. That it notes the Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board will as part of its consultation material in relation to the Local Board Agreement ask for community views on: i) a targeted rate in the Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board area ii) reprioritisation of existing funding iii) a combination of i) and ii) and reduced pool admission fees iv) retaining the current fee structure for 17 years and over.

2.

Auckland region-wide swimming pool pricing policy operational guidelines

Page 10

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

3.

4.

5.

Agrees to include the Otara-Papatoetoe Local Boards proposal of a full level of subsidisation of swimming pool entry for persons 17 years and over in the draft Annual Plan 2013/2014. Recommends to the Governing Body that it amend the Region-wide swimming pool pricing policy to allow local boards to make it free or no charge swimming pool entry for persons 17 years and over. Agrees to amend the financial policies, including the Revenue and Financing Policy, to reflect the decisions above. That the proposal to increase the level of subsidisation, including full subsidisation, of swimming pool entry for persons 17 years and over is included in the Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board agreement.

B.

21.

In addition to the formal resolutions above, all local boards expressed some level of concern regarding the potential financial impact of the pricing policy. All local board budgets for swimming pools have been adjusted to account for the financial impact of the policy, with a projected net effect of an additional $450,000 of revenue across all local board areas. The main concern is what will happen if the actual financial impact is different from the projected impact. Councils finance team have advised there will be the ability to adjust the budgets based on actual data once the pricing policy has been in place for at least 6 months. With respect to the resolutions of Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board and expected resolutions from the Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board on 28 November 2012, the Strategy and Finance Committee (29 November 2012) will consider proposals from both local boards to include a targeted rate in the draft Annual Plan 2013/14 to fund free or reduced adult entry charges to their local aquatic facilities. The regional policy adopted by the governing body does not allow for adults to be free as this is inconsistent with the intent of the policy, whereby children are free and adults are charged. To enable the Otara-Papatoetoe and Mangere-Otahuhu local board to consult on targeted rates proposals in the draft Annual Plan 2013/14, the Strategy and Finance Committee will also consider a policy amendment to allow local boards to fund free entry for adults. The operational guidelines (in appendix one) have been revised in section three roles of local boards and governing body in anticipation of Strategy and Finance Committee approving the policy amendment.

22.

23.

Maori Impact Statement

24. The region-wide swimming pool pricing policy has the potential to support a greater number of Maori youth using council-owned aquatic facilities particularly in areas where there are currently charges for children and youth to access aquatic facilities, these being the north, west and central areas of Auckland Region. In Manurewa, Mangere-Otahuhu and Otara-Papatoetoe local board areas where charges will be introduced for adults 17 years and over, there is the potential for some reduction in patronage by adults. As these local board areas have higher proportions of Maori compared with the Auckland region, the policy potentially impacts on a greater proportion of Maori adults and their participation in aquatic activities.

25.

Auckland region-wide swimming pool pricing policy operational guidelines

Page 11

Item 9

Local Board Otara-Papatoetoe (continued)

Resolutions And in particular ask for community views on these specific options: A - Admission free; $ 31.16 uniform charge to recover all costs B - Admission $2 and $1; $10.89 uniform charge to recover balance costs C - Admission $2 and $1; $10 uniform charge, and reprioritisation of other expenditure to recover balance costs (Admission charges - full for adults; reduced for seniors, community services card, students and disabled.)

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

General

Item 9

26.

Officers have been working with aquatic facility managers and contacted aquatic facility operators to ensure the operational guidelines are practical and easy to implement.

Implementation Issues
27. The region-wide swimming pool pricing policy is scheduled for implementation from 2 April 2013. Work has been progressing to implement the governing bodys decision to introduce the policy through two work streams. x Operational planning to implement the policy including: x renegotiating contracts with external operators x reviewing facility business plans x developing operational policies for demand management, customer management, cash handling and pool safety standards x workforce planning x providing site by site implementation checklists to ensure preparedness for day one x data collection and undertaking research to measure the before and after impact of the policy change. x Communications and engagement planning to ensure internal, external stakeholders, political, key partners (contracted out sites) and the community are aware of the impending changes and understand the impact and opportunities for them.

Attachments
No. A B Title Auckland region-wide swimming pool pricing policy operational guidelines Indicative schedule of aquatic facility prices Page 13 23

Signatories
Authors Authorisers Anita Coy-Macken - Principal Policy Analyst Central Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

Auckland region-wide swimming pool pricing policy operational guidelines

Page 12

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Auckland region-wide swimming pool pricing policy operational guidelines

Page 13

Attachment A

Item 9

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Attachment A
Auckland region-wide swimming pool pricing policy operational guidelines

Item 9

Page 14

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Auckland region-wide swimming pool pricing policy operational guidelines

Page 15

Attachment A

Item 9

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Attachment A
Auckland region-wide swimming pool pricing policy operational guidelines

Item 9

Page 16

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Auckland region-wide swimming pool pricing policy operational guidelines

Page 17

Attachment A

Item 9

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Attachment A
Auckland region-wide swimming pool pricing policy operational guidelines

Item 9

Page 18

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Auckland region-wide swimming pool pricing policy operational guidelines

Page 19

Attachment A

Item 9

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Attachment A
Auckland region-wide swimming pool pricing policy operational guidelines

Item 9

Page 20

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Auckland region-wide swimming pool pricing policy operational guidelines

Page 21

Attachment A

Item 9

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Attachment A
Auckland region-wide swimming pool pricing policy operational guidelines

Item 9

Page 22

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Auckland region-wide swimming pool pricing policy operational guidelines

Page 23

Attachment B

Item 9

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Attachment B
Auckland region-wide swimming pool pricing policy operational guidelines

Item 9

Page 24

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Independent ports technical study final report

File No.: CP2012/22623

Purpose
1. The purpose of this report is to set out: x the findings from the independent ports technical study final report, produced by PwC (PricewaterhouseCoopers), and sponsored by the Upper North Island Strategic Alliance (UNISA). The findings specific to the Port of Auckland and the Auckland region are also outlined. proposals for some further work that include a review of the provisions in the Unitary Plan for activities within the Port Management Area 1A, and in particular as they relate to potential reclamation.

Executive Summary
2. The independent ports technical study conducted by PwC has concluded that: x There is strong growth projected for the Upper North Island (UNI) ports over the next 30 years. All UNI ports (covering the Port of Auckland, Port of Tauranga and the Whangarei Ports) will be required to meet the projected freight task. A rapid and ongoing increase in transshipping means that pressure is likely to be more on port infrastructure than on distribution networks and land transport infrastructure to these ports. Pressure on land transport infrastructure is likely to be driven by non-port traffic, competing land uses, and (potentially) reverse sensitivity. General congestion may be a factor in the medium to longer term, which will impact ports as users of the network. The UNI port network has the capacity to meet the projected freight task, provided that efficiency gains, incremental investments in infrastructure and the uptake of already consented works are undertaken in a planned and timely manner. The greatest opportunities for efficiency gains to access additional capacity are in relation to container trade. In a properly functioning market, the prices charged at different ports can play a role in directing customers to where spare capacity exists in the UNI ports system, and in prioritizing investment choices. Furthermore, the development of inland ports can help drive efficiencies in the distribution network, and aid competition and substitutability between ports. A third rail line between Southdown and Wiri (dedicated to freight) is at the strategic planning stage and if it were to proceed could provide additional capacity to address emerging rail congestion issues. This portion of the network is currently under pressure as it must cope with rail freight between the Port of Auckland and Wiri, Port of Tauranga and Metroport, as well as commuter traffic from both branches of the southern line. Substantial, systemic change to the UNI port system within the next 30 years (for example, establishing a new UNI port) is likely to be significantly less cost effective than incremental change. Over the next 30 years, the most efficient and cost effective options for meeting the projected freight task are likely to be based around improved efficiency, incremental growth at each port, planned improvements in the land transport system, complemented by changes in relative prices that direct customers to where spare capacity exists in the UNI port system.

Independent ports technical study final report

Page 25

Item 10

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012 3. The independent port technical study by PwC has concluded that the Port of Auckland can meet projected freight demand over the next 30 years through efficiency gains, some additional berth and storage development, including some reclamation, although this would not need to be to the extent previously contemplated. When this infrastructure is required is dependent on the timing of any operating efficiencies, the timing of any release of Captain Cook and Marsden wharfs, and spikes in demand. Further work by the council is proposed, involving a review of the provisions in the Unitary Plan for activities within Port Management Area 1A, in particular as they relate to potential reclamation, and any relevant landward zonings. This process would ask POAL, once they have considered the independent port technical study by PwC, to present to the Council on potential options for port development within Port Management Area 1A, including as they relate to any potential reclamation activities, over the next 30 years. Officers would then work with POAL on a mutually agreed Port Development Plan for the Port of Auckland, which would take into account the conclusions of the PwC independent technical study and Councils response to the potential options presented by POAL. The results of the process outlined above would then be included in the notified Unitary Plan for formal public consultation in September 2013.

Item 10
4. 5. 6. a)

Recommendation/s
That the Regional Development and Operations Committee: Receive the final report of the independent ports technical study by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), which has been sponsored by the Upper North Island Strategic Alliance, as provided at Attachment A. Note that: i. The Upper North Island seaports, including the associated road, rail and logistics network, are vitally important to the current and future economic prosperity of the Upper North Island and New Zealand. ii. The independent port technical study by PwC has concluded that the Port of Auckland can meet projected freight demand over the next 30 years through efficiency gains, some additional berth and storage development, including some reclamation, although this would not need to be to the extent previously contemplated by Ports of Auckland Limited. iii. When this infrastructure is required is dependent on the timing of any operating efficiencies, the timing of any release of Captain Cook and Marsden wharfs, and spikes in demand. iv. The above conclusions assume that the Port of Auckland is able to achieve significantly improved container berthage and storage efficiencies. v. Officers are of the view that having regard to the uncertainty involved in future economic projections for port activities, a reasonable foreseeable planning horizon for port-related planning is 30 years. vi. Port Management Area 1A anticipates a range of activities within it, which include maneuvering, berthing and dredging, as well any potential reclamation activity. vii. Ports of Auckland Limited have no active proposals for additional reclamations in Port Management Area 1A beyond that which is already consented. Any additional reclamations would require resource consent and would most likely be publicly notified. c) Having regard to recommendation b) resolves to: i. Advise Ports of Auckland Ltd (POAL) that the provisions in the Unitary Plan for activities within Port Management Area 1A, in particular as they relate to potential reclamation, and any relevant landward zonings, will be reviewed by the Council.

b)

Independent ports technical study final report

Page 26

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012 ii. Notate in the appropriate places, in the draft Unitary Plan for release in March 2013, that the provisions within Port Management Area 1A, in particular as they relate to potential reclamation activities are under review. Request POAL, once they have considered the independent port technical study by PwC, present to the Council by March 2013 on potential options for port development within Port Management Area 1A, including as they relate to any potential reclamation activities, over the next 30 years. Subsequent to this presentation, request officers to work with POAL on a mutually agreed Port Development Plan for the Port of Auckland, for completion by June 2013. The Port Development Plan should take into account the conclusions of the PwC independent technical study and Councils response to the potential options referred to in (iii) above. The results of the process in (iii)-(v) are to be included in the notified Unitary Plan for formal public consultation in September 2013.

iii.

iv.

v.

vi.

Discussion
Background
7. On 6 March 2012, Auckland Councils Auckland Plan Committee (the Committee) made resolutions about the long-term role of Auckland ports within the UNI freight network and about long-term strategic choices for the Auckland waterfront. These resolutions are provided at Appendix 1. The Committee signalled it wanted to work in partnership with UNI stakeholders on this. A staged approach was developed to address the resolutions of the Committee, given considerations of the Commerce Act and Port Companies Act. As the first stage in this process, at their March 2012 meeting the UNISA1 Mayors and Chairs endorsed work to investigate current and future freight demand and supply and scenarios to meet that demand, in the context of ports and port-related infrastructure for the UNI. This work has taken the form of a joint technical study. UNISA is a collaborative group of seven member councils who have committed to a longterm collaboration for responding to and managing a range of inter-regional and intermetropolitan issues. A particular focus of UNISA is taking a New Zealand Inc approach and perspective, to ensure the UNI and New Zealand as a whole remains internationally competitive and prosperous. A formal procurement process, via a Request for Proposal (RFP) to appoint an independent supplier for the technical study, was led by Auckland Council on behalf of UNISA. PwC were appointed as the supplier and this was announced via a joint UNISA press release on 18 June 2012. A UNISA progress update was reported to councils Economic Forum September 2012 meeting, and to the Auckland Plan Implementation Committee meeting in October 2012. The UNISA Chief Executives and Mayors/Chairs also received full updates on the study (on a confidential basis) at their October and November 2012 meetings respectively.

8.

9.

10.

11.

Recap on study purpose and scope

12. The primary objective of the study was to develop a credible and consistent understanding of the UNIs freight and port supply chain system. It is a technical, evidence based demand and supply study conducted by an independent supplier, which has had regard to existing relevant studies, information or research previously undertaken.

UNISA comprises the Mayors or Chairs from Northland, Bay of Plenty and Waikato Regional Councils, Hamilton and Tauranga City Councils, Whangarei District Council and Auckland Council. Independent ports technical study final report Page 27

Item 10

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012 13.

Item 10

The key deliverable of the study is a final report (provided at Attachment A) which contains analysis, modeling and data about current and future freight demand for ports and portsrelated infrastructure in the UNI, incorporating scenarios to meet that demand (in the context of various constraints) and the potential implications of these scenarios at a preliminary level. The technical study has not utilized confidential business planning information of any port and instead makes objective assumptions, based on published port plans, about likely future capacity and operations of ports. For a summary of the scope of services specification from the studys RFP, refer to Appendix 2. PwCs report was informed by interviews with key stakeholders, including interviews with port companies, major importers and exporters, and transport operators. While it is a non-binding technical study, some UNISA councils may wish to individually commission a second stage of further work in respect of their own ports and the regional implications. The study was not designed to produce business/investment case assessment of scenarios, nor cost them at a detailed level or assess them in regard to their commercial viability. The study was also not designed to make specific recommendations on how future freight demand should be met, or recommendations on specific infrastructure development sites. The study period of the report is 30 years and includes projections out to 2041. These projections are based on analysis of trade patterns and port throughput over the last ten years, supplemented by: qualitative information from industry participants; high level forecasts of economic growth in the UNI, New Zealand and amongst key trading partners; expected demographic changes; and physical constraints in respect of agricultural production in New Zealand. PwCs report also notes other exogenous influences on infrastructure demand, including: x x x the impact of larger ships domestic freight costs inland ports.

14.

15. 16.

17.

Key parameters and concepts 18.

19.

In measuring the current port task and in order to make projections for future port task growth, PwCs report measures cargo in terms of weight in tonnes rather than the dollar value, as weight of cargo is a better indicator of the size and number of vessels, trucks, trains, wharfs, cranes, and other infrastructure required. Weight is also a comparable measure that captures the total quantity of goods that must be moved through ports. Volume data (e.g. twenty-foot equivalent unit (TEU) containers or cubic metres) is less comparable between different cargos. In making their projections, PwCs report separately considered two components of total throughput: port exchanges and outside-port volume. x Port exchanges include domestic and international transshipping, which involves the unloading and loading of ships at the port, but where products do not leave (or enter from outside) the port gates. Outside-port volume involves inward or outward movement of goods, which leave or arrive from outside of the port gates.

20.

x 21.

Importantly, outside-port volume has an impact on both land transport and port infrastructure, while port exchanges impact port infrastructure only. Throughput includes both outside-port cargo and exchanges. It measures the total amount of cargo that is loaded or discharged at a port. Throughput is the best measure of infrastructure requirements at the port itself, including the number of cranes required to move containers on and off ships and the amount of port land required to store cargo. The diagram below from PwCs report illustrates these concepts.
Page 28

Independent ports technical study final report

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012 22.

x x x

It coincides with the longest planning periods used by many public sector entities Projections over longer time periods become increasingly undermined by transformative changes The potential for major system shocks to undermine trade.

23.

The projections for the future port task have been made for the UNI region as a whole. However PwCs report also breaks down these projections to individual ports (both bulk and container trade), in context of understanding the constraints faced by these ports. The ports under consideration are the Port of Auckland (PoA), Port of Tauranga (PoT) and the Whangarei Ports which include Northport and NZ Refining at Marsden Point.

Independent ports technical study final report

Page 29

Item 10

PwC have used a 30-year projection period which was considered a sensible timeframe in this context given:

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012 Port and port-related infrastructure

Item 10

24.

In considering existing port and port-related infrastructure, PwCs report distinguishes the following elements: x x x x Port access the depth of each ports channel and berths Berthage the number, length and configuration of container and bulk berth space at each port Storage the container and bulk storage capacity of each port Distribution primarily the land transport infrastructure servicing the port. In PwCs report this focuses on the road and rail networks.

25.

Ports also own significant operational infrastructure, such as cranes, straddles (for stacking containers), reefer slots (power points for refrigerated containers), buildings and operational technology. These types of assets are discussed in PwCs report in the context of options for improving port efficiencies. There has been public commentary on systemic change in the port configuration as an alternative to incrementally adding capacity. PwCs report summarizes at a high level the pros, cons and implications of three potential options, to help inform further technical analysis. These options are: x x x establishing a container terminal at Northport limiting PoAs growth establishing a new port in the UNI.

26.

Key findings and conclusions

27. The key findings/conclusions from the final report can be summarised as follows: Demand x Strong growth is projected for the UNI ports over the next 30 years, underpinned by continued growth in the trade of primary products, and the ongoing development of transhipping at PoA and PoT. x x x All of the three UNI ports are required to meet the projected freight task. Cargo throughput will grow more rapidly than outside-port cargo, and containerised cargo will grow more rapidly than bulk cargo in line with recent trends. More pressure will be placed on port infrastructure, which must handle growing volumes of exchange cargo, than on distribution networks and land transport infrastructure to the ports. Likewise, container handling facilities are expected to handle more growth than bulk cargo facilities.

Capacity x The UNI port network has capacity to meet the projected freight task over the next 30 years, but requires substantial operational efficiencies as well as incremental investment in infrastructure including the uptake of consented berth developments, reclamations, channel and berth deepening. x There is considerable capacity that can be accessed through improved operational efficiencies, most notably for containers and container storage in particular.

Future capacity x If each port is to manage their share of trade as projected, each will need to develop further capacity over the study period (even with assumed operational efficiencies): o For Northport this would include development of a planned 4th berth and deployment of additional storage space.

Independent ports technical study final report

Page 30

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012 o

For PoA, further reclamation and berth developments will probably be necessary, especially if Marsden and Captain Cook wharfs cease to be used for port-related operations. Provided sufficient operational efficiencies can be achieved, the requirement for additional infrastructure through reclamation would be smaller in scale than the preferred options shown in the 2008 Port Development Plan. When this infrastructure is required is dependent on the timing of any operating efficiencies, the timing of any release of Captain Cook and Marsden wharfs, and spikes in demand. Note: Ports of Auckland Limited have no active proposals for additional reclamations in Port Management Area 1A beyond that which is already consented. Any additional reclamations would require resource consent and would most likely be publicly notified.

Constraints and options x Following efficiency gains, if PoA is unable to gain approval for an expanded footprint, then some of the projected growth may need to be accommodated at other UNI ports. PoT and Northport have potential to grow both from a storage and berth perspective, and accommodate some of this growth, though at an economic cost to the supply chain. In a properly functioning market, the prices charged at different ports can play a role in directing customers to where spare capacity exists in the UNI ports system, and in prioritising investment choices (eg. between investing in infrastructure or efficiencies). The development of inland ports can help drive efficiencies in the distribution network, and aid competition and substitutability between ports. Substantial, systemic change to the UNI port system within the next 30 years (for example, establishing a new UNI port) is likely to be significantly less cost effective than incremental change.

x x

Land transport infrastructure x Land transport infrastructure will be under less growth pressure than port infrastructure (as outside-port growth rates are lower). Pressure on land transport infrastructure will be driven by non-port traffic, competing land uses, and (potentially) reverse sensitivity. There are however opportunities for efficiencies relating to port-traffic including; increasing the number of TEUs per truck, reducing one-way cargo trips and greater use of off-peak windows. x The land transport networks current infrastructure can accommodate the projected growth in port traffic across the study period without a material increase in congestion attributable to that port traffic. However, general congestion on the road and rail network may be a factor in the medium to longer term, which will impact ports as users of the network. From a rail perspective, Southdown to Wiri is the main issue for the network. This portion of the network is under pressure as it must cope with rail freight between PoA and Wiri, PoT and Metroport, as well as commuter traffic from both branches of the southern line. A third line for freight from Wiri to Southdown is at the strategic planning stage, and if it were to proceed could provide additional capacity to address these congestion issues. Improvements to the East Coast main trunk line between Auckland and Tauranga will also most likely be required, including possible double tracking.

Independent ports technical study final report

Page 31

Item 10

For PoT this would include additional container berthage to the south at Sulphur Point. PoT may also look to develop up to 1km of earmarked bulk berthage on the Mount Maunganui side of the port, which would provide a significant increase in capacity, and operational flexibility.

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012 Overall conclusion

Item 10

Over the next 30 years, the most efficient and cost effective options for meeting the projected freight task are likely to be based around improved efficiency, incremental growth at each port, planned improvements in the land transport system, complemented by changes in relative prices that direct customers to where spare capacity exists in the UNI port system.

Findings specific to Auckland

PoA infrastructure 28. For container cargo, PwCs report notes the current container infrastructure should be sufficient to cater to future growth out to 2041, if PoA can achieve substantial operational efficiencies in container berth usage and productivity, and upgrade its container stacking technology. The report notes the container berth and container storage areas are currently operating well below potential technical capacity. For bulk cargo it appears more difficult for PoA to make efficiencies in this area with a key issue being storage space. At the current level of productivity, PoA is almost fully utilizing its storage space, and this usage is also constraining PoAs ability to increase its bulk berth occupancy. In order to cater for the projected growth in bulk cargo, PoA would need to achieve extensive efficiencies in bulk storage utilisation most likely through either more dense storage arrangements or reduced dwell times. PwCs report considers it is likely that even with very significant operational efficiencies, PoA will still require additional berth and storage space before 2041 if it is to cater to the projected trade task. This will most likely involve some additional reclamation. The reclamations would not need to be as substantial as the options in the 2008 Port Development Plan. When this is required will depend on the timing of any operating efficiencies, the timing of any release of Captain Cook and Marsden wharfs, and spikes in demand. Whether additional reclamation and berth development of sufficient size is ultimately achievable depends on the ability of PoA to obtain resource consent. If PoA is unable to gain consent for an expanded footprint, then some of the projected growth at PoA will need to be accommodated at other UNI ports. PoT or Northport would likely require additional port and/or land transport infrastructure, or it would likely accelerate their need for additional infrastructure. Ports are not the only users of the road and rail networks. It is therefore difficult to establish whether the existing infrastructure can cater for future growth in port traffic. Instead, PwCs report attempts to establish whether the current infrastructure can accommodate the projected growth in port traffic without a material increase in congestion attributable to that port traffic. PwCs report concludes the main pieces of road and rail infrastructure used by PoA traffic will have difficulty accommodating port traffic by the end of the 2041 projection period. However, if the suggested port traffic efficiencies are achieved (such as those outlined in paragraph 35 below), this will be driven more by increases in non-port traffic that also uses the same corridors, than by increases in port traffic. While congestion in Auckland will affect port operations, it is not necessarily a problem that can be fully addressed by changes to port and port-related infrastructure. While noting that congestion issues are system-wide and primarily driven by non-port traffic, the report does note options for accommodating the growth in port traffic. The options in PwCs report include:

29.

30.

31.

Distribution infrastructure 32.

33.

34.

Options 35.

Independent ports technical study final report

Page 32

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012 1) More efficient use of trucks and trains

Trucks and trains transport the same amount of cargo over fewer trips (e.g. by reducing one way trips, increasing the number of containers that trucks are permitted to carry, or deploying longer trains). They can also travel at less congested periods. Auckland Transport officers have noted the achievement of some of these efficiencies may not be straightforward. 2) Providing more capacity on the road and rail network

In Aucklands case, Auckland Transport and the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) are currently investigating options to address concerns around future congestion on the Auckland traffic network. In relation to this PwCs report notes: x NZTA and Auckland Transport are also investigating the relative costs and benefits of various roading improvements along the SH16 corridor, including grade separation options, and their preferred timing and form. a third rail line between Southdown and Wiri (dedicated to freight) is currently at the strategic planning stage.

Further work
36. The council is currently working to develop a Unitary Plan, which will replace existing district and regional plans, including the Regional Plan: Coastal. A political working party and council officers will produce a discussion draft to release to the public for informal feedback in March to June 2013. After incorporating feedback, the Unitary Plan will go to the council in September 2013 for a decision on notification and formal public consultation. Officers are of the view that, having regard to the uncertainty involved in future economic projections for port activities, a reasonable foreseeable planning horizon for port-related planning is 30 years. This is expected to meet the requirements of the Resource Management Act to provide for the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations. Having regard to the independent port study by PwC, public feedback and wider economic, social, environmental and cultural considerations outlined above, officers consider that further work should be undertaken, involving a review of the provisions in the Unitary Plan for activities within Port Management Area 1A, in particular as they relate to potential reclamation, and any relevant landward zonings. The draft Unitary Plan for release in March 2013, would need to notate in the appropriate places that the provisions within Port Management Area 1A, in particular as they relate to potential reclamation activities, are under review. This process would ask POAL, once they have considered the independent port technical study by PwC, to present to the Council by March 2013 on potential options for port development within Port Management Area 1A, including as they relate to any potential reclamation activities, over the next 30 years. Officers would then work with POAL on a mutually agreed Port Development Plan for the Port of Auckland, for completion by June 2013, which would take into account the conclusions of the PwC independent technical study and Councils response to the potential options presented by POAL. The results of the process outlined above would then be included in the notified Unitary Plan for formal public consultation in September 2013.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

Consideration
Local Board Views
43. The Governing Body has statutory responsibility for decision making on the regulatory activities of Auckland Council, which includes the Unitary Plan. Local boards play a key role in the development of the Unitary Plan by identifying and communicating the views, local impacts and issues facing their communities to the Governing Body.
Page 33

Independent ports technical study final report

Item 10

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012 44.

Item 10

UNISA is an inter-regional collaborative initiative, and as such also falls within the Governing Bodys allocated non-regulatory responsibilities for regional planning, strategy and governance. The Mayor is Auckland Councils representative on UNISA, which is in accordance with his statutory role to articulate and promote a vision for Auckland, and promote leadership for the purpose of achieving objectives that will contribute to that vision [section 9(1) Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009]. The Waitemat Local Board has a particular interest in the downtown waterfront area, by virtue of it being included in the boards geographic area. The Devonport-Takapuna and Orakei Local Boards also share this interest, due to their geographic proximity to the Port of Auckland. The Waitemat , Devonport-Takapuna and Orakei Local Board chairs and members were provided with PwCs final report on the same day it was distributed to Governing Body members.

45.

46.

Maori Impact Statement

47. One of the Auckland Plans strategic directions is to create better connections and accessibility within Auckland, across New Zealand. Directive 13.7 of the Auckland Plan is to provide for the long term needs of the port of Auckland and Auckland Airport in an appropriate and environmentally sustainable manner, to support New Zealand's international freight, trading competitiveness and visitor industry. This directive is also reflected in action 3.2.1 of the Auckland Economic Development Strategy. As part of the draft Unitary Plan development process, the council is working with stakeholders regionally to test approaches and provide direction for the development of the plan. This includes engagement with all 19 Mana Whenua groups. This engagement builds on feedback already received on the Auckland Plan. In March 2013 Auckland Council will engage more widely across the region on the discussion draft and continue to engage with Mana Whenua. In addition, the Independent Maori Statutory Board is represented on the Unitary Plan Political Working Party. A copy of PwCs report has been sent to all Iwi Chairs. PwCs report was informed by interviews with key stakeholders, including interviews with port companies, major importers and exporters. It is noted that Tainui Group Holdings, by virtue of the proposed inland port at Ruakura, was one of these companies interviewed.

48.

49. 50.

Implementation Issues
51. The implementation process and timings associated with further work the council may request POAL pursue as a result of the independent ports technical study has been outlined earlier in this report.

Attachments
No. A Title PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) - ports technical study final report (Under Separate Cover) Page

Signatories
Authors Authorisers Sarah Johnstone-Smith - Principal Advisor Regional Economic Policy Development Harvey Brookes - Manager Economic Development Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

Independent ports technical study final report

Page 34

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Resolution number AFV/2012/7 MOVED by Deputy Mayor Hulse, seconded Cr Wood: Directive Provide for the long term needs of the Port of Auckland and Auckland Airport in an appropriate and environmentally sustainable manner, to support New Zealand's international freight, trading competitiveness and visitor industry x x x x x x That the Auckland Plan does not endorse any specific port expansion proposal That the Upper North Island (UNI) must be able to meet short and long term growth requirements of an export-driven economy, through the capacity of its ports and the freight transport system The Port of Auckland currently plays a significant role in the freight system and creates economic value both for Auckland, the UNI and New Zealand That the Waitemata Harbour and Hauraki Gulf is an Auckland-defining asset that the Plan seeks to protect and enhance That there will need to be integrated and coordinated capacity development across the UNI to meet future freight demand and avoid a shortfall in port infrastructure capacity That in order to determine the long-term (i.e. greater than 30 years) role of the Port of Auckland in the UNI port and freight network, and inform the long-term strategic choices for the Auckland waterfront (including the Unitary Plan), Auckland Council, in conjunction with the above key stakeholders will lead and facilitate a study of port development options for Auckland which will: o Take a long-term (30-100 year) view o Assess future freight demand to jointly agree on likely future port infrastructure capacity requirements; and o Based on the above information, model a range of development options for the Port of Auckland o Address the community's view on port development noting that the current provisions of the Regional Plan: Coastal contain the following policies: Any application to reclaim land in any Port Management Area shall demonstrate that: There is no practicable alternative to the proposed reclamation, including the use of existing facilities and existing land-based areas in the region; and It is the most appropriate form of development; and Adverse environmental effects will be avoided, remedied or mitigated." x That based on current information, Auckland will continue to need a Port on the Waitemata Harbour as its major seaport in order for the overall freight demand anticipated for the UNI to be met. The study of Auckland's position within the UNI options may confirm the status quo, identify different configuration alternatives at the current port locations, or identify as yet unexplored alternative locations for port infrastructure The RMA planning framework for the port area will be developed as part of the Auckland Council's Unitary Plan. That plan will take account of the Port of Auckland study. Notwithstanding any of the above, any proposed development of the port will be subject to the full RMA resource consent process. CARRIED

x x

Independent ports technical study final report

Page 35

Item 10

Appendix 1: Auckland Plan Committee resolutions (6 March 2012)

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Item 10

Appendix 2: Scope of services specification (summary from the Request for Proposal) The study will deliver a final report which: 1. Details the nature and quantum of the future freight2 demand for the Upper North Island ports3 and port-related infrastructure4. This shall have reference to contingencies such as: x key international shipping trends and competitive practices (including the potential future role of coastal shipping); x the strategies and plans of New Zealands major exporters and importers; x the investment strategies of related ports (for example, in Australia and the Pacific Rim); x current freight land transport network and supply chain strategies, plans and programmes in the UNI, and other strategies as relevant x the size and scale of the Upper North Island economy. 2. Identifies and assesses the implications of the future freight demand for ports and port-related infrastructure in the UNI, with particular reference to current existing and planned future supply capacity to meet this demand. The study will not utilise confidential business planning information of any port and will instead make objective assumptions, as well as utilising published port plans, about likely future capacity and operations of ports. Note: The implications of future freight demand for ports and ports-related infrastructure should also consider any major constraints, consequential impacts or dependencies that might apply, for example sensitive land use, rail corridor capacity. 3. Models a range of scenarios for the ability of UNI ports and ports-related infrastructure to meet future freight demands by applying different constraints (for example, access to land, changes to ship size, availability of transport links and inland freight hubs, global economic conditions forecasts). These scenarios will clearly outline the assumptions that have been applied. Note: The scenarios may consider a range of ways in which increased future freight demand could be responded to, for example, a greater role for inland ports or freight hubs. 4. Identifies and assesses at a preliminary level the potential implications for the UNI ports and ports-related infrastructure and capacity to meet demand from each scenario.

2 3

For clarification, reference to freight demand is focussed on imports and exports, not all freight movements. For clarification, reference to ports principally refers to seaports and includes associated inland ports. 4 For clarification, reference to ports-related infrastructure includes freight transport network infrastructure, supply chain and logistics infrastructure and freight hubs. Independent ports technical study final report Page 36

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

File No.: CP2012/22119

Purpose
1. To action the 13 November 2012 resolutions of the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum.

Executive Summary
2. At its 13 November 2012 meeting, the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum resolved: 1. Karekare Surf Life Saving Club Access

Resolution number PH/2012/135 MOVED by Cr S Coney, seconded Member Morehu: That the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum: a) Recommends that the Regional Development and Operations Committee: i) Approves the lodgement of an application by the Manager, Regional and Specialist Parks for resource consent to realign the mouth of the Karekare stream, for a five-year period to ensure the public, and Karekare Surf Life Saving Club can continue to access their clubrooms and provide surf life saving services on Karekare beach, whilst ensuring the lagoon's ecology is sustained. Agrees that in preparing the assessment of environmental effects for application for resource consent; that the Karekare community and Kawerau a Maki are consulted on the proposal and measures to protect environment, and that the outcomes of this consultation are provided with application for resource consent. the Te the the

ii)

iii)

Agrees that the Manager, Regional and Specialist Parks requests that the application is publically notified, given the level of community interest.

2.

Sports Field Development Capacity Programme

Resolution number PH/2012/138 MOVED by Cr MA Hartley, seconded Cr CE Fletcher: That the Parks Recreation and Heritage Forum: a) Endorses the regionally funded projects in the Draft Sports Field Capacity Development 10 year Programme, the methodology used to develop the programme and the outcome of delivering additional capacity to meet at least 80% of projected demand for all areas by 2022. Notes that annual reviews of the programme will be undertaken that may result in the need for regionally funded projects to be rescheduled, changed or substituted should the opportunities to the council and sport collectively achieve the most practicable outcomes and efficiencies. Notes that where officers are proposing changes to the regionally funded programme as a result of annual reviews, impacted Local Boards will be consulted. Notes that, each year, officers will report to the Governing Body and seek confirmation of the programme for the following year.
Page 37

b)

c)

d)

Recommendations from the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum meeting of 13 November 2012

Item 11

Recommendations from the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum meeting of 13 November 2012

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Item 11

e)

Notes that, each year, officers will report to the Governing Body on budget variance on the previous years projects and request that any surplus from underspent project budgets be returned from Local Board budgets to the regional fund for re-allocation to unfunded projects using the same methodology as that used to develop the draft programme. Recommends that the Regional Development and Operations Committee: i) Approves the Sports Field Capacity Development funded draft long-term programme and confirms the 2013/14 programme. Agrees that council officers be given the discretion to deliver the programme within the budget envelope set for each year and to make any necessary project scheduling changes to the programme in instances where projects are delayed. Allocates funding to the relevant Local Board on an annual basis, on approval of the following years projects. Agrees that a programme delivery approach be taken when implementing the projects, which will involve and require a level of budget re-alignment throughout the year and that officers be given discretion to deliver the projects within the budget envelope set for each year.

f)

ii)

iii)

iv)

3.

The original reports to the Forum are appended as Attachments A and B respectively.

Recommendation/s
That the Regional Development and Operations Committee: 1. a) Karekare Surf Life Saving Club Access Approves the lodgement of an application by the Manager, Regional and Specialist Parks for resource consent to realign the mouth of the Karekare stream, for a five-year period to ensure the public, and Karekare Surf Life Saving Club can continue to access their clubrooms and provide surf life saving services on Karekare beach, whilst ensuring the lagoon's ecology is sustained. Agrees that in preparing the assessment of environmental effects for the application for resource consent; that the Karekare community and Te Kawerau a Maki are consulted on the proposal and measures to protect the environment, and that the outcomes of this consultation are provided with the application for resource consent. Agrees that the Manager, Regional and Specialist Parks requests that the application is publically notified, given the level of community interest. Sports Field Development Capacity Programme Approves the Sports Field Capacity Development funded draft long-term programme and confirms the 2013/14 programme. Agrees that council officers be given the discretion to deliver the programme within the budget envelope set for each year and to make any necessary project scheduling changes to the programme in instances where projects are delayed. Allocates funding to the relevant Local Board on an annual basis, on approval of the following years projects.

b)

c) 2. a)

That the Regional Development and Operations Committee:

b)

c)

Recommendations from the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum meeting of 13 November 2012

Page 38

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Attachments
No. A B Title Original report to Parks, Recreation & Heritage Forum - Karekare Surf Life Saving Club Access Original report to Parks, Recreation & Heritage Forum - Sports Field Capacity Development Programme Page 41 53

Signatories
Authors Authorisers Elaine Stephenson - Democracy Advisor Darryl Griffin - Manager Democracy Services Grant Taylor - Governance Director Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

Recommendations from the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum meeting of 13 November 2012

Page 39

Item 11

d)

Agrees that a programme delivery approach be taken when implementing the projects, which will involve and require a level of budget re-alignment throughout the year and that officers be given discretion to deliver the projects within the budget envelope set for each year.

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Recommendations from the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum meeting of 13 November 2012

Page 41

Attachment A

Item 11

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Attachment A
Recommendations from the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum meeting of 13 November 2012

Item 11

Page 42

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Recommendations from the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum meeting of 13 November 2012

Page 43

Attachment A

Item 11

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Attachment A
Recommendations from the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum meeting of 13 November 2012

Item 11

Page 44

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Recommendations from the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum meeting of 13 November 2012

Page 45

Attachment A

Item 11

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Attachment A
Recommendations from the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum meeting of 13 November 2012

Item 11

Page 46

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Recommendations from the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum meeting of 13 November 2012

Page 47

Attachment A

Item 11

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Attachment A
Recommendations from the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum meeting of 13 November 2012

Item 11

Page 48

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Recommendations from the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum meeting of 13 November 2012

Page 49

Attachment A

Item 11

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Attachment A
Recommendations from the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum meeting of 13 November 2012

Item 11

Page 50

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Recommendations from the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum meeting of 13 November 2012

Page 51

Attachment A

Item 11

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Attachment A
Recommendations from the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum meeting of 13 November 2012

Item 11

Page 52

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Recommendations from the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum meeting of 13 November 2012

Page 53

Attachment B

Item 11

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Attachment B
Recommendations from the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum meeting of 13 November 2012

Item 11

Page 54

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Recommendations from the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum meeting of 13 November 2012

Page 55

Attachment B

Item 11

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Attachment B
Recommendations from the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum meeting of 13 November 2012

Item 11

Page 56

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Recommendations from the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum meeting of 13 November 2012

Page 57

Attachment B

Item 11

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Attachment B
Recommendations from the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum meeting of 13 November 2012

Item 11

Page 58

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Recommendations from the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum meeting of 13 November 2012

Page 59

Attachment B

Item 11

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Attachment B
Recommendations from the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum meeting of 13 November 2012

Item 11

Page 60

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Recommendations from the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum meeting of 13 November 2012

Page 61

Attachment B

Item 11

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Attachment B
Recommendations from the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum meeting of 13 November 2012

Item 11

Page 62

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Recommendations from the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum meeting of 13 November 2012

Page 63

Attachment B

Item 11

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Attachment B
Recommendations from the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum meeting of 13 November 2012

Item 11

Page 64

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Recommendations from the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum meeting of 13 November 2012

Page 65

Attachment B

Item 11

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Attachment B
Recommendations from the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum meeting of 13 November 2012

Item 11

Page 66

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Recommendations from the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum meeting of 13 November 2012

Page 67

Attachment B

Item 11

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Attachment B
Recommendations from the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum meeting of 13 November 2012

Item 11

Page 68

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Recommendations from the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum meeting of 13 November 2012

Page 69

Attachment B

Item 11

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Attachment B
Recommendations from the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum meeting of 13 November 2012

Item 11

Page 70

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Recommendations from the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum meeting of 13 November 2012

Page 71

Attachment B

Item 11

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Attachment B
Recommendations from the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum meeting of 13 November 2012

Item 11

Page 72

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Recommendations from the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum meeting of 13 November 2012

Page 73

Attachment B

Item 11

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Attachment B
Recommendations from the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum meeting of 13 November 2012

Item 11

Page 74

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Recommendations from the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum meeting of 13 November 2012

Page 75

Attachment B

Item 11

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Attachment B
Recommendations from the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum meeting of 13 November 2012

Item 11

Page 76

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Recommendations from the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum meeting of 13 November 2012

Page 77

Attachment B

Item 11

Regional Development and Operations Committee 06 December 2012

Attachment B
Recommendations from the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum meeting of 13 November 2012

Item 11

Page 78