Auckland Plan Committee April 2012

I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Auckland Plan Committee will be held on:
Date: Time: Meeting Room: Venue:
Monday 2 April 2012 10.00am Reception Lounge Level 2 Auckland Town Hall 301-305 Queen Street Auckland
Auckland Plan Committee OPEN AGENDA

MEMBERSHIP Chairperson Deputy Chairperson Councillors Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse Cr George Wood, CNZM Cr Anae Arthur Anae Cr Cameron Brewer Mayor Len Brown, JP 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
(Quorum 12 members) Crispian Franklin Committee Secretary 28 March 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 Plan Committee 02 April 2012 ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 Apologies Declaration of Interest Confirmation of Minutes Petitions Public Input 5.1 6.1 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Marine Spatial Plan - Rob Fenwick, Department of Conservation Marine Spatial Plan - Richard Somerville-Ryan, Chair of the Great Barrier Environment Planning Strategy Committee Local Board Input PAGE 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 9 29 57 65
Extraordinary Business Notices of Motion The Draft City Centre Masterplan, Draft Waterfront Plan Hearings and Feedback reports Tikapa Moana/Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan Report Back Ngti Whtua rkei Deed of Settlement Issues Stage one of the Community Development Strategy scope and development process Recommendations from the Environment and Sustainability Forum Consideration of Extraordinary Items
PUBLIC EXCLUDED
15 C1 C2 Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public Establishment of Tamaki Regeneration and Development Company Tamaki Transformation Project Federal Street Upgrade Agreement 85 85 85
Page 3
Auckland Plan Committee 02 April 2012 1 Apologies An apology has been received from Councillor Morrison.. 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 Plan Committee held on Tuesday, 6 March 2012 and the minutes of the Extraordinary Auckland Plan Committee Meeting held on Thursday, 15 March 2012, be confirmed as a true and correct record of the meeting with the following amendment to the 6 March 2012 minutes, item 10 Update on the Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel, October to December 2011: Cr Northey moved an amendment: c) That the Committee notes the concerns of the Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel about its resourcing and future and that of the Waitakere Ethnic Board and about employment, education and social-cultural issues faced by ethnic communitites, and thanks the Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel members for their good work for the Auckland Council and for ethnic communitites.
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. 5.1 Marine Spatial Plan - Rob Fenwick, Department of Conservation
Rob Fenwick, Consultant, Department of Conservation would like to address the Committee regarding the Marine Spatial Plan.
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.
Page 5
Auckland Plan Committee 02 April 2012 This right is in addition to the right under Standing Order 3.9.4 to speak to matters on the agenda. 6.1 Marine Spatial Plan - Richard Somerville-Ryan, Chair of the Great Barrier Environment Planning Strategy Committee
Richard Somerville-Ryan, Chair of the Great Barrier Environment Planning Strategy Committee would like to address the Committee regarding the Marine Spatial Plan.
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,(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) (ii) 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
(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 Plan Committee 02 April 2012
File No.: CP2012/04467
Executive Summary
This report was unavailable at the time of print and will be 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
The Draft City Centre Masterplan, Draft Waterfront Plan Hearings and Feedback reports
Page 7
Item 9
The Draft City Centre Masterplan, Draft Waterfront Plan Hearings and Feedback reports
File No.: CP2012/04361
Executive Summary
This report-back responds to the resolutions of the Auckland Future Vision Committee at its 7th February meeting following consideration of a report Tikapa Moana/Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan - Governance options. The report identified concerns over decline of environmental indicators for the Hauraki Gulf and proposed a Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan (HGMSP) project in response. The main elements of a suggested HGMSP structure were described including several governance options, along with the rationale supporting the proposed new multi-agency/mana whenua, Gulf-wide planning approach. The benefit of having all parties at the table is that the HGMSP will take into account the views of all partners with an interest in the Gulf. The collaborative multi-stakeholder approach will overcome past problems such as the Great Barrier Reserve Proposal which was approved and subsequently overturned and the Tawharanui Marine Reserve proposal and the Te Maturu Marine Reserve proposal which each took 10 years to establish. It could expedite both environmental protection areas where appropriate and sustainable aquaculture where appropriate. The Committee resolved to support the HGMSP project in principle, and sought further information on scoping of project costs and timing, further advice on the potential and timing for similar initiatives for the Manukau and Kaipara harbours, and deferred consideration of project governance for clarification at the next meeting. This report-back sets out in further detail how the HGMSP project is proposed to run over a two year period starting next financial year, and describes the activities, timing and interaction of the main anticipated project components. It provides a realistic best estimate budget for the HGMSP project as a working-draft. The budget assumes that a substantial proportion of the project costs would be met by Auckland Council and Waikato Regional Council. Contributions from other partners or sources could further reduce the councils funding requirements. The total external cost for the two-year HGMSP project is estimated at $2.2m with Auckland Council contributing ~$1m of this. This external cost could be covered by the Council subject to approval of the $400,000 in the draft 2012-22 Long Term Plan for this work being added to normal operational budgets in the Long Term Plan. The Governance structure recommended in this paper comprises a structure of: HGMSP Governance Group Stakeholder Forum (Regional scale) and Local Stakeholder Forum (Local scale) Project team Expert Advisory Group including science advisors It is recommended that the membership of the HGMSP Governance Group be resolved through a Mayor of Auckland / Chair of Waikato Regional Council led summit incorporating respective Mana Whenua authority chairs and Ministers of the Crown. The considerable progress to date by the Integrated Kaipara Harbour Management Group towards defining a pathway to achieve their vision of a healthy and productive Kaipara Harbour is briefly summarised. Delivery of a marine spatial plan equivalent to the proposed HGMSP project is anticipated within the same timeframe. Initiatives relevant to the Manukau Harbour can start at the same time as HGMSP. The Area Spatial Plan development process has started with two pilot plans, one covering the MangereOtahuhu Local Board area. Work to date has identified considerable interest in addressing matters
Tikapa Moana/Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan Report Back Page 9
Item 10
Tikapa Moana/Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan Report Back
Item 10
relevant to the coast such as coastal landscape value, coastline and harbour contribution to recreation and open space, socio-economic and cultural importance of the harbour, marine environmental issues, etc. The Area Spatial Plan will then be translated into appropriate provisions within the Unitary Plan that is concurrently under development. In addition, the coastal plan is also being reviewed (as practicable) for incorporation of the updated information and approaches into the Unitary Plan. Marine spatial planning for the Manukau Harbour would build upon this base and identify additional or new areas and approaches for consideration as changes to the Unitary Plan. The further development of the Marine Spatial Plan for the Manukau Harbour would follow the HGMSP.
Recommendation/s
a) b) That the report be received. That the Auckland Plan Committee approves the provisional budget of $2.2million for the project to be shared between Auckland Council, Waikato Regional Council and Government agencies, with a cost of up to $1million to Auckland Council (derived from the $400,000 in the draft 2012-22 Long Term Plan, plus funding within the Planning and Policy Divisions existing budgets in the draft LTP), with further contributions from Government agencies expected to reduce the cost to Council. That the Auckland Plan Committee approves the provisional project timeframe of 2 years from commencement in 1 July 2012. That the Auckland Plan Committee notes that the Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan (HGMSP) will build on the work done on amendments to the Regional Coastal Plan in time for incorporation in the draft Unitary Plan by December 2012, and will be done at the same time as development of the Kaipara Harbour Marine Spatial Plan and preliminary work on the Manukau Harbour Marine Spatial Plan. That the Auckland Plan Committee agrees that the Mayor lead with Chair of the Waikato Regional Council a summit incorporating Mana Whenua authority chairs and Ministers of the Crown to determine the governance group representation. That the Auckland Plan Committee notes that the proposed governance structure includes a multi stakeholder group of representatives of Auckland Council, Waikato Regional Council, Nga Mana Whenua representatives; Government Agencies; Hauraki Gulf Forum; Territorial Local Authorities; environmental NGOs; businesses e.g. aquaculture, commercial fishing and shipping; recreation e.g. fishing and boating; to engage in a collaborative process to develop a plan that will have wide ownership and support, and that Auckland Council and Waikato Regional Council will exercise their statutory planning responsibilities by making decisions on the HGMSP as it relates to their regional areas and for incorporation in appropriate statutory documents and the Unitary Plan.
c) d)
e)
f)
Background
The Auckland Future Vision Committee considered a report Tikapa Moana/Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan Governance Options at its meeting on 7th February 2012. The report identified concerns over declining environmental indicators for the Hauraki Gulf, provided the rationale supporting a new multi-agency/mana whenua, Gulf-wide planning approach, and proposed a Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan (HGMSP) project in response. It identified a proposed project structure (Attachment 1) including several governance options, and described the anticipated
a) That the report Tikapa Moana/Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan Governance Options be received. b) That the Auckland Future Vision Committee notes 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) That the Auckland Future Vision Committee agrees that the project be supported in principle. d) That officers be requested to fully scope the project, costs and timeframes and report back to the Auckland Future Vision Committee to obtain decisions on establishment of the project. The Committee agreed to defer a final recommendation (e - below) to the next meeting for further clarification. e) That the Auckland Future Vision Committee agrees 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. This report back provides the information in response to the requests in the above resolution (d) as well as further clarification of the matter in recommendation (e) above of the original report.
Project Timeframes
The overall timeframe for the project has been set at two years, beginning 1 July 2012. This recognises the importance to project effectiveness of defining a fixed timeframe for delivery of a plan, and overseas experience where similar timeframes were found to be adequate to develop the first version of a marine spatial plan. In addition, the principle of adaptive management applies to marine spatial planning, as it does to all planning cycles. This anticipates that useful plans can be developed despite our inability to ever have complete or perfect understanding of our interaction with complex natural systems. Consequently, an initial marine spatial plan will require periodic review in the light of new findings (including monitoring of its effectiveness) and evolving circumstances. An attached Gantt chart (Attachment 2) sets out a working draft anticipated project timeline for elements within the overall Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan (HGMSP) project. Activities are grouped under the main headings identified in the proposed project structure (Attachment 1) presented in the last agenda report. Project start date is the beginning of the next financial year (July 2012). A six month establishment period is identified during which the Project Team raises awareness of the project and supports establishment and operation of the other groups. The Governance Group is established and confirms various funding, procedures, protocols and appointments. The Stakeholder Forum is established and confirms the projects primary objectives, principles and procedure. The Expert Advisory Group (including its Matauranga Maori component) forms and assists with informing the process. These activities would be iterative with the various groups interacting either directly or through the project team. This is followed by a 12-14 month core period when the main body of the plan is developed through a collaborative process (or some agreed variant of this) by the Stakeholder Forum reporting to and interacting with the Governance Group, informed by the Expert Advisory Group
Item 10
benefits of a proposed collaborative process for stakeholder participation. The Committee resolved:
Item 10
and supported by the Project Team. During this period the Expert Oversight Group carries out a quarterly peer review of the process to check on its technical credibility. A final three month period is scheduled to allow the draft plan output to be reviewed, finalised, approved and released. The output would then be implemented by relevant parties (eg statutory actions under the Resource Management Act would be presented to the Auckland Council for consideration as proposed variations/changes to the Unitary Plan).
Governance Group
In the February 2012 report to the Auckland Future Vision Committee, four options were recommended for consideration of the membership of the Governance Group. They were: 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 Ministry of Primary Industries, 1x DOC, 1x MED, 1x Territorial Local Authorities, 1x chair HGF). 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 full assembly. D. Core representation with the option of sub-regional groups being present when discussing their area of interest or jurisdiction. Each of the above options includes equal representation of mana whenua and central / local government /Chair of Hauraki Gulf Forum. Officers recommend option B with a total of 16 members as best providing a size of group to provide for effective decision making. As recommended in the February 2012 report to the Auckland Future Vision Committee, it is recommended that the Mayor of Auckland and the Chair of the Waikato Regional Council convene a summit incorporating respective man whenua authority chairs and Minster of the Crown to determine the representation in the Governance Group
Project Structure
The project structure is shown in (Attachment 1). The key elements are as follows: The time line envisages a series of Governance Group meetings (supported by the Project Team) during the course of the project every 3 months so it can be updated on progress and developments within the Stakeholder Forum process, be advised of findings of the expert advisory group, consider and approve any proposed procedural changes, provide direction and comment back to the other groups, etc. Towards the end of the two year planning cycle the Governance Group would consider a draft HGMSP produced by the Project Team that presents the outcome of the Stakeholder Forum process. It would then approve the final version of the HGMSP and endorse it for consideration for implementation by the contributing agencies and mana whenua groups. The size of the Stakeholder Forum has yet to be determined and will depend upon such matters as the willingness of stakeholder groups with a common interest to nominate individuals to
Auckland Plan Committee 02 April 2012 represent them, and the availability of other opportunities to actively participate in the HGMSP collaborative process (e.g. access via a proposed on-line decision support tool SeaSketch, and the organisation of local consultation meetings). Division of roles between a full Plenary Group and one or more smaller Working Groups is proposed to keep the size of the group small enough for effective decision making. The Plenary Group will identify matters for the more regular meeting of Working Groups to address, with findings and recommendations or decisions being reported back to the Plenary Group for consideration. An independent and highly experienced Forum Facilitator is anticipated to be required to assist the stakeholders collaborative process. In addition, the scale of mana whenua participation in the stakeholder process has yet to be defined, so an Iwi Facilitator role has also been included in scoping of the project. The Project Team would provide administrative support to the forum, as well as providing knowledgeable agency staff to act as available advisors to the forums process. The Expert Advisory Group would contribute expert technical advice as required to support the forum. The Expert Advisory Group would comprise technical specialists from a range of areas relevant to the HGMSP process, including Matauranga Maori. The proposed functioning of the group can be broadly split between technical oversight (or peer review) of the HGMSP process, and contribution of expert advice to the process. Staff for the HGMSP Project Team are expected to be largely drawn from existing officers in the Auckland Council and Waikato Regional Council. Upon confirmation that the HGMSP project is to proceed, relevant Government Departments (e.g Department of Conservation (DOC), Ministry of Primary Industries which includes the previous Ministry of Fisheries) may also approve commitment of staff time to the project. As discussed further below, DOC staff are currently assisting with compilation of fundamental geospatial data sets since this overlaps with their PlanBlue initiative. Project scoping anticipates the requirement to employ a project manager to coordinate administration of HGMSP work-streams. Development of a web portal (potentially annexed to an existing council web site) is identified as a pre-requisite for efficient on-line access to news about the HGMSP project as it develops and delivers. As explained further below, it is proposed that the project team also administer and service a powerful on-line decision support tool that has potential to greatly enhance the ability of those comfortable using the internet to contribute to the HGSMP process, as well as increasing the efficiency of the stakeholder forum process. GIS (Geographic Information System) support is critical to the success of modern spatial planning. Likely requirement for Auckland Council staff support has already been included in the Information Systems Business Case for Auckland Plans approved by the Strategy and Finance Committee in December 2011. GIS support from Waikato Regional Council has also been included. Project Team staff would construct a draft marine spatial plan in response to the findings of the Stakeholder Group for report to the Governance Group for approval. The HGMSP project timeline Gantt chart also identifies that some preparatory lead-in work between the joint agencies is already taking place to help establish some fundamental geospatial data sets for the HGMSP project as well as being of great value to other resource management processes. They are also necessary for the operation of an advanced decision support tool, SeaSketch. The Department of Conservation (DOC) is the lead agency and anticipates SeaSketch will be an important tool to support its new approach to marine conservation (Plan Blue). Waikato Regional Council and, subject to funding approval in the Long Term Plan, Auckland Council will form a consortium with DOC to purchase SeaSketch, increase its functionality and make it available for application to the HGMSP process.
Budget Estimate
Auckland Council and Waikato Regional Council officers have developed a working-draft bestestimate budget for the proposed HGMSP project based on the project timeline and associated
Item 10
Item 10
activities discussed above. An overview of estimated external expenditure is provided in Table 1 (below) followed by Table 2 showing external expenditure under major activity areas for the Auckland Council (AC) and the whole project. The budget estimate assumes that HGMSP project funding would come from Auckland Council and Waikato Regional Council. DOC will contribute to the collaborative acquisition of the decision support tool SeaSketch. Funding will also be sought from other Government agencies. Any financial contributions from other HGMSP partners, or from other sources, would reduce the financial commitment required from the two councils. Table 1 HGMSP external costs by agency External Costs (in $000s) $2,208 $1,029 $979 $200
Total Budget Estimate Auckland Council Waikato Regional Council Department of Conservation
Table 2 HGMSP Auckland Council external expenditure by activity group External Expenditure Governance Group Stakeholder Facilitator Mana Whenua Facilitator Stakeholder Plenary Group Stakeholder Working Groups Expert Advisory Group Matauranga Maori Group Expert Oversight Group Research & Investigations SeaSketch (DST) Total Expenditure AC Total $22,464 $120,000 $75,000 $169,000 $40,680 $52,800 $75,000 $148,800 $125,000 $200,000 $1,028,744 Project Total $44,928 $240,000 $150,000 $338,000 $81,360 $105,600 $150,000 $297,600 $250,000 $550,000 $2,207,488
As further itemised below, project cost estimates include the expenses involved in organising and servicing meetings but, with important exceptions, assume that Governance Group and Stakeholder Forum participants will be volunteering their time. The exceptions recognise that active participation by some representatives (e.g. mana whenua representatives, representatives of voluntary community groups) may need to be supported. Provision has therefore been included for reimbursement of the travel and participation time costs for a subset of parties. Table 1 presents the estimated total HGMSP project external cost ($2.2m) and the anticipated relative contribution to this from the main contributing agencies. Auckland Councils contribution is almost the same as that from the Waikato Regional Council, reflecting the assumption of a 50/50 split in costs between the two agencies. The difference between the totals reflects $50k additional contribution by Auckland to funding the proposed decision support tool SeaSketch. Tables 1 and 2 identify where additional expenditure above that of normal council operations would be required (i.e. external expenditure). In addition to this the HGMSP project would also require considerable participation by council staff as part of the Project Team. These costs are covered by existing operational budgets for staff time. For the full two year project period, the total
Costs for SeaSketch are based on the budget provided to the Department of Conservation by the software developer. They include a contribution of ~NZ $400k to the initial development of the tools special functionality and its application to the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park study area. In the order of ~US$1m for software development is being provided to SeaSketch by the US based international GIS company ESRI. Additional costs include an annual hosting and maintenance fee for use of the tool for two years during the HGMSP project.
Funding
Auckland Councils funding contribution to acquisition and use of SeaSketch by a consortium for the HGMSP project were included in the Information Systems Business Case for Auckland Plans that was approved by the Strategy and Finance Committee in December 2011. Likely GIS staff time to support the HGMSP project was also included. The draft LTP identifies an operating budget for the coastal team (in the Coastal, Land Air and Water Unit) to cover anticipated external expenditure and staff time for work relevant to the development of strategies and policies for the coastal environment. This funding is for HGMSP and other coastal priorities. There is also funding within the current year to assist with the preparatory lead-in work to create or collate consistent geospatial data sets for fundamental data (e.g. marine habitat distributions) that will increase the opportunities for informed marine resource management decision making processes for the Unitary Plan and the HGMSP. The estimated external costs to the Auckland Council for the HGMSP project given in this report would be spread over two financial years, amounting to approximately $500k per year. Subject to approval of the Mayors proposed additional $400k for the HGMSP project in the 2012-22 LTP (~$200k per year for 2 financial years), the remainder of the external costs could be covered by a combination of the approved IS budget and the operational costs for the coastal team already identified within the draft LTP. Council staff are continuing to explore various possible sources of additional funding, which would reduce costs to Council. In addition, Government agencies may choose to contribute in-kind support such as staff time to assist the project.
Kaipara and Manukau Harbour Marine Spatial Plans

Kaipara Harbour Representatives of the Integrated Kaipara Harbour Management Group (IKHMG)1 have previously made presentations to the committee about the significant advancements this iwi-lead initiative has achieved since its inception in 2005. A summary of IKHMGs progress was included in the February 2012 report on HGMSP. The IKHMG project coordinator also provided brief comments to the committee at the start of the last meeting. She confirmed the compatibility between IKHMGs current initiatives and the proposed HGMSP project, along with the strong working relationship between IKHMG and the council (council staff continue to be active members of IKHMG). She also explained that Nga Kaitiaki Tai Ao o Kaipara are not only highly interested in participating in such initiatives but have the capability to lead, create and deliver them.
http://www.kaiparaharbour.net.nz/
Page 15
Item 10
covering both Councils is 8.2 technical staff Full Time Equivalents (or FTE), 0.4 FTE administrative staff, and 2.7 FTE IS/GIS staff. Staff from other agencies (eg Department of Conservation) may also participate.
Auckland Plan Committee 02 April 2012 IKHMG have recently released their Kaipara Moana He Mahere Rautaki Whakakotahi Integrated Strategic Plan of Action 2011-20212. This ten year plan identifies actions directed at helping to achieve high level objectives and goals to address major issues for the harbour and its catchment under the headings of biodiversity, fisheries, mauri, socio-economic wellbeing, climate change and integrated management. The strategy also currently includes actions to be taken in parallel with these investigations, since in many cases the major sources of environmental degradation are already known along with the practical actions that can address them (e.g. riparian fencing and planting to help control sediment and nutrient release derived rural activities). The February 2012 HGMSP report explained that IKHMG are confident that its spatial planning process will be able to deliver equivalent output to that anticipated from the HGMSP project, and within the same timeframe. Both sets of spatial planning output relevant to the RMA would then be able to be considered by Council in combination for implementation into the Unitary Plan potentially by way of a single variation. Manukau Harbour A number of previous initiatives have provided information that will help with development of a marine spatial plan for the Manukau Harbour. For example, a Manukau Harbour Maritime Planning Scheme was developed in the 1980s by the Harbour Board and the Auckland Regional Authority. With the enactment of the Resource Management Act in 1991 this was then revised and incorporated into the current Auckland Council Regional Plan: Coastal. Considerable evidence was presented to the Waitangi Tribunal on the Manukau Claim3. Release of the Tribunal findings in 1985 contributed to the launching of a three year study by the Regional Water Board which involved substantial research into the harbour and sources of stress upon it. Completion of the work around the time of introduction of the RMA resulted in release of the Manukau Harbour Action Plan. Environmental monitoring programmes established around this time have continued to provide information on trends in water and shellfish quality and marine ecological condition, and have been supplemented by studies into sediment quality. Various studies have been completed to support major resource consents such as the upgrade of the Manukau sewage treatment plant. Catchment and harbour modeling has been completed for various areas to support proposed development. Despite the availability of such information, considerable work will be required to collate and update the available information and fill any significant gaps to provide a robust geospatial data set necessary to underpin informed marine spatial planning. Social, cultural, economic and environmental information is required. Organising a transparent and inclusive process for stakeholder participation, in parallel with the process proposed for the HGMSP project, would require commitment of further staff, time and financial resources. Estimated costs for the HGMSP are provided in this report. Running a similar process in the Manukau would presumably cost less because of its smaller size, however the information in this report suggests that the staff commitment and additional costs would still be significant. In contrast to the Kaipara Harbour where IKHMG has already been in operation for seven years, no equivalent initiative has been running within the Manukau Harbour. In addition, application of joint-agency marine spatial planning in New Zealand is in its infancy. Considerable benefit could be obtained for potential future application of the approach to the Manukau by waiting for the current work to run its course and then learning from the experience gained. Initiatives relevant to the Manukau Harbour can start at the same time as HGMSP. The Area Spatial Plan development process has started with two pilot plans, one covering the MangereOtahuhu Local Board area. Work to date has identified considerable interest in addressing matters relevant to the coast such as coastal landscape value, coastline and harbour contribution to recreation and open space, socio-economic and cultural importance of the harbour, marine environmental issues, etc. The Area Spatial Plan will apply the strategic direction provided by the
2 3
Item 10
http://www.kaiparaharbour.net.nz/Content/Publications/IKHMGStrategicPlanofActionFINAL.pdf Report of the Waitangi Tribunal on the Manukau Claim. 1985 (Wai-8)
Page 16
Auckland Plan Committee 02 April 2012 Auckland Plan to the Local Board environs at a scale where local aspirations can be assessed and agreed directions set. The Area Spatial Plan output will then be translated into appropriate provisions within the Unitary Plan that is concurrently under development. In addition, the coastal plan is also being reviewed (as practicable) for incorporation of the updated information and approaches into the Unitary Plan. The Unitary Plan itself seeks to consolidate district and regional planning instruments to provide a simpler and more consistent statutory framework capable of addressing resource management issues of concern not only to the Manukau Harbour and its catchment but across the whole of Auckland. The Unitary Plan must also, as far as practicable, give effect to various new national instruments including the 2010 New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement and the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008. Through these various mechanisms it can be expected that many of the matters of primary interest to the future value, use and enjoyment of the Manukau Harbour will be reviewed and updated during development of the Unitary Plan. Marine spatial planning for the Manukau Harbour would build upon this base and identify additional or new areas and approaches for consideration as changes to the Unitary Plan. The further development of the Marine Spatial Plan for the Manukau Harbour would follow the HGMSP as staff resources become available. The figure below shows the anticipated timing relationships 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: Area spatial planning
Manukau Harbour Marine Spatial
Decision Making
The decisions recommended are: i) for the Committee to approve the attached HGMSP project time line and budget for establishment of the project to begin in the 2012/13 financial year if the Council approves funding in the 2012-22 Long Term Plan. for the Committee to agree that the Mayor lead with the Chair of the Waikato Regional Council a summit incorporating Mana Whenua authority chairs and Minister of the Crown to determine the governance group representation.
ii)
Significance of Decision
The report considers timing and financial aspects of a proposed two year marine spatial planning project for the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park water space. It would involve joint governance by central and local government agencies along with mana whenua and would seek active collaborative participation of all stakeholders. It would aim to produce a non-statutory marine spatial plan for the management of the area, endorsed by contributing stakeholders, that identifies a pathway to help
Item 10
Item 10
resolve some of the more intractable issues facing the Gulf. The plan is anticipated to be a blueprint for subsequent action by agencies who would consider incorporating relevant output into their statutory documents, as well as for non-statutory actions by agencies and the affected community. Auckland Council would consider amending the Unitary Plan to adopt the HGMSP. The report seeks council agreement for establishment of the project, subject to later approval of identified funding for it in the councils Long Term Plan, and for continued preparatory work so that the joint project could be successfully launched in the 2012/13 financial year.
Maori Impact Statement

Opportunities for, and the expectation of mana whenua participation in, the proposed project have been specifically identified at all levels within the proposed HGMSP structure and timeline. The approvals sought in this and the earlier report would allow suitable mechanisms for inclusive Maori participation to be further explored and provided for. The proposal in this paper for equal representation inn the Governance group by Mana Whenua and central / local government / Chair / Hauraki Gulf Forum has been supported by the Independent Maori Statutory Board.
Consultation
The process identified in this report-back, and further detailed in the preceding report, is specifically aimed at providing the opportunity for active collaborative stakeholder engagement in the marine spatial planning approach. The reports help define a proposed new approach to establishing objectives and management processes for the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park water space where the interested and affected parties take a more active role in development of the plan than is sometimes provided during statutory processes. The approach recognises that regulatory processes alone cannot provide for sustainable management and that increased ownership by the affected community of the management strategies and approaches is required. The proposed collaborative approach involves intense consultation mechanisms with the expectation that this will help achieve community willingness to actively participate in, promote and support the actions identified in the resultant marine spatial plan.
Local Board Views

This report-back and its preceding report will be sent to Local Boards. Local Boards that are adjacent to the Hauraki Gulf ward are invited to be represented on the Stakeholder Forum.
Financial and Resourcing Implications

The report-back specifically provides information about estimated resourcing requirements for the proposed HGMSP project. The estimated total external cost for the proposed two-year HGMSP project is ~$2.2m with Auckland Councils contribution being ~$1m. Subject to approval of the $400k for the project proposed by the Mayor in the draft 2012-22 Long Term Plan, the council could meet the remainder of the external costs as well as the required internal costs, from existing operational budgets for relevant Council departments. Waikato Regional Council is planning to fund its share of the HGMSP project. The Department of Conservation is committed to funding a share of a proposed decision support tool SeaSketch and DOC staff are currently working with the councils to consolidate or develop geospatial data layers necessary for it to function. Funding will also be sought from other Government agencies. That would reduce the costs on Council.
Legal and Legislative Implications

There are no legal or legislative implications associated with this report. The office of Treaty Settlements has been informed of the project. It is expected that the consultative process
Page 18
Implementation Issues
Preparatory work for the HGMSP is aimed at establishing more robust geospatial data sets that identify social, cultural, economic, and environmental uses and values of the water space within the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park. These data are fundamental to informed resource management of the area so the work has high potential benefits whether or not the HGMSP project goes ahead. Other preparatory work includes such activities as developing a draft communication strategy, ensuring sound project management mechanisms are ready, exploring options for how a collaborative process might best operate, and identifying potential expert advisors and stakeholders. Other preparatory work has potential to reduce the costs to the two councils by seeking contributions to the project from other participants and interested parties. The proposed project anticipates a two-year process during which a non-statutory marine spatial plan would be developed. The plan is expected to identify various areas where different management objectives (e.g. water quality improvement, or marine conservation) should be applied, along with what this might mean for potential activities, uses and sources of stress. It is highly likely that various identified intentions of the marine spatial plan would be relevant to natural resource management under the RMA. These aspects are expected to be considered by the Auckland Council and the Waikato Regional Council for revision of their coastal plan, or in Auckland Councils case variation or change of the Unitary Plan. The plan will also be important for land use planning and management by territorial local authorities within the catchment of the Hauraki Gulf.
Attachments
No. A 1. 2. Title Attachment 1-4 Attachment 1: Attachment 2: Working draft Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Planning Project Structure Gantt Chart - working draft Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Planning Project Timeline Suggested Terms of reference for a Governance Group Options Assessment Page 21
3. Attachment 3: 4. Attachment 4:
Signatories
Authors Authorisers Dominic McCarthy (Team Leader Coastal) Ludo Campbell-Reid (Manager Environmental Strategy and Policy Department) Roger Blakeley (Chief Planning Officer)
Page 19
Item 10
involving Mana Whenua and other stakeholders will be regarded as a positive initiative prior to future Treaty settlement issues relating to the Hauraki Gulf.
Page 21
Attachment A
Item 10
Attachment A
Item 10
Page 22
Page 23
Attachment A
Item 10
Attachment A
Item 10
Page 24
Page 25
Attachment A
Item 10
Attachment A
Item 10
Page 26
Page 27
Attachment A
Item 10
Attachment A
Item 10
Page 28
File No.: CP2012/04426
Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to inform the Auckland Plan Committee of the Crowns intention to include land at Narrow Neck as part of the Ngti Whtua rkei Treaty Settlement. This report outlines the significant public concerns about the inclusion of this land and the efforts undertaken by the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board and Auckland Council to raise community concerns with the Crown. Given the history and high level public concern regarding the Narrow Neck land, this report proposes that Auckland Council make a submission to the Mori Affairs Select Committee on the Ngti Whtua rkei Claims Settlement Bill. The submission would request that the land not be included in the settlement and that there be no amendments to the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 (Act) and Reserves Act 1997 leading to the alienation of this land from public use and enjoyment in perpetuity.
Recommendation/s
a) b) c) That the report be received. That Auckland Council make a submission to the Mori Affairs Select Committee hearing submissions on the Ngti Whtua rkei Claims Settlement Bill. That the draft attached submission be finalised and made to the Mori Affairs Select Committee on the Ngti Whtua rkei Claims Settlement Bill.
Background
On 5 November 2011, the Crown and Ngti Whtua rkei signed a Deed of Settlement (Deed). The Deed seeks to address the very real and well documented grievances of Ngti Whtua rkei. The Auckland Council is very supportive of this settlement in principle as these grievances must be resolved in order for us to move forward together. The Deed settles the historical claims of Ngti Whtua rkei and specifies the cultural redress, and the financial and commercial redress, to be provided in the settlement. Included as part of the commercial redress is the Narrow Neck (Tmaki) property (land) of 3.2 hectares described in the Deed property schedule (map attached). On 22 February 2012, members of the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board, Council officers and Chief Crown Negotiator Michael Dreaver met to discuss the Ngti Whtua rkei settlement and in particular the Narrow Neck land issue. As a result of the meeting, a briefing paper (attached) identifying the key issues was drafted in preparation for the 6 March 2012 Devonport-Takapuna Local Board meeting. A letter from the Mayor was also prepared and sent to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Christopher Finlayson (attached) on 2 March 2012 detailing community concerns around the inclusion of the land in the settlement. At the 6 March local board meeting, Council officers addressed significant issues raised by local board members. The local board made a number of resolutions (attached) including the following: That the Devonport Takapuna Local Board does not support the inclusion of 3.2086 hectares of Narrow Neck land, being Section 1 SO 448861 as part of the settlement because of the clear expectation, reinforced through action in the High Court, that this land
Ngti Whtua rkei Deed of Settlement Issues
Page 29
Item 11
Item 11
would be returned to the local community as open public space in the event that it was no longer required by the Navy. That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board call an extraordinary board business meeting at the earliest opportunity to allow members and the public to be informed about the Deed of Settlement and its implications. That the Minister of Treaty Negotiations, the Minister of Defence, the Minister of Conservation, the Member of Parliament for North Shore, the Tamaki Reserve Protection Trust, and the Devonport Heritage Inc be invited to prepare presentations as Deputations in the public meeting when it is convened.
At the time of writing this report, a public meeting with the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations had been arranged by the local board for 31 March 2012.
Narrow Neck (Tmaki) land

High level concerns have been raised by the local board and community regarding the inclusion of the land in the settlement.
Key points a) b) The land is very significant to the people of Devonport and Auckland. It is a treasured part of the community and forms a natural grandstand to the Hauraki Gulf. As an indication of the considerable public interest and desire to maintain this land for community use, it was the subject of successful 1998 High Court proceedings initiated by the community in 1997 (The Tamaki Reserve Protection Trust Inc v Minister of Conservation (HC AKL CP 600/97 M 1915/97 12 March 1997). These were initiated by a trust set up by a large body of residents, most of whom still remain, and are concerned about the present situation. Subsequent to the Court proceedings, the Act was enacted providing that if the property held as a reserve is no longer required for defence purposes, it must be held as a recreation reserve and treated as included in the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park established under that Act. It is the clear understanding of the local board and community that the Act provides protection in the long-term that the property would be part of a reserve that would be available to the people of Auckland, should the property no longer be needed for defence reasons. The settlement as it stands will amend the Act and potentially alienate future public access to the property. This is clearly a change of position which is now generating high levels of public concern and interest as details of the settlement are being understood. What is more concerning is that this change is being introduced without any formal consultation with the local board and / or community and the Auckland Council. The Ngti Whtua rkei Claims Settlement Bill is currently before the Mori Affairs Committee and public submissions are now being invited on the Bill. The closing date for submissions is Wednesday 18 April 2012.
c)
d)
e)
f)
Key issues a) The land in question

Page 30
Auckland Plan Committee 02 April 2012 3.2 hectares located at Narrow Neck (see attached map). The land is currently held by the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) as a reserve for defence purposes. The 3.2 hectares will, if purchased by Ngti Whtua rkei, transfer unencumbered and be leased back to NZDF (the Settlement Bill will revoke the reserve status and provide that the Reserves Act 1977 revocation process does not apply. The Bill will also remove the land from the Act, which provides that if this land (part of a larger parcel) is no longer needed for defence purposes then it will become a recreation reserve and form part of the Park). b) Current use of the land in question The adjoining parcel of 1.6 hectares is used as a playing field and a walkway along the coast. The 3.2 hectares is held as a reserve for defence purposes and used for officer and trade training, administration and accommodation. The playing field adjoins the 3.2 hectares but the NZDF land is fenced off. At times the gates in the fence are opened to allow NZDF access to the playing fields. As with most NZDF sites, the public do use the facilities from time to time to provide ready access to the sports fields and use of the gymnasium. Public use of the land proposed to be severed There are parts of the land that the public can use as and when it suits NZDF. The gymnasium changing rooms are used at weekends during the winter by the local sports clubs when they are using the fields for games. North Shore Soccer has previously used the gymnasium for indoor training on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays during the season. However, this will change this year with North Shore Cricket who will use the gymnasium as an indoor cricket school from 10 July 12 to 12 Oct 12. North Shore Rugby also uses the gymnasium two or three times between February and April when they have preseason games on the field. Auckland Council has licence to use the field from 1 February to 31 August each year. The field is used all day on Saturdays and for junior soccer practises on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays during the season. The NZDF receives two or three other requests during the summer to use the gymnasium but these are usually only for a day or two at the most. There is a Vodafone tower on the gymnasium for which their service staff requires regular access to the site, at least monthly. The only other public access to the 3.2 hectare area is the fenced walkway from Vauxhall Road to the field. d) Statutory status of the land The land is part of the Act (section 33 (6) and Part 2 of Schedule 4) but it is not part of the Park. The 3.2 hectares is part of a larger area (11 hectares) at Narrow Neck that was subject to litigation. Note: that case concerned all the land contained in the attached SO plan (69845). The non-Defence land is now recreation and historic reserves administered by the Council and DOC respectively. Nature and outcome of litigation In 1997, the Tamaki Reserve Protection Trust challenged decisions of the Minister of Lands and Conservation which essentially were that the land was not a reserve. The Court found that Ministers decisions that the land was not a reserve, which would obviate the Reserves Act requirement for public consultation on disposal, were unlawful and based on inadequate advice. Under the Deed:
c)
e)
Page 31
Item 11
Item 11
(1) Ministers and Cabinet have decided to offer the land as commercial redress. Advice from officials included that its improved nature means its removal from the Act should not compromise the Park or its objectives; and (2) the Settlement Legislation will authorise the lands transfer, along with revocation of its reserve status and provide that the Reserves Act revocation process will not apply. The Settlement Bill removes the land from the Act (not the Park). It needs to be removed from the Act to allow unencumbered transfer to Ngti Whtua rkei which is what was negotiated (under the Act it would have been required to become recreation reserve and be included in the Park if it was no longer needed by defence i.e. purchased by Ngti Whtua rkei).
Decision Making
The recommendations contained within this report fall within the Auckland Plan Committees delegated authority as it has responsibility for submissions on legislative changes and central government policy in relation to the development of Auckland.
The making of a submission represents the final opportunity for Auckland Council to have amendments made to the Settlement Bill. Once the submissions process is complete, the legislation will be enacted.

The decision of the Auckland Plan Committee is a significant decision for Ngti Whtua rkei as it relates to a specific part of the commercial redress offered under the settlement. Auckland Council through the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board seeks to further engage and work collaboratively with the Ngti Whtua rkei to address this matter.
Consultation
Council officers and Devonport-Takapuna Local Board members are involved in working on the issues presented in this report.
Local Board Views

The land falls within the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board area. The local board has lead this matter on behalf of the local community and local board members have worked closely with Council officers to address this issue moving forward.

Work to date on this issue has been funded from existing operational budgets.

The Auckland Council has an opportunity to make a submission on the current Bill that reflects the wishes and aspirations of the local community.
The key implementation step is the presentation of the submission before the Mori Affairs Select Committee. Preparation is required to ensure this is done effectively.
Page 32
Attachments
The submissions document is still being drafted and will be made available as soon as completed under a separate cover. No. A B C D E Title Memorandum to Devonport-Takapuna Local Board dated 2 March 2012 Letter from Mayor to Minister Finlayson dated 2 March 2012 Devonport-Takapuna Local Board Resolutions dated 6 March 2012 Map of Narrow Neck land included in Ngti Whtua rkei Treaty Settlement SO plan (69845) Page 35 37 39 53 55
Signatories
Authors Authorisers Tajim Mohammed-Kapa, Legal Services Grant Taylor, Governance Director Roger Blakeley, Chief Planning Officer
Page 33
Item 11
Page 35
Attachment A
Item 11
Attachment A
Item 11
Page 36
Page 37
Attachment B
Item 11
Attachment B
Item 11
Page 38
Page 39
Attachment C
Item 11
Attachment C
Item 11
Page 40
Page 41
Attachment C
Item 11
Attachment C
Item 11
Page 42
Page 43
Attachment C
Item 11
Attachment C
Item 11
Page 44
Page 45
Attachment C
Item 11
Attachment C
Item 11
Page 46
Page 47
Attachment C
Item 11
Attachment C
Item 11
Page 48
Page 49
Attachment C
Item 11
Attachment C
Item 11
Page 50
Page 51
Attachment C
Item 11
Attachment C
Item 11
Page 52
Page 53
Attachment D
Item 11
Page 55
Attachment E
Item 11
Attachment E
Item 11
Page 56
File No.: CP2012/04419
Executive Summary
In October 2011, the Regional Development and Operations Committee agreed that a community development strategy would be a core strategy for implementing the Auckland Plan. The strategy will clearly define Councils approach to and roles in community development- for both governing body and local boards; and provide principles, shared strategic outcomes and policies and mechanisms to achieve these. Initial thinking was that a comprehensive strategy, undertaken as a single process, would be completed by December 2012. This would allow for a robust analysis of current roles and activities and exploration of potential new or different roles and activities for Council. It would also allow inclusive and rigorous engagement with a wide range of stakeholders. There is the option that the Community Development Strategy be co-produced in a similar manner to the Auckland Plan, and if possible, the strategy becomes Aucklands Community Development Strategy with all sectorscommunity, business, central government and Council part of delivery. Councillors, however, have emphasised the need for the strategy to inform decision-making on the new community assistance policies, currently under development and scheduled to become operational by 1 July 2012. To address councillors immediate concerns it is proposed that the Community Development Strategy is developed through a staged approach: 1. By June 2012, stage one of the strategy will be completed to support the community assistance policies. Stage one will provide a regional framework with (i) community development principles that would be additional to the principles identified in the Auckland Plan; and
(ii) shared community development outcomes for Auckland. that will assist the governing body and local boards in their decision-making about community funding, community occupancy and facilities partnerships. 2. By November 2012, stage two will be complete. Stage two will identify priorities and future activities, based on the principles and strategic outcomes, and detail implementation, targets, monitoring and evaluation. By December 2012, stages one and two will be combined into a single, comprehensive strategy.
3.
There is considerable local board, advisory panel and community sector interest in the strategy, and consultation and engagement will need to be targeted and formed if a December 2012 deadline is to be met. Central Government officials will be engaged in the first instance by working with the Auckland Policy officers and including matters on the fortnightly agenda. The wider Central Government Social Sector Leaders Group will also be involved. The reasons for the staged approach will need to be clearly communicated.
Stage one of the Community Development Strategy scope and development process
Page 57
Item 12
Item 12
Recommendation/s
a) b) c) That the report be received. That the Auckland Plan Committee approve the proposed process for stage one of the Community Development Strategy. That this report be circulated to Local Boards, Independent Maori Statutory Board, Pacific Peoples Advisory Panel, Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel, the Rural Advisory Panel, the Business Advisory Board, the Auckland Sport & Recreation Reference Group, the Disability Strategic Advisory Group and Foundation Youth Council for their information.
Background
The Auckland Plan and community-led development Community-led development is identified in the Auckland Plan and, as both a process and an end in itself. The Auckland Plan acknowledges that actions to address economic, environmental and social challenges are most successful when owned or led by communities (Chapter 1). A Community Development Strategy is a tool to help implement the Auckland Plan. Community-led development is based on the premise that it is led by communities, and that those who are directly affected by an issue are best placed to solve it, given the right support and resources at the right time. The Auckland Plan defines community-led development as: people working together and having the resources, power and influence to make transformational change in their communities. It empowers communities by removing barriers, building capacity and capability, developing resources, increasing resilience, and growing collective leadership. It is also about actions that deliver a quadruple bottom line of economic, social, cultural and environmental benefits for Aucklanders, particularly those in most need.4 In August 2011, the Mayor, in his report on the direction setting for the Long Term Plan, signaled his expectation that community development principles would be embedded across the organisation and reflected in the way Council carries out its activities In October 2011, the Regional Development and Operations Committee agreed that the preparation of a community development strategy should be prioritised within the Strategy and Policy Work Programme (CDS)5. Legacy councils All the legacy councils funded and/or delivered a range of community development activities including community grants, leases, capacity-building and events. Most legacy councils also had overarching strategies or policies that provided strategic outcomes and priorities for community development activities. The more recent policies and strategies reflected a changing emphasis in local governments role in community development; from being a direct provider to focusing on being an enabler and facilitator, working in partnership and supporting community capacity building. Current Council activities in community development Councils current community development activities continue and build on those of the legacy councils, including community funding, events, leases and capacity building. The Council continues to operate different community development service delivery models across Auckland.
4
Updated Draft Auckland Plan Chapter 1 Aucklands People, para. 278.
Page 58
Local boards have a crucial role in place-based community development, and all of them have identified community wellbeing as a priority in their local board plans. However, the understanding and implementation of community development approaches across Council business is inconsistent. It is proposed that a key objective of the fully completed strategy is to embed community development principles, methods and shared strategic outcomes Work to date Work undertaken to date that has influenced the proposed scope and development process for the strategy includes: The Mayors Community Development Think Tank: Members of the Think Tank were selected by the Mayor and are well known leaders and practitioners in the community development field. Over the course of three meetings (November 2011 to February 2012) the Think Tank agreed a set of community development principles and definitions. It is proposed that these are used as the basis for consultation for the first stage of the strategy (see attachment B). The draft community assistance policies: Considerable work has been undertaken by Community and Cultural Policy Unit (CCP) in the development of the community assistance policies. Information gathered through this process will be used to inform all stages of the strategy. Early engagement with key stakeholders: Initial discussions about the proposed scope of the strategy have already been held with a range of key stakeholders including councillors, key departments in council (such as Local Board Services, CCP, CDAC), the Independent Maori Statutory Board, Ministry of Social Development, Charities Commission and non-government organisations. CDACs work in reviewing its roles and objectives in community development: This includes research by Rowe Davies Research on the contribution (and potential contribution) of CDAC to Aucklands vision of the worlds most liveable city. Economic development research: Including research for the Mayors Office on community economic development, and the Economic Development departments investigations in to local economic development and new areas such as social enterprise and social procurement. Regional community summits: Organised by the Auckland Community Development Association (ACDA) in 2011 and funded by Auckland Council. Auckland Plan development: considerable research, stakeholder engagement and analysis of submissions to inform the Auckland Peoples chapter of the draft Auckland Plan, which includes directives and targets on a range of community development areas, for example community hubs.
Decision Making
Three-stage process Initially it was proposed that a comprehensive strategy would be undertaken as a single process, would be completed by December 2012. This would allow for a robust analysis of current roles and activities and exploration of potential new or different roles and activities for Council, and inclusive and rigorous engagement with internal and external stakeholders. There is considerable interest in the strategy, especially from local boards and the voluntary and the community sector.
Stage one of the Community Development Strategy scope and development process Page 59
Item 12
The Community Development, Arts and Culture (CDAC) department has the major service delivery role and many other parts of Council are also involved in a range of activities that support community development.
Item 12
Councillors, however, have emphasised the need for the strategy to inform decision-making on the new community assistance policies currently under development and scheduled to become operational by 1 July 2012. To address councillors concerns, and to assist decision-making for these policies, it is proposed that the strategy is developed through a staged approach: Stage one The objective of stage one of the strategy is to provide a regional framework with principles and shared strategic outcomes for the region that will assist he governing body and local boards in their decision-making about community funding, community occupancy and facilities partnerships. The strategic outcomes will primarily be based on the Auckland Plan, and local board plans It is proposed that the principles (with definitions) identified by the Mayors Community Development Think Tank are used as the basis for consultation. At the 14 February 2012 meeting of the Think Tank, it was noted that a principle based on Te Tiriti o Waitangi was absent, as was a reference to communities of identity and interest in addition to communities of place. This will be addressed in the draft consultation document. Stage two Stage two will take place from June to November 2012 will focus on Councils future priorities and activities in the community-development area based on the principles and strategic outcomes identified in stage one. This stage will include investigation and research, particularly of potential new areas and community development mechanisms, and thorough engagement. It will review and build on the work of legacy councils and Councils current activities, and explore opportunities for transformative change. It will also explore the co-production approach with central government and other sectors. A report on the development process for stage two of the strategy will be submitted to the Auckland Plan Committee at the June 2012 meeting. Final stage a comprehensive strategy The final stage will bring together stages one and two in to a single, comprehensive strategy. The final draft strategy, for APC approval, will be completed by December 2012. It will focus on Councils future roles in community-led development and will: Identify how community development outcomes and processes will contribute to achieving the six transformational shifts for Auckland, and priorities and directives of the Auckland Plan Clearly define Councils approach to and roles in community development Provide principles and a framework for regional cohesiveness in community development whilst ensuring that local needs, aspirations and locally determined initiatives are supported Provide a high-level framework to ensure coherence, direction and coordination across a wide range of activities across Council Raise the profile and improve understanding of community development across Council and embed community development principles, policies and practices throughout Council activities. Timetable for stage one Activity Auckland Plan Committee (APC) to consider/approve the proposed stage one development process Establish project working group and work programme Report to meeting of local board chairs Draft consultation document published Consult:
Date (2012) 2 April 9 April 16 April 26 April 27 April 15 May

Page 60
the Disability Strategic Advisory Group (DSAG)

External stakeholders (voluntary and community sector, Auckland
Policy Office, philanthropic trusts)

Internal Council stakeholders
APC to consider/approve final draft of stage one of the strategy and development process for stage two Report to meeting of local board chairs Report to Social and Community Development Forum Consultation period timeframe and risks
5 June 18 June 27 June
In order to meet the deadline for the community assistance policies, consultation stakeholders will need to be targeted and focused. It will not be possible to workshop the draft principles and strategic outcomes during the regular business meetings of the DSAG, Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel (EPAP), Rural Advisory Panel or Youth Foundation Advisory Panel (which all take place after 15 May). Officers will endeavor to organise a workshop with these stakeholders in early May or seek feedback in other appropriate ways. However, EPAP and DSAG were represented on the Mayors Community Development Think Tank and have been involved in discussions about the principles.
The recommendations in this report do not trigger the Significance Policy.

Community development is integral to Maori well-being. Maori principles, such as tino rangatiratanga, oritetanga, mana motuhake, mauri and whakawhanaungatanga, and Te Tiriti o Waitangi based partnership working will be explored. At the 14 February meeting of the Mayors Community Development Think Tank it was noted that a principle based on Te Tiriti o Waitangi was absent (as was a reference to communities of identity and interest in addition to communities of place). This will be addressed in the discussion document. Councils Maori Relationship Framework outlines Councils relationships with Mana Whenua and Mataawaka. The framework has a clear community development approach. It describes Councils responsibility to contribute to Maori well-being, support the development of Maori capacity, and effectively communicate and engage with Maori. It also articulates mana motuhake (selfsustainability,-identity, and determination) and te puawaitanga o te tangata (self-sustaining and resilient Maori communities). Te Waka Angamua (Maori Strategy and Relations) and the Independent Maori Statutory Board will be consulted on the principles and strategic outcomes. In stage one, there will not be time for targeted engagement with Mana Whenua or Mataawaka - this will happen in stage two.
Consultation
As detailed earlier, consultation with stakeholders on stage one will be limited in order to meet the deadline for the community assistance policies.
Page 61
Item 12
All 21 local boards Independent Maori Statutory Board Advisory panels (Pacific, ethnic, rural and youth foundation) and
Local Board Views
Item 12
Local boards are critical in this process. Community development has a major focus on placebased initiatives and local boards play an important role in shaping local areas. Many of the boards delegated powers, such as setting service levels in community facilities have a major impact on community development activities. The community assistance polices under development propose a major role for local boards in granting local funding and leases and determining facilities partnerships. It is proposed that local boards are engaged during stage one of the strategy; through local board chairs meetings and workshops individually with each of the 21 local boards.

The costs associated with the development of stage one of the strategy will be met from within existing budgets.

There are no legal or legislative implications arising from this report. However, the strategy will support Councils requirement to address cultural, economic, environmental and social well-being across council activities as required by the Local Government Act 2002 and ensure that activities improve the well-being of communities as directed in the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009.
The strategy development process will be led by the Community and Cultural Strategy Unit within the Regional Strategy, Community and Cultural Policy Department, with the support of a crossCouncil project team.
Attachments
No. A Title Proposed principles for consultation Page 63
Signatories
Authors Authorisers Tania Pouwhare, Principal Policy Analyst, Forums and Engagement Raewyn Stone, Manager, Community and Cultural Strategy Ree Anderson, Manager, Regional Strategy, Community and Cultural Policy Roger Blakeley, Chief Planning Officer
Page 62
Attachment A - Draft Community Development Principles for Consultation

The following table of community development principles and definitions is taken from the meeting of the Mayors Community Development Think Tank, held on 14 February 2012. It is proposed that these principles are included in the discussion document for consultation. At the 14 February meeting of the Think Tank, it was noted that a principle based on Te Tiriti o Waitangi was absent, as was a reference to communities of identity and interest in addition to communities of place. This will be addressed in the consultation document. Principle Equity Definition Our society and communities are not level playing fields. There are particular populations that face discrimination and inequality, and are at a disadvantage when accessing systems and opportunities or enjoying rights and freedoms.6 Equity means treating people according to their needs (rather than treating them the same) so that everyone gets the same quality of outcome. Inclusiveness is a process involving proactive and positive steps to include all sections of the community. It describes how people from all backgrounds are part of communities, how their perspectives are valued, and how their needs are understood and addressed. Support for diversity is about positively valuing and celebrating peoples difference and multiplicity and recognising the benefits that this brings to communities.7 Trust is about relationships between people, social groups and organisations. The degree to which one party trusts another is a measure of their belief and confidence in the honesty, fairness, integrity or good will of another party. Trust inspires positive expectations in each party, and is an important indicator of how people feel about others. High levels of trust facilitate co-operative behaviour among people and positive, enduring relationships. Respect includes behaviours such as acknowledging other peoples experiences and knowledge; listening; being truthful; and being courteous. When agreement cannot be reached, parties are able to acknowledge differences and find a positive solution so they can move forward. Place refers to geographical areas and communities. Local people have in-depth knowledge about the needs of their local communities. They are best placed to design solutions, deliver resources and build capacities in ways that are appropriate and rooted in local institutions and values, and that will ensure longevity. Recognising local knowledge, nurturing solutions at the local level, and building on local capacities, capabilities and successes are all characteristics of valuing local strengths. Connectedness is about the connections, relationships and links
Inclusiveness and support for diversity
Trust and respect
Place and local strengths
Connectedness
6
Because of their gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality, age, disability, socio-economic status, class, faith etc., and the intersections of these. 7 Such as ethnic, cultural, linguistic, sexuality, gender, age, disability diversity etc.
Stage one of the Community Development Strategy scope and development process Page 63
Attachment A
Item 12
Auckland Plan Committee 02 April 2012 Principle Definition people, organisations and places have. These connections can be social, physical, cultural, economic and environmental. For example, social connectedness is about relationships (of all types), and their quality and number. Positive, strong social connections help people to have a greater sense of self-determination, and help create social capital (the networks that help society to function effectively). They are also a source of enjoyment and personal support and help people feel they belong and have a part to play in society. The subsidiarity principle is based on the idea that decisions should be made as closely as possible to the people who will be most affected. If we use Auckland governance as an example, this means that decision making should be taken at a local level (i.e. local boards), unless it is more effective and appropriate to be taken at a broader level such as regional (i.e. Auckland Council) or national (i.e. central Government) levels. Partnering refers to joint ventures and relationships where parties come together to develop and/or deliver a product or service or solve an issue. Each party makes a contribution and has a role to play, and risks and benefits are shared in some way. Collaboration is a process, a decision-making tool, where people work together to find the best way to address an issue or problem. Community sustainability is the capacity of communities to endure. This includes taking a long-term perspective in planning and development, and building their resilience (for example, to economic and environmental shocks). Sustainable communities meet challenges through integrated solutions rather than through fragmented approaches. Their economic, social and environmental systems provide a healthy, productive, meaningful life for people present and future within the limits of the natural, social and built systems upon which we depend. Innovation is the creation of better or more effective processes, goods, services, technologies, systems or ideas. An innovation can be big or small, brand-new or a variation, complex or straightforward. Crucially, innovation is also about taking that product, system, idea etc. to a broader audience, enabling it to flourish and transform the issue it seeks to address. Self-determination is about the power, freedom and agency of people to make their own decisions and control their own fates without outside interference or compulsion. Empowerment is both a process and end in itself. It is about communities having the power, influence, capacity, capability, knowledge and resources to take collective action to make change happen on their own terms.
Item 12
Subsidiarity
Attachment A
Partnering and collaboration
Community sustainability
Innovation
Selfdetermination and empowerment
Page 64
File No.: CP2012/04105
Executive Summary
At its meeting held on 20 March 2012, the Environment and Sustainability Forum resolved as follows: 1. Development of the Energy and Climate Change Mitigation Strategy: Scope and Approach Resolution number ES/2012/1 MOVED by Cr Casey, seconded Deputy Mayor Hulse: a) b) That the report be received. That the Environment and Sustainability Forum agrees to the scope of the Energy and Climate Change Mitigation Strategy and the approach of the strategy development process as set out in this report, and that it be recommended to the Auckland Plan Committee for approval. That the Development of the Energy and Climate Change Mitigation Strategy: Scope and Approach report and associated attachments be forwarded to all local boards, the Independent Maori Strategy Board and Advisory Panels for their information. That the Chairperson of the Environment and Sustainability Forum be appointed as Chair of the Energy and Climate Change Mitigation Strategy Steering Group, subject to approval from the Auckland Plan Committee.
c)
d)
Recommendations b) and d) above are for the approval of the Auckland Plan Committee. The original report and associated attachments to the Environment and Sustainability Forum is Attachment A.
Recommendations
a) b) That the report be received. That the Auckland Plan Committee approves the scope of the Energy and Climate Change Mitigation Strategy and the approach of the strategy development process as set out in the report to the Environment and Sustainability Forum dated 20 March 2012. That the Chairperson of the Environment and Sustainability Forum be appointed as Chair of the Energy and Climate Change Mitigation Strategy Steering Group.
c)
Attachments
No. A Title Original report and attachments to the Environment and Sustainability Forum Page 67
Signatories
Authors Authorisers
Recommendations from the Environment and Sustainability Forum Page 65
Emma Joyce - Committee Secretary
Item 13
Recommendations from the Environment and Sustainability Forum
Item 13
Page 66
Page 67
Attachment A
Item 13
Attachment A
Item 13
Page 68
Page 69
Attachment A
Item 13
Attachment A
Item 13
Page 70
Page 71
Attachment A
Item 13
Attachment A
Item 13
Page 72
Page 73
Attachment A
Item 13
Attachment A
Item 13
Page 74
Page 75
Attachment A
Item 13
Attachment A
Item 13
Page 76
Page 77
Attachment A
Item 13
Attachment A
Item 13
Page 78
Page 79
Attachment A
Item 13
Attachment A
Item 13
Page 80
Page 81
Attachment A
Item 13
Attachment A
Item 13
Page 82
Page 83
Attachment A
Item 13
Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987
The following motion is submitted for consideration: That the public be excluded from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting. The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution follows. This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 or section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public, as follows: C1 Establishment of Tamaki Regeneration and Development Company - Tamaki Transformation Project
Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable) s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations). Council is currently engaged in commercially sensitive negotiations with Crown concerning a joint enterprise with commercial functions and involving potential asset-based transactions.. Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution s48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.
Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.
C2
Federal Street Upgrade Agreement

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable) s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations). Under section 7(2)(i) the withholding of the information is necessary so as not to prejudice or disadvantage Councils negotiations with the commercial partner, its commercial activities or the commercial activities of the commercial partner who is the subject of the information.. Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution s48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.
Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.
Public Excluded
Page 85

Auckland Plan Committee April 2012

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Auckland Plan Committee April 2012

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

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

Date: Time: Meeting Room: Venue:

Auckland Plan Committee OPEN AGENDA

Auckland Plan Committee 02 April 2012

File No.: CP2012/04467

Auckland Plan Committee 02 April 2012

File No.: CP2012/04361

Tikapa Moana/Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan Report Back

Auckland Plan Committee 02 April 2012

Auckland Plan Committee 02 April 2012

Auckland Plan Committee 02 April 2012

Auckland Plan Committee 02 April 2012

Auckland Plan Committee 02 April 2012

Kaipara and Manukau Harbour Marine Spatial Plans

Tikapa Moana/Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan Report Back

Tikapa Moana/Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan Report Back

Auckland Plan Initial Unitary Plan (notified)

Manukau Harbour: Area spatial planning

Manukau Harbour Marine Spatial

Auckland Plan Committee 02 April 2012

Maori Impact Statement

Local Board Views

Financial and Resourcing Implications

Legal and Legislative Implications

Tikapa Moana/Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan Report Back

Auckland Plan Committee 02 April 2012

Tikapa Moana/Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan Report Back

Auckland Plan Committee 02 April 2012

Tikapa Moana/Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan Report Back

Auckland Plan Committee 02 April 2012

Auckland Plan Committee 02 April 2012

Tikapa Moana/Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan Report Back

Auckland Plan Committee 02 April 2012

Auckland Plan Committee 02 April 2012

Tikapa Moana/Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan Report Back

Auckland Plan Committee 02 April 2012

Auckland Plan Committee 02 April 2012

Tikapa Moana/Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan Report Back

Auckland Plan Committee 02 April 2012

Auckland Plan Committee 02 April 2012

File No.: CP2012/04426

Ngti Whtua rkei Deed of Settlement Issues

Ngti Whtua rkei Deed of Settlement Issues

Auckland Plan Committee 02 April 2012

Narrow Neck (Tmaki) land

Key issues a) The land in question

Ngti Whtua rkei Deed of Settlement Issues

Ngti Whtua rkei Deed of Settlement Issues

Auckland Plan Committee 02 April 2012

Maori Impact Statement

Local Board Views

Financial and Resourcing Implications

Legal and Legislative Implications

Ngti Whtua rkei Deed of Settlement Issues

Auckland Plan Committee 02 April 2012

Ngti Whtua rkei Deed of Settlement Issues

Auckland Plan Committee 02 April 2012

Ngti Whtua rkei Deed of Settlement Issues

Auckland Plan Committee 02 April 2012

Auckland Plan Committee 02 April 2012

Ngti Whtua rkei Deed of Settlement Issues

Auckland Plan Committee 02 April 2012

Auckland Plan Committee 02 April 2012

Ngti Whtua rkei Deed of Settlement Issues