Auckland Plan Committee Aug 13, Addendum

I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Auckland Plan Committee will be held on:
Date: Time: Meeting Room: Venue:
Tuesday, 13 August 2013 10.00am Reception Lounge Level 2 Auckland Town Hall 301-305 Queen Street Auckland
Auckland Plan Committee OPEN ADDENDUM 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 Chairperson IMSB David Taipari
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
Independent Maori Statutory Board Alternate (Quorum 11 members)
Crispian Franklin Democracy Advisor 9 August 2013 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 13 August 2013 ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS 11 12 16 Auckland Council submission on the Food Bill Unitary Plan update Iwi Management Plan PAGE 5 25 59
Page 3
Auckland Plan Committee 13 August 2013
Auckland Council submission on the Food Bill

File No.: CP2013/17553
Purpose
1. The purpose of this report is to update councillors and recommend that council approves the attached submission to the Primary Production Select Committee on proposed amendments to the draft Food Bill.
Executive Summary
2. The Food Bill is before Parliament to establish a flexible, risk-based food safety system that can meet the needs of consumers as well as the diversity of businesses operating in the food industry. New Zealands food legislation applies to all food for sale in New Zealand and exported food. Since the Bill had its first reading in 2010, a number of concerns have been raised regarding its scope and wording. Government has considered feedback and a Government Supplementary Order Paper has been developed to clarify and simplify the Bill where possible. This is the first opportunity that the unified Auckland Council has had to comment on the Food Bill as previous submissions were made by the legacy councils. Councils submission generally supports the objectives of the Food Bill, which is to provide an efficient, effective, risk based regulatory regime that manages food safety and suitability issues. There are, however, some concerns regarding specific provisions in the Bill itself, which are outlined in the submission.
3.
4.
Recommendation/s
That the Auckland Plan Committee: Note the progress made on the Food Bill. Approves the attached Auckland Council submission to the Primary Production Select Committee. Delegate authority to the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Auckland Plan Committee to give final approval of the council submission.
Discussion
5. The Food Bill has been referred to the Select Committee to review the Supplementary Order Paper changes before returning to Parliament. It is the Minister's intention to pass the Bill in late 2013. A number of changes have been implemented following the initial submissions and incorporated into the Supplementary Order Paper. We support the changes that have been made to date and acknowledge the continued engagement with territorial authorities. Some of the changes include: a commencement date of 1 July to align with the financial year; a risk based approach to food safety; classifying food sectors into three risk based areas;
Page 5
6.
7.
Item 11
Auckland Plan Committee 13 August 2013 granting territorial authorities exclusivity for template food control plans; the exemption of certain fund raising events; a public register of registered food control plans; and the introduction of infringement notices.
Item 11
8.
We support the major proposed amendments in the Supplementary Order Paper which include: Recognition of Industry Programmes - There are many industries already operating under industry food safety programmes that meet or exceed food control plans proposed by the new Food Bill. This provision will reduce duplication of compliance requirements on business. Making use of Food Handler Guidance voluntary - This information should be made available to provide information to help operators keep food safe. At the same time, these operators should also have the option to voluntarily operate under National Programmes, possibly in response to market expectations and consumer demand. Impact of the Bill on fund raising activities - Council supports that traditional fundraising activities are not regulated, as this could have placed unnecessary regulation and compliance on community and fundraising groups. At the same time, people engaged in such activities should still be subject to the obligation of providing safe and suitable food. Gifting and donating of food - Council supports the clarification of the non-commercial exchanges of food, and where food is provided as part of farm workers accommodation. A 'good Samaritan' clause is also supported. Seeds for Sowing Council supports the seeds for sowing provision which only applies to seeds sold for eating and excludes seeds sold for propagation. Ensuring the food Bill is in line with other legislation Council supports the need to ensure the Food Bill is in line with other legislation. Keeping down fees and charges - Council supports the need to keep fees and charges reasonable. Council currently set fees and charges on an actual and reasonable costs basis with users-pays being a governing principle. Any proposed regulations should not be prescriptive or remove the autonomy of a local authority to determine its costs, or the amounts or percentages of any public good food related activity that should be funded from rates. The Bill nor any of its regulations should set fees and charges that apply to territorial authority actions under the Bill, as charges that are set in legislation often do not keep pace with actual costs.
9.
If the Bill is passed, council also has concerns relating to implementation issues, which include: Officers consider a five year transition period as opposed to the proposed three year period which will help transition from an inspection to a risk-based approach. Business responsibility will require a change in approach from both council and the food businesses.
Page 6
The current voluntary implementation programme (VIP) provides useful indication of possible costs to council and businesses. The premises selected by Council to participate in the VIP were those that were recognised as the top performing businesses in food safety. The remaining existing operators will take considerably longer to convert, educate, and maintain their food control plan, which will require an increased resource. A large number of operators currently exempt from food hygiene regulations / registration will become liable to comply with the Food Bill and operate under a food control plan, which will increase resourcing requirements. These include school tuck shops (approximately 540 in Auckland); work place cafeterias (Auckland has approximately 158,000 a small percentage of which will have canteens); tertiary institutions (approximately 300 in Auckland); restaurants in private clubs, organisations and institutions. The extra administration work associated with the new tasks of collecting information not previously required, collecting ministry levies, and updating registers, will add to the resource burden. There are still a number of areas where we would like to see greater clarity and more detail, particularly the detail around National Programmes, and food retailers who handle food but do not prepare and manufacture food that would enjoy a lesser standard of scrutiny than that provided by the national programme. Council would like to consulted and provide input in formulating the detail around National programmes, development of regulations and the issuing of notices. The overall effect is that costs will be expected to increase beyond current levels.
10.
Further discussions will take place between council and the Ministry for Primary Industries on an on-going basis to attempt to address these concerns. The Auckland Council Food Safety Bylaw 2013 will complement the Food Bills wider intentions until the Bill is fully functional. Following enactment of the Food Bill, Auckland Council will then look at revoking the bylaw if it is no longer needed.
11.
Consideration
Local Board Views
12. 13. The views of all local boards are currently being sought and any feedback will be included as an additional agenda item. The views of all local boards were sought in making of the Auckland Council Food Bylaw, which incorporates some of the goals and outcomes sought in the Food Bill.
Maori Impact Statement

14. The Food Bill is consistent with the Auckland Council Food Safety Bylaw 2013 approach to food regulation which seeks to enable the delivery of safe and hygienic food to the citizens of Auckland. The Maori concept of kai as being tapu and the significance of the processes surrounding the preparation and consumption of it are acknowledged. The Bill must respect those
Page 7
15.
Item 11
We are of the view that the Food Bill will impose additional costs to both council and food businesses, especially during the transition phase. Potential increased costs include additional auditing and mentoring, establishing new procedures and processes, developing new collateral and reviewing bylaws.
Item 11
matters and recognise the Mori world view on health and well being. The proposed approach is considered to be consistent with the Mori Plan for Tmaki Makaurau and the Auckland Plan strategic direction of enabling Mori aspirations through the recognition of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and customary rights. 16. The priority of enabling Mori aspirations for thriving and self sustained marae will not be affected by the proposed direction of the Bill. The expected benefits of the proposed infringement notices will also support safer and more hygienic practices to ensure food borne illness is reduced through good practice, ensuring the well being of our people. The Bill allows for cultural practices and the submission states that there should be a clear definition for cultural practices that includes recognition of tikanga on marae and Te Ao Mori. It is noted that Te taka kai (food preparation) is undertaken in the kitchens of marae within Tmaki Makaurau. If kai is not intended for sale, the Bill should have no effect on the current operation of these premises. If kai is intended for sale, national regulations will continue to require the premise to be licensed by a local authority, which provides a consistent approach to current practice. National guidelines such as Te Kai Manawa Ora (Marae Food Safety Guide) produced by the New Zealand Food Safety Authority will continue to provide direction on keeping kai safe while maintaining its sanctity from a tikanga Mori perspective. The Food Bill provides for fund raising activities e.g. kai being sold on the Marae for fund raising purposes. The submission seeks an outcome where the impact of the Bill on Mori is considered to not be any different from the impact on any other person or community.
17.
18.
Implementation Issues
19. As referred to above, there may be significant resourcing impacts upon Auckland Councils Environmental Health Officers when the Food Bill is enacted, due to the increase in the number and type of food businesses that will be subject to the additional auditing and mentoring requirements. We will continue to work with the Ministry of Primary Industries on these issues and report back to the committee as required.
Attachments
No. A Title Auckland Council submission on the Food Bill Page 9
Signatories
Authors Authorisers Graham Bodman - Manager Licensing and Compliance Ian Maxwell - Manager Parks, Sports & Recreation Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer
Page 8
Submission to the Primary Production Select Committee on the Supplementary Order Paper on proposed amendments to the Food Bill
Auckland Council 13 August 2013
Page 9
Attachment A
Item 11
Item 11
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

1. Auckland Council thanks the Select Committee for an opportunity to make a submission on proposed amendments to the Food Bill. 2. This is the first opportunity that the Auckland Council has had to comment on the Food Bill. In 2010, the seven legacy councils of Auckland City, Franklin District, Manukau City, North Shore City, Papakura District, Rodney District, and Waitakere City provided comment on the Food Bill. 3. Auckland Council generally supports the objectives of the Bill but has some concerns regarding specific provisions which are outlined below. 4. Auckland Council would like to acknowledge the amendments that have been made in response to the previous submissions, congratulates the Select Committee on the development of the Food Bill and thanks the Committee for its continued engagement with territorial authorities. 5. Auckland Council also support the changes that have been made to date, in particular: a commencement date of 1 July to align with the financial year; a risk based approach to food safety; classifying food sectors into three risk based areas; granting territorial authorities exclusivity for templated food control plans; the exemption of certain fund raising events; a public register of registered food control plans; and the introduction of infringement notices.
Attachment A
COMMENTS ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
Page 10
6.
Recognition of Industry Programmes - Auckland Council supports the recognition of

industry programmes. There are many industries already operating under industry food safety programmes that meet or exceed food control plans proposed by the new Food Bill. This provision will reduce duplication of compliance requirements on business.
7.
Making use of Food Handler Guidance voluntary Auckland Council supports this
proposal. This information should still be made available to provide information to help operators keep food safe. At the same time, these operators should also have the option to voluntarily operate under national programmes, possibly in response to market expectations and consumer demand.
8.
Impact of the Bill on fund raising activities Auckland Council supports that traditional fundraising activities are not regulated as this could have placed unnecessary regulation and such activities should still be subject to the obligation of providing safe and suitable food. compliance on community and fundraising groups. At the same time, people engaged in
9.
Gifting and donating of food - Auckland Council supports the clarification of the noncommercial exchanges of food, and where food is provided as part of farm workers accommodation. A 'good samaritan' clause is also supported.
10. 11.
Seeds for Sowing Auckland Council supports the seeds for sowing provision. Ensuring the food Bill is in line with other legislation Auckland Council supports the need to ensure the Food Bill is in line with other legislation.
12.
Keeping down fees and charges - Auckland Council supports the need to keep fees and charges reasonable. It is important to note that Auckland Council currently set fees and charges on an actual and reasonable costs basis with users-pays being a governing principle. Accordingly, any proposed regulations should not be prescriptive or remove the autonomy of a local authority to determine its costs, or the amounts or percentages of any food related activity (i.e. public good) that should be funded from rates. Auckland Council recommends that neither the Bill nor any of its regulations should set fees and charges that apply to territorial authority actions under the Bill, as charges that are set in legislation often do not keep pace with actual costs.
National Programmes
Page 11
Attachment A
Item 11
Auckland Plan Committee 13 August 2013 13. Auckland Council notes that there is still no specific detail around National Programmes. This causes us some concern from both a policy and operational perspective as this may have significant cost implications for the food sector. There is little detail around the standards for food premises subject to National Programmes and what form of verification would be required. As these details are to be set out in regulation it is therefore not possible at this point to determine how National Programmes would work and what the role or implication for territorial authorities would be. Some food premises that fall under National Programmes could be large manufacturers and in practice these premises would take longer to verify or audit due to the nature of the operation. Those additional costs will inevitably be passed onto to food businesses and ultimately consumers.
Attachment A
Item 11
Auckland Council looks forward to being afforded the opportunity to work with the Ministry for Primary Industries in developing these regulations. Transitional Provisions 14. Auckland Council considers that the proposed 3 year introductory period is too short to ensure a smooth transition and that a 5 year period would be more appropriate and minimise compliance costs. Regulations 15. Auckland Council also believes there should be consultation with local government on the development of regulations and the issuing of notices. Definitions 16. Auckland Council ask that a number of definitions be widened; specifically: National outcomes - c.15(2)(a) A charitable, benevolent, philanthropic, or cultural purpose c.26B(1)(a)1
The exemption requires better clarification to ensure that food safety at major events that attract significant numbers of patrons, is adequately protected and addressed. The Auckland region is the focus of a large number of fund raising cultural events which are significant both in terms of the large numbers of people who attend and the large number of temporary food outlets that prepare and sell a wide range of high risk foods (e.g. Pacifica, Diwali, Lantern festival, Polyfest, etc). Auckland Councils experience with these major events has found that there is a need for active preevent food safety education and consultation, in addition to on-site food safety advice and intervention at the event. To date this compliance activity has been user-pays funded by the event organisers by way of a food licence. Consequently, this clause would effectively transfer the cost of this food safety activity (if continued to be provided by Auckland Council submission on the Food Bill Page 12
Auckland Plan Committee 13 August 2013 17. Not a significant amendment - c.37(2) and A significant amendment c.37(3)
Auckland Council also asks that further clarification be given to what is accepted as appropriate training for operators c.35A (1) (g). Currently there are limited options available for food operators to undergo any formal training relating to the food control plan.
Compliance Costs 18. Auckland Council is of the view that if enacted in its present format the Food Bill will impose additional costs to territorial authorities and food businesses, especially during the transition phase. The current voluntary implementation programme (VIP) provides a useful indication of possible increased costs to council and businesses. There is a reasonable expectation that the cost to food businesses will increase with this new approach to food safety. 19. Examples of increased costs to Auckland Council include: 20. Additional auditing and mentoring Establishing new practices and procedures Educating businesses Developing new collateral i.e. forms, documents etc and Reviewing existing bylaws.
The workload placed on the Auckland Council environmental health section will significantly increase. Auckland Council currently registers around 8300 food premises, of which approximately 70% will fall within the gambit of schedule 1 and sections 48 and 126. This means these businesses will be required to operate under a food control plan, with Auckland Council exclusively responsible for registration and verification activities.
21.
The majority of the remaining 30% of existing registered premises would fall within the gambit of National Programmes level 3. Auckland Councils experience to date with the premises operating under the voluntary implementation programme (VIP) is that the template food control plans require at least 20% more resourcing than the equivalent premises operating under the Food Hygiene Regulations.
the Council), to the Council/ratepayers. Additionally provision of definitions around the terms: charitable, benevolent, philanthropic, and cultural purpose is recommended as it is not clear whether events that are essentially commercial ventures would be able to quality for this exemption by merely funnelling a nominal portion of their profits to these purposes. It is recommended that either regulation be made under section 26C to address these issues or the clause be suitably redrafted. Auckland Council submission on the Food Bill Page 13
Attachment A
Item 11
Auckland Plan Committee 13 August 2013 22. The amount of resourcing required is expected to increase because the premises that were selected by the Council to participate in the VIP were those that were recognised as the top performing businesses in food safety. Accordingly, the remaining existing operators that do not possess the high level skills and abilities of these top businesses will take considerably longer to understand, educate, and maintain their food control plan. 23. A large number of operators currently exempt from Food Hygiene Regulations/ registration will be required to operate under a food control plan, which will require an increase in resourcing by council. These will include: school tuck shops (Auckland has approximately 538 schools); work place cafeterias (Auckland has approximately 158,000 businesses and at least a small percentage of these will have canteens); tertiary institutions (Auckland has approximately 300 tertiary institutions) and restaurants in private clubs, organisations and institutions. 24. The work around suitability; and labelling, will be new to Council environmental health officers and will add to the workload. The extra administration work associated with the new tasks of collecting information not previously required, collecting ministry levies, and updating registers, will also add to the resource burden. The overall effect is that costs are expected to increase beyond the current resource base. Furthermore, depending on the regulations on National Programmes, this burden may be further greatly increased if the registration and verification of National Programmes falls to territorial authorities. Maori Impact 25. Auckland Council asks that the Food Bill ensures that cultural purpose should include Te taka kai (Maori food preparation) that follows appropriate tikanga and where there is no commercial gain from the venture. 26. The submission seeks an outcome where the impact of the Bill on Mori is considered to not be any different from the impact on any other person or community. Auckland Council Bylaw 27. As part of the transition to a single body, Auckland Council has been given until October 2015 to review all of the policies and bylaws it inherited from the aforementioned legacy councils.
Attachment A
Item 11
Page 14
Auckland Plan Committee 13 August 2013 28. The Auckland Council Food Safety Bylaw 2013, which incorporates a large number of the purpose to (a) allow environmental health officers to take timely and effective action against unhygienic food premises where the food in those premises is likely to be unsafe for human consumption; (b) require the majority of staff working in food premises to have at least a minimum training and qualification in basic food hygiene; (c) allow environmental health officers to grade food premises based on practices in those premises to ensure food is prepared, stored and sold by methods and in surroundings that promote good food hygiene; (d) require food premises to display that grading (at the principal entrance to the premises unless otherwise approved) so that potential customers make an informed choice before entering; (e) ensure that food sold to private premises (e.g. bun running) is prepared for sale in suitable premises, in a manner that promotes good food hygiene and that those who sell readily perishable food identify the source of that food for their customers and adequately protect that food until it is sold; (f) register and regulate the storage, preparation and sale of food from temporary or mobile structures (food stalls and mobile food shops). 29. Auckland Councils view is that the Food Safety Bylaw 2013 will complement the Food Bills intentions until such time as the Bill is fully functional. Auckland Council will then look at revoking the bylaw if the provisions within it are considered to be no longer needed. Conclusion 30. This submission has been made on behalf of Auckland Council. It incorporates and builds upon submissions made by the former Councils of Auckland City, Manukau City, North Shore City, Rodney District, and Waitakere City. 31. Auckland Council is generally supportive of the proposed changes but suggests a number of recommendations.
Auckland Council submission on the Food Bill Page 15
Attachment A
Item 11
goals and outcomes sought in the Food Bill, came into force on 1 July 2013 with a stated
Auckland Plan Committee 13 August 2013 Contact Person
Item 11
32.
Auckland Councils contact person for any clarification on these matters is Mervyn Chetty, Manager Environmental Health, Licensing and Compliance Services, e-mail: mervyn.chetty@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz, phone: 09 353 9065.
Attachment A
Page 16
Commentary on specific clauses

Auckland Council has the following specific comments to make about the detail of the Supplementary Order Paper. 1. Clause 7(1) Auckland Council would like to suggest the meaning of operator of a food business be amended to read the owner or person in overall control of the business operating from the premises. Our reason is that we believe this amendment gives greater clarity to the definition as to who the operator must be i.e.; the person responsible for the business operating from the premises, rather than the person in control of the business overall, as would be the case with a franchisor. 2. Clause 9 Meaning of food business clause (b) - Auckland Council would like to suggest the wording be amended to readapplies to a single premise, not multi businesses with centralised head offices and includes mobile food operators. For practical reasons a food business should be consistent with a single premises. This is particularly important for franchise businesses which are a growing part of the food sector. In these businesses it is the individual franchise operator that will ensure safe food at the outlet. 3. Clause 17 Role of territorial authorities clause (2)(a) - Auckland Council would like to suggest the wording be amended to read delivering services that are needed to achieve the purpose of this Act, including provision of advice and the dissemination of information relating to the safety and suitability of food should be by agreement between the chief executive and the relevant territorial authority, as to timing, cost and responsibility. 4. Clause 21 Power to amend Schedules 1 to 3 by Order in Council sub-clause 2(a) Auckland Council would like to suggest the wording be added - (iii) the likely economic impact for territorial authorities. Our reason is that alteration of any of the schedules, either by adding or removing retailers in the various sectors could have financial implications for territorial authorities and they should therefore be consulted prior to any amendment by regulation. 5. Clause 26B Exemption from risk-based measure if trading in food for certain fund raising - Auckland Council would like better clarification of the exemption to ensure that food safety at major events that attract significant numbers of patrons, is adequately protected and addressed. The Auckland region is the focus of a large number of fund raising cultural
Page 17
Attachment A
Item 11
Auckland Plan Committee 13 August 2013 events which are significant both in terms of the large numbers of people who attend and the
Item 11
large number of temporary food outlets that prepare and sell a wide range of high risk foods (e.g. Pacifica, Diwali, Lantern festival, Polyfest, etc). Auckland Councils experience with these major events has found that there is a need for active pre-event food safety education and consultation, in addition to on-site food safety advice and intervention at the event. To date, this compliance activity has been user-pays funded by the event organisers by way of a food licence. Consequently, this clause would effectively transfer the cost of this food safety activity (if continued to be provided by the Council), to the Council/ratepayers. Additionally, provision of definitions around the terms: charitable, benevolent, philanthropic, and cultural purpose is recommended as it is not clear whether events that are essentially commercial ventures would be able to quality for this exemption by merely funnelling a nominal portion of their profits to these purposes. It is recommended that either regulation be made under clause 26C to address these issues or the clause be suitably redrafted. 6. Clause 34 Food control plan: form - Auckland Council would like to suggest the wording be amended to read A food control plan must be in writing in a form acceptable to both the chief executive and the registration authority. Our reason is that both parties are required to have an input into the approval of a food control plan and should therefore have an input into its form. 7. Clause 35 Food control plan: contents sub-clause (b) Auckland Council would like to suggest the wording be amended to readthe name, or the position or designation, food safety qualifications, and area of responsibility (if appropriate) of the person with whom responsibility for the day-to-day management of the plan, as nominated by the person in control of the food business or businesses; and. Our reason is that we consider it imperative that the person responsible for the day to day management of a food control plan has an appropriate food safety qualification and that this is identified in the plan. 8. Clause 45 Duties of operators of registered food control plans sub-clause (1)(i) Auckland Council are of the view that this sub-clause should be deleted. Our reason is that the requirement to retain a copy of a plan that is amended, revoked or replaced for a period of not less than 4 years is overly onerous, particularly on small businesses. 9. Clause 48 Application for registration: who is appropriate registration authority subclause (1) (b) (ii) Auckland Council would like to suggest sub-clause(1)(b)(ii) be re-instated to permit territorial authorities to be an appropriate registration authority by regulation. We are of the view that it would be preferable to retain the ability to change who is the
Attachment A
Page 18
Auckland Plan Committee 13 August 2013 appropriate registration authority by way of regulations thus retaining the future proofing that Council and a number of other territorial authorities possess or develop the competencies and systems to be the registration authority for some businesses outside the current area of exclusivity. 10. Clause 52 Criteria for registration of a food control plan subs-clause (c) (i) - Auckland Council would like to suggest this be deleted and replaced with following if the plan refers to one food business operator, the operator must satisfy the registration authority that they are a fit and proper person to manage and carry out the requirements of the FCP. We are of the view that it is not necessary to be a resident in New Zealand to be the operator of a food business. 11. Clause 53 Refusal to register food control plan sub-clause (1) (b) - in order to provide greater clarity to the time period in question Auckland Council would like to suggest the wording be amended to read 20 working days to make written submissions. Our reason is that there should be a finite time so as to give some certainty to the registration authority as to whether there is likely to be written submission or not. A reasonable opportunity is to open ended and indefinite. 12. Clause 55 Registration of food control plan sub-clause (1) - in order to provide greater clarity to the time period in question Auckland Council would like to suggest the wording be amended to readIf the registration authority is the chief executive and decides to register a food control plan, the registration authority must, within 20 working days. Our reason is that there should be a finite time so as to give some certainty to the applicant that the application to register a food control plan has been registered. Sub-clause (2) should also be amended in a similar manner for the same reasons.If the registration authority is not the chief executive and decides to register a food control plan; the registration authority must, within 20 working days. 13. Enacting the change suggested above will require an improvement to the current portal approach to enable a useful connection between a national register and territorial databases, similar to the National Dog Database. Our view is that the current portal is useful but could be improved by connecting it to territorial authorities related information databases. We understand that there are already various initiatives underway by various government agencies along these lines.
Page 19
Attachment A
Item 11
was originally envisaged. We consider that there may be occasions when both Auckland
Auckland Plan Committee 13 August 2013 14. Clause 62 Effect of suspension sub-clause (1) - Auckland Council would like to suggest the following sub-clause be added (d) close a food business. Our reason is that the ability to close a food business should be stated explicitly. The directions available under clause 253 do not have an ability to close a food business as they only relate to actions with respect to the food itself. 15. Clause 66 Effect of cancellation of registration sub-clause (1) - Auckland Council would like to suggest the following subsection is added (d) close a food business. Our reason is that the ability to close a food business should be stated implicitly. The directions available under clause 253 do not have an ability to close a food business as they only relate to actions with respect to the food itself. 16. Clause 79D Criteria for registration of food business subject to national programme sub-clause (b) Auckland Council would like to suggest this sub-clause be deleted as the requirement that the registration authority establish the residency status of the applicant operator of a National Programme before registering it, inserts an extra administrative burden and cost to the process, with no apparent food safety benefit. 17. Clause 129 Recognition of certain persons without application sub-clause (c) Auckland Council would ask that clarification be given as to how the chief executive will recognise an officer or employee of a territorial authority. Our concern is that there is no indication of how and when this recognition process will occur. 18. Clause 145 Liability for loss sub-clause (1) - Auckland Council would like to suggest the following subsection be added... (d) territorial authorities. Our reason is that given their responsibilities under the Bill territorial authorities should also be included. 19. Clause 146 Functions of territorial authority sub-clause (2) (e) and (f)) Auckland Council consider these sub-clauses are unnecessary and would like to suggest they be deleted. Our view is that there is no need for the chief executive to give a direction to a territorial authority to investigate non-compliance and complaints as these are part of its duties anyway. 20. Clause 147 Duties of territorial authority sub-clause (g) Auckland Council would like to suggest the wording be amended to readprovide reasonable assistance or capability to respond as required in an emergency situation in accordance with any direction given by the chief executive. We are of the view that depending on the type of emergency a territorial
Attachment A
Item 11
Page 20
Auckland Plan Committee 13 August 2013 authority is likely to have many demands on its staff and resources and needs to be able to
21.
Clause 147 Duties of territorial authority sub-clause (i) Auckland Council consider this sub-clause superfluous and would like to suggest it be deleted. Our reason is that this requirement is already covered elsewhere in various parts of the Bill.
22.
Clause 148 Minister may issue national outcomes for territorial authorities sub-clause (3) Auckland Council would like to suggest the wording be amended to readIf the Minister issues, amends or revokes a national outcome, the Minister must, within 20 working days, notify that fact-. Our reason is that there should be a finite time so as to give some certainty to a territorial authority. It is questionable whether national outcomes are an appropriate mechanism here and that regulations may be more appropriate.
23.
Clauses 158 164A (inc) Auckland Council would like to suggest these be deleted as a review of the territorial authorities functions, duties, or powers is already provided for under Schedule 15 of the Local Government Act 2002.
24.
If Auckland Councils suggestion to delete Clauses 158-164A (inc) is not taken forward Auckland Council would like to suggest: a. Clause 162 Powers of Reviewer sub-clause (2) (a) - Auckland Council would like to suggest the wording be amended to read The reviewer may, having first made an appointment, enter any place during business hours b. Clause 162 Powers of Reviewer sub-clause (3) (a) - Auckland Council would like to suggest the wording be amended to read remove documents or records to another place for a maximum of 20 days for the purpose of copying them; and c. Clause 162 Powers of Reviewer sub-clause (3) (b) - Auckland Council would like to suggest the wording be amended to readhaving first requested so when making an appointment, require a person who has control or knowledge of the documents or records to reproduce or to assist in reproducing in usable form information recorded or stored in a computer or any other device or system.
25.
Clause 176 Territorial authority to set fees sub-clause (1) (a) - Auckland Council would like to suggest the following sub-clause be added... (d) dissemination of information. Our
Page 21
Attachment A
Item 11
direct these appropriately.
Auckland Plan Committee 13 August 2013 view is that this is an indirect cost to territorial authorities and there should be an ability to
Item 11
recover those costs. 26. Clause 178 Regulations may provide for exemptions, waivers, and refunds -Auckland Council would like to suggest the following sub-clause be added... (4) This section does not apply to any fee set by territorial authorities. Our reason is that as the fee has been set by a territorial authority there does not need to be any provision by regulation for a refund of that fee. 27. Clause 179 Trust accounts required to be kept by persons collecting levies Auckland Council consider this clause superfluous and would like to suggest it be deleted as it is not necessary for a territorial authority to operate a trust account as it is a statutory body.
Attachment A
28.
Clause 180 Other charges not requiring to be prescribed sub-clause (1) - Auckland Council would like to suggest the wording be amended to readThis subpart does not prevent the chief executive from requiring a market related charge, or hourly charge to be paid for any. Our view is that this will give clarity to the two different methods of charging fees rather than it being ambiguous as a reasonable fee.
29.
Clause 180 Other charges not requiring to be prescribed sub-clause (3)(a), (b), (c), (d) Auckland Council would like to suggest these sub clauses be deleted as we believe the services referred to should be provided free of charge. In addition we believe that the cost of collecting these charges will outweigh any revenue derived from them.
30.
Clause 243 Appoint food safety officers - Auckland Council would like to suggest the following sub-clause be added (2) Food safety officers should be able to be appointed by the chief executive of the relevant territorial authority. Our reason is that a territorial authority should be empowered to appoint food safety officers where those officers are carrying out functions and duties of the territorial authority under the Act.
31.
Clause 266 Information powers and evidence gathering sub-clause (1) (c) - in order to provide greater clarity to the time period in question Auckland Council would like to suggest the wording be amended to readdirecting the person in charge of it to send the document or a copy of it to the officer by a reasonable means that the officer specifies within 20 working days.
32.
Clause 330 Reviewer may require payment of costs in review of decision by relevant territorial authority Auckland Council would like to suggest this clause be deleted. Whilst
Page 22
Auckland Plan Committee 13 August 2013 we support the proposed process for review of decisions by a territorial authority we oppose
33.
Clauses 332 - 340 (inc) Auckland Council would like clarity as to how the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act apply to these clauses.
34.
Clause 341 Consultation: Ministers powers sub-clause (2) - Auckland Council would like to suggest the wording be amended to read The chief executive must consult about a proposal to exercise the power, and give notice to all territorial authorities. Our reason is that it is considered appropriate to notify territorial authorities that the Minister is consulting under this section.
35.
Clause 342 Consultation: chief executives powers sub-clause (2) - Auckland Council about a proposal to exercise the power, and give notice to all territorial authorities. Our reason is that it is considered appropriate to notify territorial authorities that the chief executive is consulting under this section.
36.
Clause 351 Regulations about recognised agencies, persons, and classes of persons Auckland Council would like to suggest the wording be amended to readThe GovernorGeneral may, by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister, and in conjunction with territorial authorities, make regulations for all or any of the following purposes. Our view is that given the involvement of territorial authorities in subpart 1 of Part 4, it would be appropriate that they be consulted in the making of any regulations for the purposes specified under sub-clause (1).
37.
Clause 369 Notices: publication sub-clause 5-8 (inc) Auckland Council would like to suggest these clauses be deleted and replaced with the following Changes should be notified in writing to each business, either through the territorial authority, or directly with each business owner. Our view is that it is not considered adequate that notices be published in the Gazette and available in the head office of the Ministry. As the notices are of significance to the operation of the Act they should be notified directly to territorial authorities and registered operators as appropriate.
38.
Clause 373 Overview of transitional provisions sub-clause (4) clarify whether a change of operator of an existing business is in fact a new business for transition purposes. We are unclear on this point as it could be argued also that merely a change operator of an existing business does not constitute a new business.
Page 23
Attachment A
would like to suggest the wording be amended to read The chief executive must consult
Item 11
the awarding of costs.
Auckland Plan Committee 13 August 2013 39. Clause 396 Notices about approved auditors and agencies sub-clause (1) - Auckland Council would like to suggest the wording be amended to read The Chief Executive may, in consultation with the relevant territorial authority, issue a notice specifying conditions applying to approved auditors deemed to be recognised persons or conditions applying to agencies deemed to be recognised agencies. We are of the view that any notices relating to standards that are relevant to territorial authorities will be developed with them. 40. Schedule 1 Food sectors subject to food control plans Part 1 sub-clause (b) - Auckland Council would like to suggest the wording be amended to provide the ability for farmers markets, or similar type markets where a large number of individual food stalls gather together, as a whole to be covered by a single food control plan. Our view is that procedure is already carried out by a large number of territorial authorities by the issue of umbrella licences. There is also the court decision between Palmerston North City Council and the local fruit growers association which found in favour of this approach. 41. Schedule 3 Food sectors not required to operate under food control plan or national programme Part 1 sub-clause (d) Auckland Council would like to suggest this sub-clause be deleted as it is already covered under the exemption in clause 26B, without the qualification that the trade in food is to raise money for charitable, benevolent, philanthropic, and cultural purposes; and limits the exemption to an annual event. See our previous comment under clause 26B as to the reasons why this should be deleted.
Attachment A
Item 11
Page 24
Unitary Plan update

File No.: CP2013/18806
Purpose
1. The purpose of this report is to inform the committee of progress with the development of the Auckland Unitary Plan and to outline the next steps in the decision-making process.
Executive Summary
2. Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) workshops are being held with all members of the Auckland Plan Committee, Independent Maori Statutory Board representatives and local board chairs to work through feedback on the draft AUP and seek direction on key changes for the notified version of the AUP. Final decisions on the AUP will be made by the Auckland Plan Committee and Governing Body. This report relates to the workshops held on 24 and 31 July and 1 and 2 August 2013. The following topics were considered at the workshops: Significant Ecological Areas Mangroves Residential provisions Historic heritage, historic character and the pre-1944 overlay City Centre waterfront heights Port of Auckland Mapping. 3. On 29 and 30 July all local boards presented a summary of their formal resolutions in respect of the draft AUP to the Auckland Plan Committee. Key issues raised that require further consideration will be highlighted for decisions at the decision meetings of this committee at the end of August. A number of the issues raised by the local boards were also discussed between local board members, officers and councillors at the second allday mapping workshop held on 2 August. On 5 August 18 Mana Whenua groups presented a summary of their feedback on the draft AUP to the Auckland Plan Committee. Officers are currently in the process of making amendments to the draft AUP based on the interim directions received at the various workshops held in June, July and August, and will seek decisions from the Auckland Plan Committee on the AUP on 28, 29 and 30 August.
4. 5.
Recommendation/s
That the Auckland Plan Committee: a) b) Receives the report. Requests officers to send the report to all local boards and to the Independent Maori Statutory Board.
Discussion
6. Informal public engagement on the draft AUP was completed on 31 May 2013. 22,700 pieces of feedback were received. In order to inform the Auckland Plan Committee of the
Page 25
Unitary Plan update
Item 12
Item 12
feedback and suggested approaches, workshops are being held to discuss key issues and areas where interim directions are needed. The workshops consist of all members of the Auckland Plan Committee, Independent Maori Statutory Board representatives and local board chairs. The interim directions provided at these workshops have previously been reported to formal meetings of the Auckland Plan Committee. 7. An extensive range of topics have been discussed at the workshops and reported to the committee on a regular basis. Three more content workshops are scheduled for August, after which point an updated draft of the AUP will be finalised and reported to the Auckland Plan Committee on 28-30 August. At these meetings, it is proposed first to deal with outstanding issues that require a direction followed by discussion and decisions on each section of the AUP and the planning maps. Committee members will receive in advance a CD with the tracked change version of the AUP, plus a committee report discussing outstanding issues and key changes. Once decisions are made by the committee on the revised draft AUP, the matter will be reported to the Governing Body in September for final adoption of the AUP for public notification. The remainder of this report outlines the feedback received in relation to Significant Ecological Areas, mangroves, residential provisions, historic heritage, historic character, the pre-1944 overlay, City Centre waterfront heights and the Port of Auckland. The report also provides further information relating to Genetically Modified Organisms as requested by the committee, in advance of decision-making on this issue at the decision-making meetings at the end of August (28th, 29th and 30th).
8.
24 July 2013 workshop Significant Ecological Areas (SEAs) 9. The following issues have been identified in the feedback to date: 1258 formal pieces of feedback received 200+ informal landowner responses Approximately: - 18% against SEAs on their property (either too restrictive, criteria not met or just objecting) - 19% supportive and/or wanting to add more to SEAs - 35% map errors - 12% wanting more information about biodiversity and SEAs - 12% seeking management assistance or incentive. Mana Whenua feedback: - support for SEAs in principle - Biodiversity should be protected across the region, not just in specified areas - Should aim to enhance degraded areas, not just protect intact areas of biodiversity - Undeveloped Maori land hosts significant biodiversity. We want to manage these areas in accordance with their values, which may include occupation and development. Feedback from the Biodiversity Forum: - Biodiversity is important and SEAs are good - Have SEAs been correctly identified? Definition of significant is critical - More focus needed on biodiversity outside SEAs
Page 26
Unitary Plan update
10.
The following interim directions were generally agreed: Dead vegetation Permit removal of all dead wood within SEAs. Trimming and pruning Permit clearance of vegetation in SEAs to 3m from a dwelling with no restriction on area and permit trimming within 10m (as per notable trees i.e. 10% within a year, sound arboricultural practice, etc). Further discussion and decisions are required at the decision-making meetings in relation to whether this should apply to all buildings (as opposed to dwellings). Exotic trees and vegetation Allow removal of all non-native plant species within 10m of a building/dwelling and all plants on the Regional Pest Management Species register. Further discussion and decisions are required at the decision-making meetings at the end of August in relation to whether this should apply to all buildings (as opposed to dwellings).
Mangroves 11. The following issues have been identified in the feedback to date: Approximately 140 formal pieces of feedback Approximately 30% generally supportive or asking that it goes further (an earlier removal date for mangroves) Approximately 35% generally of the view that approach is too enabling of removal Approximately 15% views unclear Approximately 10% seek a proactive approach by council The cost of consents, experts and monitoring is too high Allowing removal without adjacent land owner or Mana Whenua approval is inappropriate The approach does not give effect to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement The date is too conservative and should be pushed back The approach strikes a good balance Identifying areas where mangroves are mitigating coastal erosion will be difficult without expertise
Page 27
Unitary Plan update
Item 12
- More recognition that land owners look after their land / biodiversity incentives - More focus on education, especially to owners of SEAs - Greater focus for Hunua and Manukau and parks.
Auckland Plan Committee 13 August 2013 Identifying areas with salt marsh or sea grass will be difficult without expertise Disputes may arise where 1996 aerial photography is not held by the council. Mana Whenua feedback: - Disagree with permitted activity status - Mana Whenua need to be involved because of the risk of environmental damage or disturbing taonga - Support removal to enable access to marae or areas of traditional use - Mangroves are a result of sedimentation, and need to be addressed holistically. Feedback from the Biodiversity Forum: Recognition that mangrove management a complex issue in a dynamic environment Considerable support for stage 2 of the proposed approach but limited support for stage 1 1996 date seen to be arbitrary and depending on local conditions too enabling, or too constraining Case-by-case approach generally appropriate as an interim measure Community mangrove management initiatives should receive active supported by Council and Local Boards Local Boards are an appropriate vehicle for progressing/coordinating community mangrove management initiatives.
Item 12
12. Two key options were discussed: Option A - Operative Regional Coastal Plan Approach Discard date-based permitted activity (i.e. require a resource consent to be obtained except as specified below): Retain permitted activities for: - maintenance of assets (e.g. boat ramps) and infrastructure - seedlings removal
Enable removal of mangroves from wading bird habitats as a controlled activity Promote omnibus consents coordinated at a local board level for other removal Clarify and strengthen policies supporting clearing with amenity, cultural, coastal access and other community benefits Consent applications for local board supported proposals processed free of charge. Option B - Draft Auckland Unitary Plan Approach Retain date-based permitted activity and: Enable the removal of mangroves in areas that were free of mangroves in 1996 from: - the General Coastal Marine zone; and
Unitary Plan update Page 28
A consensus was not reached at the workshop. Further discussion and decisions are required at the decision-making meetings at the end of August. 31 July 2013 workshop Residential provisions 13. This was the second workshop on the residential provisions of the AUP. There were no proposed changes to two of the five residential zones in the draft AUP (Rural and Coastal Settlement and Large Lot). With respect of the Single House zone, officers outlined two proposed changes: one to the height in relation to boundary control and one to the building on a boundary control. The changes were generally supported, subject to a minor change to the building on a boundary control (reduction in the maximum permitted height from 3.6 metres to 3 metres). A key focus of the workshop was proposed provisions for the Mixed Housing (Urban) and Mixed Housing (Suburban) zones. This follows the interim direction previously given to split the Mixed Housing zone into two sub-zones. The full suite of potential development controls for the two Mixed Housing zones (Mixed Housing Urban and Mixed Housing Suburban) and the Terraced Housing and Apartment Buildings zone were discussed. There was general support for most of the proposed controls (including changes that would allow greater scope for limited or public notification of proposals to infringe development controls). Refinements were suggested to a number of the controls (e.g. increasing the setback requirement for garages in the Mixed Housing zones and the outdoor living space requirements in the Mixed Housing (Suburban) zone. Further discussion and decisions are required on the proposal to enable two-storey terraced housing at a higher density in the Mixed Housing (Suburban) zone. A final suite of proposed controls for the residential zones will be reported to the committee on 28-30 August.
14.
15.
Historic heritage 16. The following issues have been identified in the feedback to date: Minimal feedback on provisions, apart from major stakeholders, who were generally positive Most feedback was site or area-specific Support for new criteria and methodology Lack of policy on earthquake prone buildings Lack of an incentives policy - this policy is on a different, Auckland Plan timeframe Feedback seeking removal of sites from schedule Feedback seeking additional sites included on schedule. 17. The following interim directions were generally agreed:
Page 29
Unitary Plan update
Item 12
- Significant Ecological Areas that are wading bird habitats; and - Significant Ecological Areas where the values are not from mangroves. - Undertake a prioritised investigation through Marine Spatial Planning and mapping exercise to identify further areas where mangrove removal has a low environmental risk and can be permitted.
Item 12
Officers to carry out minor changes including mapping changes, clarification of rules and definitions Retain sites, criteria and methodology from draft AUP Include 66 additional items onto heritage schedule: - 59 identified through heritage surveys - 7 identified through feedback process. Historic character 18. The following issues have been identified in the feedback to date: 19. The overlay should be extended over parts of Auckland that are not currently classified as historic character Support for the retention of existing character areas Change specific design and development overlays to historic character overlays Devonport Heritage wants Devonport to have overlay and upgraded to a conservation area Comments seeking protection of post war 1950s/60s and inter war 1918-1945 development Feedback wanting greater recognition of local features e.g. Tamaki Drive High-density development should not occur right next to historic character areas.
The following interim directions were generally agreed: Add 11 new Historic Character areas to the AUP as a result of pilot surveys: Balmoral (2) Otahuhu (1) Onehunga (6) Puketapapa (2) Require a resource consent for demolition, alterations and additions and new buildings within the new Historic Character areas (as with existing Historic Character areas in draft AUP) Apply the Single Housing or Mixed Housing zone based on existing subdivision pattern.
Pre-1944 Demolition Control 20. The following issues have been identified in the feedback to date: Area of protection should be extended and applications for removal publicly notified The overlay should include historic character from the 1950s/60s Remove the overlay The precautionary approach/overlay should only apply until the council has surveyed Auckland comprehensively The layer has not involved street by street surveys to identify historic character
Unitary Plan update
Page 30
The layer conflicts with planned growth. Feedback from the Historic Character Reference Forum - Large landholders are concerned that the layer will be an impediment to commercial and housing re-development - Preference for conservation areas, historic character areas or listed buildings - Character coalition would like local plans, staged intensification so that heritage is assessed prior to up-zoning - Spectrum of views on notification and retention/deletion of layer - Not everything that is old is good, the overlay is too arbitrary
21.
Potential Solutions from the reference group: Investigate using design statements to manage pre-1944 building stock Make it clear that the overlay will reduce through surveys Free consent fees for assessment, resourcing, simplify planning rules Need to assess areas comprehensively Find a balance between development and protection of heritage values.
The following options were discussed at the workshop: Option 1 Remove the overlay and associated rule. Option 2 Keep the overlay but reduce the mapped area based on work undertaken since the draft AUP was released. Commit to completing area surveys within the overlay area in the next 3 years. Option 2A As above but also remove Housing New Zealand Corporation land, Treaty settlement commercial redress areas e.g. Ngati Whatua on North Shore, areas identified by local boards as being more suitable for intensification. Option 3 Retain the overlay but reduce as in Option 2 (or 2A) and re-draft the demolition control to only require assessment for historic heritage (not historic character).
22.
A clear consensus was not reached, however there was general support for aspects of options 2 and 2A and little or no support for options 1 and 3. There was also support for the AUP enabling public notification of demolition applications within the pre-1944 overlay once buildings are assessed as being of value in terms of historic heritage or historic character. Further discussion and decisions are required at the decision-making meetings at the end of August.
City Centre waterfront heights 23. The following issues have been identified in the feedback to date: Landowners along the waterfront seek additional height Some community feedback supporting height in the city centre and others opposed to height along the waterfront.
Page 31
Unitary Plan update
Item 12
The layer will place a cost on applicants to provide assessments at the time of redevelopment
Item 12
24.
The following interim directions for the City Centre were generally agreed: Retain north-south height transition across the City Centre and east-west transition to fringe areas Retain specific precinct height strategies to maintain a distinctive built form across parts of the waterfront and provide opportunities for taller buildings where they are appropriate for local character, topography, views, sunlight and heritage. Undertake a comprehensive review of the heights applying along the city centre waterfront during the Unitary Plan submission phase.
Viaduct Harbour precinct Retain existing heights along the Viaduct waterfront to ensure buildings achieve a human scale, maximise sunlight access and enable views through the city to the harbour. Enable some additional height to the south of the precinct, as provided for in the draft AUP. Retain existing height for 204 Quay Street given its heritage status and to ensure consistency of height for buildings directly adjoining the waters edge.
Wynyard precinct During the preparation of the draft AUP, Waterfront Auckland commissioned a review of the building heights at Wynyard Quarter. The review recommended that allowing for an additional two storeys in height could achieve a better overall urban design outcome for the area, as it would allow for a more varied form of development (i.e. less squat buildings within the same overall development envelope/gross floor area). Based on this analysis, the March draft AUP included a provision that allows for an additional two storeys in height to be applied for as a restricted discretionary activity through a framework plan process. The framework plan process seeks to achieve an integrated development of the various blocks of land at Wynyard Quarter. Waterfront Auckland staff have also indicated they would support removing the potential for development on a site in the vicinity of Silo Park if the additional two storeys in height is enabled through the framework plan process. At the workshop, officers suggested the control should be retained in the AUP, but it was not clear that this control was a change from the current planning rules. Therefore, officers consider that this issue should be discussed in more detail at the Auckland Plan Committee meetings at the end of August and a decision made. Downtown West and Central Wharves Apply a precinct to enable the introduction of tailored provisions to guide future development that is consistent with the general approach to height along the waterfront Retain the Quay Street harbour edge height control plane to ensure building height transitions to the waterfront
Continue working with landowners on a development strategy for the area the outcome of which could be incorporated into the Unitary Plan through or in response to a submission.
Unitary Plan update
Page 32
Auckland Plan Committee 13 August 2013 Britomart precinct Retain the heights in the draft AUP until a decision on Plan Change 41 is released. Quay Park precinct Enable an additional 5-10m in height in the eastern part of the precinct through a restricted discretionary resource consent for a framework plan to achieve the integrated development of land. This additional height must not impact on the Dilworth or Museum Viewshafts. The framework plan would assess big picture issues such as the proposed street/block layout and the location of public open space/connections Work with landowners to investigate opportunities for additional height. Continue working with landowners on a development strategy for the area the outcome of which could be incorporated into the AUP through or in response to a submission. Port of Auckland 25. The draft AUP feedback which relates to reclamation within the Port precinct and/or port development generally (approximately 35 pieces of feedback) has been identified and summarised at a high level. There was a range of feedback, including support for and opposition to the ongoing role of the Port in the City Centre. The points that arose most frequently included: The port should not expand and/or its footprint should be reduced The port should be moved out of the city centre and/or other alternatives should be explored (for example, Marsden and/or Tauranga ports should be further developed to pick up the Port of Aucklands projected growth or take on all of its current freight).
26.
Feedback on their draft port development proposals was sought by Ports of Auckland Limited (POAL) during a one month period from early May-early June 2013. The proposals were available on POALs website, with an online feedback survey (181 responses were received). A summary overview of the survey results, as supplied by POAL, includes the following results: 65% or more of respondents agreed; port proposals for greater efficiency and less expansion are heading in the right direction and; that the Port will need to become more efficient and expand moderately as Aucklands population and freight demands grow 59% agreed with idea of a sub-zone in Port Precinct to signal the northern reclamation limit 43% indicated Expand and release Captain Cook as their preferred port development option.
27.
POAL also provided a high level summary of the key points/themes from the qualitative feedback it received through the survey or directly via email (as at 26 June 2013). These were outlined at the workshop on 31 July 2013. Direction was sought at the workshop on 31 July 2013 on a) the retention of Policy 9 in the draft AUP and b) how the AUP should classify reclamation within the Port precinct. Five potential classification options were presented (see attachment A).
28.
Unitary Plan update
Page 33
Item 12
Auckland Plan Committee 13 August 2013 29.
Item 12
Reclamation is currently a non-complying activity in most of the Coastal Marine Area (CMA) and is prohibited in marine reserves and other areas of high environmental significance. The draft AUP recognises the Port precinct as one of the few areas where reclamation may be appropriate due to the already modified character of the environment and the significance of the port to the region. The draft AUP continues the approach of the operative regional coastal plan and enables a discretionary activity resource consent application to be made for reclamation within the entire Port precinct. Policy 9 in the draft AUP indicates that further reclamation of land within the Port precinct could occur provided: there is no practicable alternative it is the most appropriate form of development potential adverse effects will be avoided, remedied or mitigated.
30.
31.
At the 31 July 2013 workshop: there was general support for the retention of Policy 9 in draft AUP there was general support for option 4 (and to a lesser extent support for option 2), both of which propose a reduction to the current northern boundary of the Port precinct and the application of a sub-zone approach, whereby in specific areas of the Port precinct reclamation is a discretionary activity and outside those areas, it is a noncomplying activity.
32.
Further discussion and decisions are required at the decision-making meetings at the end of August.
1 August 2013 workshop Education 33. Two main topics were discussed at the 1 August workshop: 34. providing for new schools underlying zone with an education precinct or special purpose zone approach.
In relation to the first topic, the following issues have been identified in the feedback to date: needs to be a school growth plan in co-ordination with the AUP schools are full and there is no room to build new ones Mt Eden currently has inadequate primary, intermediate and secondary schools facilities including playing fields the current crisis with the overpopulation of Point Chevalier schools must be resolved before further intensification is allowed, the schools need more land.
35.
In relation to the second topic, the following issues have been identified in the feedback to date: universities support a precinct approach Ministry of Education considers objectives and policies for the school precinct are appropriate and supports them all being retained
Page 34
Unitary Plan update
Wesley College Trust Board supports the inclusion of the school precinct provisions within the draft AUP. This will mean integrated schools will be treated for Unitary Plan purposes in a similar manner to schools under the responsibility of the Ministry of Education schools should be given their own Special Purpose zoning to avoid placing undue pressure on school land in the future
zone all schools as school zone Ministry of Education is supportive of the underlying zoning of the Ministers designations in Auckland request that schools be given an underlying zoning of open space the school precinct delineation on the site is supported as reflecting important social infrastructure but is better applied over a Mixed Use zone to reflect both important school uses and a diversity of appropriate land uses presently or potentially located on the site. 36. There was no clear consensus in terms of whether schools and tertiary education facilities should retain an underlying zone with an education precinct (as in the draft AUP) or receive a special purpose zoning. To some extent this reflects the different approaches of under the district plans of the former legacy councils. Further discussion and decisions are required at the decision-making meetings at the end of August.
Air quality and the heavy industry zone 37. The following issues have been identified in the feedback to date: approach does not prevent more sensitive activities locating close to the existing heavy industry zones, and these make the problem worse should push the Air Quality Industry Transition (AQIT) out of the heavy industry zone to prevent new residential zones and new sensitive activities locating in close proximity to the heavy industry zone 500m is an appropriate distance for adequate separation will be difficult and costly to get air quality consents in draft AQIT overlay long established heavy industry areas employ thousands of people and have huge investment in plant and infrastructure (stormwater, water supply, transport, electricity) to cope with the heavy industry activities shortage of heavy industry land cant find replacement land in Auckland if forced to close due to encroachment of sensitive activities, will likely close and go out of region or centralise operations overseas.
38.
The following interim directions were generally agreed: A hybrid approach examine each individual area of heavy industry and apply a combination of buffers extending into and out of the Heavy Industry zone, depending on the proximity of the Heavy Industry zone to zones containing sensitive activities. The buffer could be placed within and/or surrounding the heavy industry zone according to the existing situation.
Unitary Plan update
Page 35
Item 12
Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Auckland supports the inclusion of a school zone or precinct to provide for the efficient use and development of school sites
Item 12
2 August 2013 Mapping Workshop 39. The second all day mapping workshop was held on 2 August 2013 and was attended by councillors and local board members. The workshop commenced with a recap on the Auckland Plan Committee interim directions that affect either zoning or the heights of development. A presentation was also made on mapping issues resulting from the first mapping workshop on 12 July, including impact on capacity, housing supply and housing choice. Workshop participants then began a mapping exercise to consider the remaining feedback on the draft AUP that relates to zoning and height. Further consideration was given by local boards to the mapping of the Mixed Housing Urban and Mixed Housing Suburban zones.
40.
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) 41. At the previous committee meeting on 25 July, more detailed information was requested on GMOs that reflected the information and discussion at the workshop earlier in July. Attachment 2 to this report, provides this further detail to assist the committee at the decision making meetings at the end of August. The key matters for consideration are summarised below: Local authorities have jurisdiction under the Resource Management Act to control GMOs. Under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been set up to assess and regulate the management of new organisms throughout the country, including GMOs. The Minister for the Environment considers that councils should not have a role in managing GMOs under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). The Inter Council Working Party (ICWP) has prepared a plan change and Section 32 report to control field trials (discretionary activity) and general release (prohibited activity) of GMOs under the RMA. Auckland Council is a member of the ICWP. The overwhelming feedback on the draft AUP was supportive of provisions to manage GMOs in the AUP. There is legal uncertainty that AUP provisions would be upheld by the Environment Court because it would be difficult to argue that controls under the RMA would be an effective and or efficient method, since an application would have already been assessed by the EPA under HSNO. Legal advice is that there is no risk that local authorities will be left liable for claim of negligence or nuisance as a result of not including provisions in their RMA plans. Legal advice is that there is little risk that local authorities will be left liable for claim of negligence or nuisance as a result of including provisions in their RMA plans. 43. In addition, the following four options were presented for discussion at the Auckland Plan Committee Unitary Plan workshop: the draft AUP would be silent on GMOs; retain the issue and objective in the Regional Policy Statement of the draft AUP; adopt a non-RMA related policy position on the management of GMO within the region; or insert the ICWP suggested approach into the AUP.
42.
Unitary Plan update
Page 36
Auckland Plan Committee 13 August 2013 44.
Consideration
Local Board Views
45. Local board chairs participate in all Auckland Plan Committee Unitary Plan workshops. All local board members were invited to participate in the mapping workshop held on 12 July 2013 and 2 August 2013, providing their views on these matters as part of the preparation of the notified AUP. On 29 and 30 July, local boards presented a summary of their formal feedback on the draft AUP to the Auckland Plan Committee. It is recommended that this report is circulated to all local boards to update them on the AUP development process.
46.

47. Consultation requirements with Mana Whenua are being met through a comprehensive Iwi Engagement Strategy. In addition, Mana Whenua presented to the Auckland Plan Committee on 5 August. Independent Maori Statutory Board representatives also form part of the Auckland Plan Committee. It is recommended that this report is circulated to the Independent Maori Statutory Board to update the IMSB on the AUP development process.
48.
General
49. The Auckland Plan Committee is providing strategic policy direction for the development of a proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. Feedback from the extended public engagement process together with local board and Mana Whenua feedback will result in changes to the draft document released in March. The final recommendations from the Auckland Plan Committee will be presented to the Governing Body.
50. Not applicable.
Attachments
No. A B Title Port development options Genetically modified organisms - further information Page 39 45
Signatories
Authors Authorisers John Duguid - Manager Unitary Plan Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer
Unitary Plan update
Page 37
Item 12
Members of the committee will need to consider Attachment 2 to this report in order to inform their decisions at the end of August 2013.
Unitary Plan update
Page 39
Attachment A
Item 12
Attachment A
Unitary Plan update
Item 12
Page 40
Unitary Plan update
Page 41
Attachment A
Item 12
Attachment A
Unitary Plan update
Item 12
Page 42
Unitary Plan update
Page 43
Attachment A
Item 12
Attachment A
Unitary Plan update
Item 12
Page 44
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) additional information

National regime for management of GMOs 1. The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO) was developed to regulate research into, and release of, all living things that are new to New Zealand. This includes GMOs. HSNO set up the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to assess and decide on all applications to introduce new organisms, including GMOs, into New Zealand. The EPA is tasked with considering applications to import a GMO into New Zealand, its development in containment, testing in the field or release into the environment. The EPA considers the risks associated with such activity and can impose conditions. If a GMO is approved for general release into the environment it is no longer controlled under HSNO, it is controlled through other legislation including the Biosecurities Act 1993, Conservation Act 1987 and the Health Act 1956.
2.
3.
4.
For background and historic and current GMO activity see Appendix A. Management of GMOs under the Resource Management Act 1991 5. Legal opinion is clear that local authorities have jurisdiction to deal with GMOs under the Resource Management Act 1991. It is also clear that Central Government has set up a national regime, through HSNO, to deal with all applications to introduce and use hazardous substances and new organisms. During the course of discussions on GMOs a number of legal questions have been raised by elected representatives and officers. The table below identifies those questions and the advice from Auckland Council officers: Table 1: Auckland Council advice Question Answer
6.
Can the Council manage GMOs?
The RMA does not currently prevent Council managing GMOs.
Will the GMO controls be defendable if There is strong doubt that the legally challenged? Environment Court would uphold the controls because it will be difficult to show, in light of the existing provisions to control GMOs under HSNO, that the test under s32 that this is an effective or efficient method to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects or to achieve the purpose of the RMA is met.
Unitary Plan update
Page 45
Attachment B
While the Resource Management Act 1991 provides jurisdiction for local authorities to deal with GMOs, the principle piece of national legislation remains HSNO.
Item 12
Auckland Plan Committee 13 August 2013 Will Council be liable for a claim in negligence or nuisance if GMO provisions are not included in the draft Unitary Plan? Will Council be liable for a claim in negligence or nuisance if GMO provisions are included in the draft Unitary Plan? There is no risk that Council will be liable. This is consistent with an earlier Crown Law opinion. There is little risk that Council will be liable. This is consistent with an earlier Crown Law opinion.
Item 12
7.
Inter Council Working Party proposal The Inter Council Working Party (ICWP) is made up of five northern local authorities, including Auckland Council. They have jointly co-ordinated and funded a report into the management of the outdoor use of GMOs under the Resource Management Act 1991. Officers reported the findings of the ICWP to the Auckland Plan Committee in February 2013. In short, it recommends that local authorities manage the use of GMOs through RMA plans, including the Unitary Plan, to provide for a precautionary approach and the ability to bond consent holders so that they are held liable in the event of any adverse effects beyond the boundaries of the site. A plan change and Section 32 report was prepared for the local authorities use and it recommends: Permitted activity for research, medical applications and vaccines Discretionary activity for field trials need the relevant approvals from the EPA undertaken in accordance with any EPA approval conditions can require proof of financial fitness resource consent can impose conditions and a bond provide for community input monitoring costs borne by applicant Prohibited activity for general outdoor release of GMOs no application can be made even if the EPA have approved the release plan change required for removal of prohibited activity status at the applicants expense Proposed management of GMOs and the draft Auckland Unitary Plan 9. On 12 February 2013 the Auckland Plan Committee resolved (APC/2013/5) to insert an objective relating to outdoor use of GMOs into the March draft of the Unitary Plan to give the community an opportunity to provide feedback. The objective at Part 2.6.4 states that Genetically modified organisms do not adversely affect the social, cultural, economic and environmental well-being of people in the Auckland region. The accompanying issue in Part 2.1.5 states that The outdoor use of genetically modified organisms could adversely affect our environment, economy and social and cultural resources and values. Attachment B provides a summary of other district and regional councils approaches to the management of GMOs.
Page 46
8.
Attachment B
10. 11.
Unitary Plan update
Auckland Plan Committee 13 August 2013 Feedback on the draft Unitary Plan provisions
13.
350 pieces of feedback were received to the Unitary Plan from both international and local people/organisations. A summary of the main issues follows: Economic risk - 132 (73%) most strongly identified the economic risk to local producers and international markets as an issue citing loss of reputation (clean, green), branding, organic/GMO free status and market share. Environmental Harm and Health issues 122 (61%) commented on harm to the environment including the marine areas and 119 (59%) expressed health concerns. Prohibited status - Combining comments on prohibiting, banning or keeping GMO Free there were 154 (77%) of the local suggestions and 295 (84%) of the total suggestions. Liability risks, in particular councils / rate payer funding risks, were included in 102 (51%) suggestions. Issue / Objective support - 103 (51%) approved of the Objective being placed in the Unitary Plan (although there were many comments about the way it is expressed) and 95 (47%) specifically demanded the Unitary Plan adopt a precautionary statement. ICWP provisions - 90 (45%) indicated knowledge of and support for the ICWP provisions. In a letter to Auckland Council on the draft Unitary Plan, the Minister for the Environment raised concern over the duplication of regulation between the RMA and HSNO and further stated that GMOs are most appropriately addressed by the EPA under the HSNO Act.
Table 2: Feedback Submission Summary Issue

Total feedback in support Prohibit GMOs Environment Economic Health/ social Cultural Liability ICWP support Supports objective in Unitary Plan Auckland Council GE Free Prohibit/GE Free combined Iwi Consultation Strong precautionary statement Total feedback opposed
Overseas
146 141 30 124 39 2 2 2 1 141 1
Unknown
3 3 1 1 1
Local
200 97 122 132 119 86 102 90 103 60 154 3 95 1
Total
349 241 139 257 159 88 104 92 104 61 295 3 96 1
Four options for management of GMOs 14. Auckland Council can choose whether or not to get involved in the management of GMOs and in what way. At a recent Auckland Plan Committee Unitary Plan workshop, elected representatives discussed 4 main options for the management of GMOs: 1) 2) The draft Unitary Plan would be silent on GMOs; Retain the objective and issue as part of the Regional Policy Statement of the draft Unitary Plan;
Page 47
Unitary Plan update
Attachment B
Item 12
12.
Views were sought from iwi through the Regional Kaitiaki Forum and two Mana Whenua hui. Concerns over the use of GMOs were raised in relation to risks to the environment, including eel migration, medicinal plants, whakapapa, taonga and the status of the Wai 262 claim.
Auckland Plan Committee 13 August 2013 3) Adopt a non-RMA related policy position on the management of GMO within the region; or Insert the ICWP suggested approach into the draft Unitary Plan.
Item 12
4)
Option 1: Unitary Plan silent on GMOs 15. Under this option council would not manage GMOs under the RMA. This option would reflect the following points: Recognises the national role of the EPA in controlling GMOs and new organisms; Acknowledges that control under the RMA is untested in the courts and there is a risk of legal challenge; Questions the added value of council in the process where the EPA has scientifically assessed any application for field trials or releases; Does not address community concerns and feedback on the draft Unitary Plan, including user liability and costs and environmental contamination; Does not support the ICWP recommendation to manage GMOs under the RMA.
Attachment B
Option 2: Retaining the objective and issue as part of the Regional Policy Statement of the draft Unitary Plan 16. The current objective 2.6.4 in the draft Unitary Plan states Genetically modified organisms do not adversely affect the social, cultural, economic and environmental well-being of people in the Auckland region. The current issue 2.1.5 states The outdoor use of genetically modified organisms could adversely affect our environment, economy and social and cultural resources and values. This option would retain the high level objective and issue at the Regional Policy Statement level, but would not include any rules which would need to be met. In practice, it is similar to option 1 in that there would be no real management of GMOs under the RMA, but it would recognise the potentially adverse effects that might arise from the use of GMOs. This option would reflect the following points: 19. Recognises the national role of the EPA in controlling GMOs and new organisms. An explanatory note could be inserted to clearly explain the role of HSNO and the EPA; Acknowledges that control under the RMA is untested in the Courts and there is a risk of legal challenge; Questions the added value of council in the process where the EPA has scientifically assessed any application for field trials or releases; Acknowledges the potential adverse social, cultural, economic and environmental effects that could result from the outdoor use of GMOs; Implies a precautionary approach; Does not address community concerns and feedback on the draft Unitary Plan, including user liability and costs and environmental contamination; Does not support the ICWP recommendation to manage GMOs under the RMA.
17. 18.
Option 3: Non-RMA Policy This option is a potential next step from option 2 where council does not manage GMOs through the RMA, but sets policy through the Long Term Plan and operational plans, such as the councils procurement policy. This option reflects the position of a number of legacy councils who declared themselves GE free and/or ensured that council did not use or create GMO products but did not manage GMOs under the RMA. This option would reflect the following points: Recognises the national role of the EPA in controlling GMOs and new organisms;
Page 48
Unitary Plan update
Auckland Plan Committee 13 August 2013 20. Acknowledges that control under the RMA is untested in the Courts and there is a risk of legal challenge; Questions the added value of Council in the process where the EPA has scientifically assessed any application for field trials or releases; Acknowledges the potential adverse social, cultural, economic and environmental effects that could result from the outdoor use of GMOs; Addresses some but not all community concerns and feedback on the draft Unitary Plan; Does not support the ICWP recommendation to manage GMOs under the RMA
Option 4: Insert the ICWP suggested approach in the draft Unitary Plan This option involves managing GMOs through the RMA with objectives, policies and rules as proposed by the ICWP. The provisions require: Permitted activity for research, medical applications and vaccines; Discretionary activity for field trials; Prohibited activity for general outdoor release of GMOs. As a member of the ICWP, Auckland Council would be able to use the Section 32 report and plan provisions that have already been developed and insert them into the Unitary Plan. This option would reflect the following points: Recognises the national role of the EPA in controlling GMOs and new organisms but considers that council has an additional role to play beyond the HSNO provisions and processes; Acknowledges that control under the RMA is untested in the courts and there is a risk of legal challenge; Other ICWP members are likely to agree to a joint approach to costs in the event of any appeal to the provisions; Seeks to address the potential adverse social, cultural, economic and environmental effects that could result from the outdoor use of GMOs; Addresses most community concerns and feedback on the draft Unitary Plan, including user liability and costs and environmental contamination; Takes a precautionary approach; Would require additional and specialised scientific resource and expertise (either inhouse or consultants) to assess applications and monitor implementation; Applicants would effectively be required to go through two sets of similar consenting processes, one under HSNO and one under the Unitary Plan, which will result in duplication of effort and additional cost.
21.
Local board views 22. All local boards were provided with background material and the ICWP reports. All resolutions and other records of decisions from the local boards are provided at Attachment C. In summary: Twelve local boards have passed resolutions supporting Auckland Council being involved in the management of GMOs. These resolutions included support for a precautionary approach on GMO management to be included in the Unitary Plan, a declaration that the Auckland region become a GE free zone and/or support the ongoing work of the ICWP. The other nine local boards have not formally resolved on the matter.
Impact on Maori 23. In terms of recent Auckland-specific engagement, there have been three hui Unitary Plan Regional Kaitiaki Forum in March 2013 and two Unitary Plan Mana Whenua workshops in
Unitary Plan update Page 49
Attachment B
Item 12
Auckland Plan Committee 13 August 2013 April 2013. Attendees at all three hui identified concerns around the use of GMOs, particularly in relation to risks to the environment and their role as kaitiaki. While most supported control of GMOs, it was not unanimous that it was councils role to do so or whether the proposed ICWP provisions will deliver outcomes when the real regulation comes from Central Government at a national level. 24. Through the development of the ICWP reports, northern iwi have expressed their concerns and actively participated in discussions on the development of policies to manage the release of GMOs since the first GMO developments. The Wai 262 claim clearly states the economic and cultural impacts. They have been clear on the importance of local control of GMO development with several Environment Court appeals and council submissions. Ngati Hine, Ngatiwai, Te Roroa, Ngati Kuta ki Te Rawhiti, Ngati Torehina, Ngati Korokoro, Ngati Wharara and Ngati Rehia all speak of opposition to the release of GMOs and advocate a precautionary approach to GMO in their iwi and hapu planning documents. Similar concerns are expressed in iwi and hapu management plans including Kororareka Marae, Ngati Whatua Nga Rima o Kaipara, Te Kawerau a Maki, Ngai Tai and Hauraki Iwi. These planning documents have all been reviewed by the ICWP for the Section 32 report and in accordance with Sections 66(2A)(a) and 74(2A) of the RMA which require councils to take into account any iwi planning document when preparing or changing a Regional or District Plan.
Item 12 Attachment B
25.
26. 27.
Implementation Issues 28. Each option or combination of options will result in different implementation issues. Generally, options 1 and 2 can be implemented quickly and will have no financial or resourcing implications. There are no legal risks associated with these options. 29. Option 3 would require a further report and changes to operational policies and key documents, including the Long Term Plan. These financial and resourcing requirements would be managed within existing budgets and workloads. There are no legal risks associated with this option. In the short term option 4 could be quickly implemented as the ICWP provisions are completed and can be inserted into the draft Unitary Plan. In the medium to long term, this option requires additional, specialised resources to monitor any GMO use. These resources are currently not available in council. The legal risks associated with option 4 could mean that there will be additional costs in any appeal, although it is likely these costs will be shared by other members of the ICWP.
30.
Unitary Plan update
Page 50
Auckland Plan Committee 13 August 2013 Appendix A
Historic and Current GMO Activity in New Zealand [Sources - Review of the Forty-Nine Recommendations of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. 2008 (McGuinness et al,) and The History of Genetic Modification in New Zealand 1973 2013 (McGuinness Institute)] 1. The Royal Commission provided the first opportunity for public engagement on the issue of GMO use. After evaluation of submissions, 49 recommendations were made by the Royal Commission, of which twelve were only partially implemented and seventeen were not implemented at all. (McGuinness et al 2008) The changes were implemented in the 2003 Amendment to HSNO. Many of these relate to issues Local Authorities have with the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO). The twelve recommendations that were only partially implemented included; Mechanisms to protect organic and other sustainable agriculture and to research the socio-economic and ethical impacts of the GMOs. specific exclusion of the patentability of human beings and early resolution of WAI 262. Liability and Economic Liability (sterility of those GMO crops most likely to crosspollinate). The seventeen recommendations that were not implemented included; Research of environmental impacts on soil and ecosystems before release of GMO crops. the Bt toxin in sprays and GMO plants; a labelling regime to identify GMO plant material; protection of GMO free honey; and from GMO crosspollination; an ecological assessment of the effects on the soil and ecology with development of GMO forest trees and effective buffers between GMO and unmodified crops. economic impact of any GMO crop release, ability to exclude use from particular areas, assessment of economic and environmental impact before first release and constructive dialogue between farmers using different production methods be encouraged with mediation. 2. ERMA/EPA approved GMO applications for indoor experiments 1996 2013. Applications under the HSNO Act were handled by the Environmental Risk Management Agency (ERMA) now the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). Approved applications are Importation into containment - 93 applications involving 1861 organisms Development in containment 224 applications involving 600 organisms Outdoor GMO experiments approved prior to July 1998 the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) approved applications following assessment by the Interim Assessment Group (IAG) prior to the passing of the HSNO Act. Of 60 applications deliberated on by IAG; 53 were approved 7 applications were not approved - 2 applications of these did not proceed With the introduction of the HSNO Act 31 approved applications did not transfer to the HSNO Act process. 21 approved applications were transferred to HSNO Act processs.
3.
Unitary Plan update
Page 51
Attachment B
Item 12
Auckland Plan Committee 13 August 2013 4. Applications for Outdoor Experiments 1996 April 2013 Of the applications for field trials of GMOs; 27 were approved, there is no record of any being declined. 17 are completed 6 did not commence 2 are still operating 2 show no evidence of being active. Breaches of the conditions on managing GMOs. These come in several categories; 1) Before 2000 (pre HSNO) - 196 had not been notified to the MfE for gazettal. - 113 instances of unauthorized GM work with no proper approval. 2) Since 2000 (post HSNO) - 48 breaches, consisting of 16 environmental, 3 import/export and 29 containment issues. (See attachment) Examples of the breaches of GMO import/ export without approval included imported plantings of GM corn seed and GM maize (including one at Pukekohe); exported sweetcorn product ($500,000 loss and damage to Japanese markets); imported erroneously tested grain seed; imports of maize accidently mixed with GM soy; and GM tropical fish.
Item 12
5.
Attachment B
Unitary Plan update
Page 52
Auckland Plan Committee 13 August 2013 APPENDIX B Other Local Authorities Use of the RMA in Relation to Managing GMOs 1. 2. Policy and planning officers in 42 North Island District Councils were contacted and asked whether there had been any consideration given to the management of GMOs and whether there had been developments within their council as a result of that consideration. A summary of the District Council responses showed: Hastings District Council (HDC) has introduced provisions in its Draft District Plan (as part of review) regulating outdoor use of GMOs in line with the recommendations from the Inter-council Working Party. That is, prohibiting the release of GMOs to the environment and making field trials discretionary activities with performance standards to address liability, financial fitness and bonds for possible damages from these activities. Consultation on the Draft District Plan closed on 31 May and hearings are scheduled for 15-17 July 2013. It is expected that the Proposed District Plan will be publically notified in September or October 2013. HDC has expressed a willingness to work collaboratively with northern councils on the Working Party during statutory processes following notification including a possible joint response to any court challenge that may arise. Whangarei District Council (WDC) received the documentation on 13 March 2013 and resolved to adopt in principle the Draft Proposed Plan Provisions and Draft Section 32 Report as produced by the Working Party for inclusion in the Whangarei District Plan. It also acknowledged the importance of a collaborative approach with other member councils on the Working Party to support the effectiveness of the draft proposed plan provisions and the efficiencies to be gained by sharing the costs of future statutory processes (where possible), including joint response to possible legal challenge. Currently WDC is awaiting decisions from AC following consultation on whether to include the proposed provisions in its Proposed Unitary Plan. Far North District Council (FNDC) received the documentation on 30 May 2013 and resolved to support the resolutions of the Working Party, including (in principle) proceeding with a plan change process to regulate the outdoor use of GMOs through provisions in the Far North District Plan in collaboration with other councils on the Working Party. Currently FNDC is awaiting decisions from the AC following consultation on whether to include the proposed provisions in its Proposed Unitary Plan. Kaipara District Council (KDC), as a member of the Working Party, has yet to formally make a decision on the documentation and resolutions from the Working Party. KDC is under statutory management because of financial problems and is not in a position at this point in time to progress the issue. It is, however, keeping a watch on what other councils on the Working Party decide to do. Northland Regional Council (NRC) is in the process of reviewing its Regional Policy Statement (RPS). The RPS was initially silent on the issue of GMOs. However, NRC received over 300 submissions on its Proposed RPS requiring a precautionary approach to GMOs and/or provisions to address the risks from outdoor use of GMOs. Hearings on these submissions closed at the end of June 2013. The Commissioners have requested that staff draft up provisions relating to GMOs for possible inclusion in the RPS. It appears likely that the Commissioners will recommend that provisions relating to the management of GMOs be included in the Northland RPS. Bay of Plenty Regional Council (BPRC) released the Bay of Plenty Proposed Regional Policy Statement (as amended by Council decisions) in August 2012. The policy statement retains the provisions relating to GMOs that were included in the original version released for public submissions in 2010. In Part One (Promoting Sustainable Management of the Bay of Plenty Region) there is a section on adopting a precautionary approach to the release, control and use of GMOs in the region. In Part Three (Policies and Methods), there is a specific policy requiring a precautionary
Page 53
Unitary Plan update
Attachment B
Item 12
Auckland Plan Committee 13 August 2013 approach to managing natural and physical resources. These provisions were challenged by the Crown Research Institute Scion and currently mediation is occurring between the council, Scion and other interested parties9 have considered the issue but have no interest or no intention in going further. Hawkes Bay is currently being lobbied by the community to declare Hawkes Bay a GE free region and prohibit the release of GMOs into the environment. A group of local food producers committed to building the regions reputation as a region known throughout the world for safe, sustainable, high quality food production (Pure Hawkes Bay) have been making submissions on planning documents and lobbying councils in the Hawkes Bay, including Hastings District Council, Napier City Council, and Hawkes Bay Regional Council. Hawkes Bay Regional Council is considering its response. Waikato District Council has considered the issue and will remain an interested party in view of its MOU with Auckland Council to liaise and cooperate on planning matters that have cross boundary implications, also watching other council actions. Nineteen have not considered the issue. Nine have not yet been contacted. Policy and planning officers in the thirteen Regional Councils were also asked what consideration had been given: Bay of Plenty has included a precautionary policy in its Draft RPS. Hawkes Bay, Wellington, Tasman, Nelson and Canterbury have considered the issue and are awaiting the outcome of actions by other councils. Horizons, Taranaki, and Southland have not considered the issue. Four were yet to respond - Waikato,Tasman, Marlborough and Otago.
Item 12
3.
Attachment B
Unitary Plan update
Page 54
Auckland Plan Committee 13 August 2013 APPENDIX C Local board resolutions on GMO release to environment Local Board Whau Resolution/comment That the Whau Local Board provides the following feedback on the development of the draft Unitary Plan to inform direction-setting by the Unitary Plan Political Working Party in December 2012 and decision-making on the draft plan by the Auckland Plan Committee in March 2013. a) The Whau Local Board supports the Unitary Plan being the appropriate tool to manage Auckland Councils policy on the release of Genetically Modified Organisms to the environment. b) The Whau Local Board supports the ability for preserving community access to GE free food. c) The Whau Local Board supports at least a precautionary approach in the Unitary Plan with regard to the release of Genetically Modified Organisms to the environment. d) That the Whau Local Board recommends that the Auckland Council advocates to government that the liability for any environmental damage caused by the release of Genetically Modified Organisms rests with the authority that approved the release and the parties responsible Resolution number WH/2013/32 That the Whau Local Board: a) Supports, in principle, GE and GMO free in field and food. Whau Local Board Meeting of 14/03/2013 The Henderson Massey Local Board provided the following feedback on GMO policy in relation to the Unitary Plan: A precautionary approach to Genetically Modified Organisms to be included in the Unitary Plan Resolution number HM/2012/1 Resolution number WTK/2012/195 Genetically modified organisms vii) The Unitary Plan should include provisions to address genetically modified organisms and take a precautionary approach to the issue, and by doing so Auckland Council establishes itself a formal position on GMO. Resolution number WTK/2013/148 That the Waitakere Ranges Local Board provides the following specific feedback: Genetically modified organisms a) The Unitary Plan needs to provide stronger safeguards against the risks posed by the release of Genetically Modified Organisms than is currently provided in the draft. b) The Waitakere Ranges Local Board urges Auckland Council to adopt the recommendations of the Inter-Council Working Party for inclusion in the Unitary Plan to manage the risks associated with the outdoor release of GMOs. a) That the Albert-Eden Local Board: i) supports the precautionary principle in dealing with research into and utilisation of Genetic Engineering technology; ii) notes that most of the area it represents was formerly represented by Community Boards who had declared their
Henderson Massey
Waitakere Ranges
Albert Eden
Unitary Plan update
Page 55
Attachment B
Item 12
Auckland Plan Committee 13 August 2013 Wards Genetic Engineering Free Zones; reaffirms that GE-Free status by formally declaring the Board Area a Genetic Engineering Free Zone; iv) recommends that the Governing Body of Auckland Council should declare the Auckland Region a Genetic Engineering Free Zone; v) advocates to the Governing Body that as an interim measure it should roll over the existing legacy policy on Genetic Engineering inherited from the former Auckland Regional Council, rather than leave a Genetic Engineering policy gap for some years until new rules become operative as part of the Unitary Plan process; vi) encourages other Boards to take the same stance on behalf of their communities. That the Puketapapa Local Board: a) Receive the Report on Legacy Council Policies on Genetically Modified Organisms. b) Support the ongoing work of the Inter Council Working Party on Genetically Modified Organisms Risk Evaluation and Management Options. c) Support the inclusion of a GMO policy statement in the next iteration of the Unitary Plan to be released in March 2013, using the former Auckland Regional Council policy statement as a starting point. Res CP2013/00306 G E Free in the Local Board Plan Resolution number WTM/2013/9 That the Waitemata Local Board: a) Resolves to declare the Waitemata Local Board area GE and GMO free; b) Forward these resolutions to the Regional Development and Operations Committee (RDOC), the Environmental and Sustainability Forum and the Unitary Plan Political working party for inclusion in the Unitary Plan. c) Supports the precautionary principle for the whole of Auckland Council, in dealing with research into and utilisation of Genetic Engineering technology; d) Notes that most of the area it represents was formerly represented by community Boards who had declared their Wards GE Free Zones; e) Reaffirms that GE-Free status by formally declaring the Board Area a Genetic Engineering Free Zone; f) Recommends that the Governing Body of Auckland Council should declare the Auckland Region a GE Free Zone; g) Advocates to the Governing Body that as an interim measure it should roll over the existing legacy policy on Genetic Engineering inherited from the former Auckland Regional Council, rather than leave a GE policy gap for some years until new rules become operative as part of the Unitary Plan process; h) Encourages other boards to take the same stance on behalf of their communities. i) Recommends that council come to a detailed understanding of the possible financial, consequential or other liabilities that would be faced by council in the event of a GMO release, accidental or otherwise. iii)
Item 12
Puketapapa
Attachment B
Waiheke Waitemata
Unitary Plan update
Page 56
Auckland Plan Committee 13 August 2013 Upper Harbour Devonport Takapuna Franklin Orakei Hibiscus and Bays Kaipatiki Manurewa Papakura No formal resolutions. No formal resolutions support the precautionary approach. No formal resolutions. No formal resolutions. No formal resolutions. No formal resolutions. No formal resolutions Resolution number PPK/2013/48 That the Papakura Local Board: b) recommends that the Governing Body of Auckland Council should declare the Auckland Region a Genetic Engineering Free Zone; c) advocates to the Governing Body that as an interim measure it should roll over the existing legacy policy on Genetic Engineering inherited from the former Auckland Regional Council, rather than leave a Genetic Engineering policy gap for some years until new rules become operative as part of the Unitary Plan process. No formal resolutions. No formal resolutions. No formal resolutions. No formal resolutions. No formal resolutions. No formal resolutions. Members - Waitakere Ranges, Mangere Otahuhu, Otara Papatoetoe, Manurewa Resolution MHFJC/2013/47 recommends that the Unitary Plan be used as a vehicle to promote a strong precautionary approach to the use and release of genetically modified organisms.
Rodney Maungakiek ie-Tamaki Howick Otara Papatoetoe Mangere Otahuhu Great Barrier Is Manukau Harbour Forum
Unitary Plan update
Page 57
Attachment B
Item 12
Iwi Management Plan

File No.: CP2013/19195
Purpose
1. The purpose of this report is to formally acknowledge receipt of three Iwi Management Plans lodged with the Auckland Council. Two documents were lodged with council officers during engagement with Mana Whenua on the development of the Unitary Plan. One was lodged with council officers following a formal launch by the Iwi. They are: the Interim Ngti Paoa Regional Policy Statement 2013 lodged by the Ngti Paoa Trust Board. This document was included within the feedback submitted to council on the March draft of the Unitary Plan the Ngti Whtua rkei Iwi Management Plan 2012 lodged by the Ngti Whtua o rkei Maori Trust Board. This document was included within correspondence to officers on Unitary Plan matters Te Uri o Hau Kaitiakitanga o te Taiao 2011 lodged by Environs Holdings Trust on behalf of Te Uri o Hau Settlement Trust.
Executive Summary
2. Iwi Management Plans are iwi planning documents recognised under the Resource Management Act 1991 when they are: lodged with Council; and recognised by the Iwi Authority that has lodged them. 3. To the extent that they are relevant to resource management issues under consideration, Council must take the plans into account when preparing or changing a district plan, regional policy statement or regional plan. This requirement encompasses Councils Unitary Plan. 4. Iwi Management Plans represent a significant milestone for iwi. They pull together iwi aspirations and policy for the sustainable management of natural resources based on Iwi cultural and spiritual values. 5. Many, as with the Ngti Whtua o rakei and Te Uri O Hau plans, will also include the cultural, social and economic aspirations and policy directions for iwi. As such, the plans are a valuable first up resource in assisting Council to identify issues, values, views and preferences for iwi with respect to Council decision making more generally. However, Iwi Management Plans are not a substitute for engagement with iwi and often clearly outline the expectations of the iwi or hap for engagement with council. 6. Because of the significance of the plans to iwi and in recognition of the chief to chief relationship between iwi and elected members, officers recommend formal acknowledgement of receipt of the plans by Council. 7. This report also provides information for elected members on Councils internal process regarding dissemination of the plans.
Recommendation/s
That the Auckland Plan Committee: a) b) Receive the report. Formally acknowledge receipt of the Interim Ngti Paoa Regional Policy Statement
Page 59
Iwi Management Plan
Item 16
Item 16
2013 lodged by the Ngti Paoa Trust Board, the Ngti Whtua rkei Iwi Management Plan 2012 lodged by the Ngti Whtua O rkei Maori Trust Board and Te Uri o Hau Kaitiakitanga o te Taiao 2011 lodged by Environs Holdings Trust on behalf of Te Uri o Hau Settlement Trust. c) Note that the Iwi Management Plans will be made available to relevant areas of Auckland Council.
Discussion
8. Three Iwi Management Plans have been lodged with Auckland Council. Two documents were lodged with council officers during engagement with Mana Whenua on the development of the Unitary Plan. One was lodged with council officers following a formal launch. The plans are: the Interim Ngti Paoa Regional Policy Statement 2013 lodged by the Ngti Paoa Trust Board the Ngti Whtua rkei Iwi Management Plan 2012 lodged by the Ngti Whtua O rkei Maori Trust Board. This document was included within correspondence to officers on Unitary Plan matters. Representatives of Ngti Whtua o Orakei have requested formal acknowledgement from Council of the receipt of the Ngti Whtua rkei Iwi Management Plan Te Uri o Hau Kaitiakitanga o te Taiao 2011 lodged by Environs Holdings Trust on behalf of Te Uri o Hau Settlement Trust. The status of Iwi Management Plans 9. Iwi Management Plans are iwi planning documents recognised under the Resource Management Act 1991 when they are: lodged with Council; and recognised by the Iwi Authority that has lodged them 10. To the extent that they are relevant to resource management issues under consideration, Council must take the plans into account when preparing or changing a district plan, regional policy statement or regional plan. This requirement encompasses Councils Unitary Plan. Summary of the Iwi Management Plans Interim Ngti Paoa Regional Policy Statement 2013 11. In summary, the Interim Ngti Paoa Regional Policy Statement contains: Ngti Paoa tribal boundaries and takiwa (tribal area), expectations that central and local government agencies will consult Ngti Paoa, an expectation that Treaty principles and partnership will inform implementation of the Iwi Management Plan with Council, expectations for decision making regarding natural resources including delegated authority, co-governance and the use of the Iwi Management Plan in Council decision making, sites of interest in Treaty negotiations and the nature of those interests, waahi tapu sites, including Ngati Paoa sites already contained in the draft Unitary plan and two additional sites nominated for scheduling. The plan also signals that there are
Iwi Management Plan
Page 60
right of first refusal areas. These areas mean that (relevant) iwi have the first right to purchase specific surplus Crown land for sale ahead of anyone else at market value. kaitiaki aspirations for co-governance, co-management, water, traditional Maori names, and lands for repatriation. Ngti Whtua rkei Iwi Management Plan 2012 12. In summary, the Ngti Whtua rkei Iwi Management Plan contains: a brief history of Ngti Whtua, the Ngti Whtua rohe (tribal boundaries), key legislation relevant to tangata whenua, the Iwi Management Plan and relevant Treaty principles, issues, objectives, policies, methods and actions for ecological restoration, waahi tapu, ahi kaa (cultural landscapes and streetscapes), heritage and iwi (the well being of the people) including: health education kaitiaki involvement in Council decision making papakainga transport tourism te reo Mori waste minimisation service provision by iwi (economic development opportunities), overview of Treaty claim case study of co-management recommended heritage sites for scheduling nominated trees for scheduling Ngti Whtua o rkei Maori Trust Board Strategic Plan 2011-2020
appendices including:
Te Uri o Hau Kaitiakitanga o te Taiao 2011 13. In summary, the Te Uri o Hau Kaitiakitanga o te Taiao 2011 contains: Iwi / hapu information including: hapu marae values organisational information,
relevant legislation,
Iwi Management Plan Page 61
Item 16
further sites connected with Treaty settlements that iwi would like to work through with Council for protection in future,
Auckland Plan Committee 13 August 2013 relationship principles,
Item 16
consultation protocols, matauranga Mori, information on the Declaration of Independence 1835, the Treaty of Waitangi and principles and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Tino Rangatiratanga and Kaitiakitanga for Te Uri o Hau, historical account of Te Uri O Hau relationships to ancestral lands, sites and waters including the Kirihipi Overlay area, and statutory acknowledgement areas, references to relevant sections of the Te Uri o Hau Claims Settlement Act 2002, issues, objectives, policies and methods for: wai: freshwater Tawhirimatea: Air takutai moana: marine and coastal area and harbours customary fisheries toheroa oyster Reserves whenua: land growth and development waahi tapu and waahi taonga: sacred area[s] and treasures minerals biodiversity marine mammals cultural landscapes economic development exotic and indigenous forestry minerals and sand extraction Mangawhai development wind farming Poutu shellfish farming aquaculture agriculture eco tourism Maori land apiculture education, training and employment Te Uri o Hau resource consent process sites of significance cultural redress properties: o o maintenance management
Page 62
Iwi Management Plan
Auckland Plan Committee 13 August 2013 o o rating access
About Iwi Management Plans generally 14. Iwi Management Plans represent a significant milestone for Iwi. They pull together Iwi aspirations and policy for the sustainable management of natural resources based on Iwi cultural and spiritual values. 15. As with the Ngti Whtua o rkei and Te Uri o Hau plans, they may include issues, objectives, policies and methods relating to ancestral taonga such as rivers, lakes, the foreshore and seabed, harbours, and other sites of cultural significance. 16. The plans can also include how iwi wish to participate in, or lead decision making concerning the development, management and protection of natural resources. All three plans referred to in this report do this. 17. Iwi Management Plans may also articulate wider iwi aspirations as they relate to economic, social, political and cultural issues. Both the Ngti Whtua and Te Uri o Hau plans include these aspirations. 18. In addition to the RMA purposes noted above, Iwi Management plans are a valuable first up resource in assisting Council to identify issues, values, views and preferences for iwi with respect to Council decision making more generally. However, Iwi Management Plans are not a substitute for engagement with iwi and often clearly outline the expectations of the iwi or hap for engagement with council. Other Iwi Management Plans held by Council 19. In addition to the 3 Iwi Management Plans being presented to Council through this report, Auckland Council has inherited Iwi Management Plans lodged with legacy councils as follows: Ngti Wai Ngti Tai ki Umupuia Ngai Tai ki Tamaki Hauraki Iwi Ngti Paoa Ngti Paoa Ngti Te Ata Te Kawerau a Maki Waikato Tainui iwi Ngti Whtua Nga Rima o Kaipara Te Iwi o Ngtiwai - Iwi Environmental Policy Document - 2007 Ngai Tai Kaitiaki Resource Management Principles & Operational Policies Ngai Tai ki Tamaki Management & Development Plan Stage One Whaia to Mahere Taiao a Hauraki - Hauraki Iwi Environmental Plan - 2004 Ngti Paoa Whanau Trust Resource Management Plan (1993-96) Ngti Paoa Trust Long Term Plan Consultation Draft - April 2006 Nga Tikanga o Ngaati Te Ata , Tribal Policy Statement - 1991 Te Kawerau a Maki Resource Management Statement - v2 - 1995 Waikato Iwi Management Plan 2007 Te Wahapu o Kaipara Manaakitanga (Draft only)
20. As many of these documents are now relatively old, officers will write to these Iwi Authorities seeking confirmation that the plans are still those recognised by Iwi Authorities as Iwi Management Plans for the purposes of the Resource Management Act.
Consideration
Local Board Views
21. Management Plans are potentially a source of information for Local Boards in developing their relationships with the mana whenua who relate to their local board areas. Te Waka Angamua will advise local board staff of Iwi Management Plans that are lodged with Council and relevant to their local board/s area/s. See the Implementation section below.
Iwi Management Plan
Page 63
Item 16
Item 16
22. Ngti Paoa Trust Board, the Ngti Whtua o rkei Maori Trust Board and Te Uri O Hau Settlement Trust will receive formal confirmation that their plans have been lodged with Council once they have been formally received by this committee. As noted earlier, the plans represent a significant milestone for iwi and an important mechanism that supports engagement in Council planning processes. Consideration of Iwi Management Plans 23. As outlined in section 10, to the extent that they are relevant to resource management issues under consideration, Council must take the plans into account when preparing or changing a district plan, regional policy statement or regional plan. This requirement encompasses Councils Unitary Plan. 24. Iwi Management Plans have been proactively used by officers in the development of the Unitary Plan. They have helped officers understand iwi / hap concerns about past relationships, occurrences and expectations for the future and to assist with the drafting of Unitary Plan provisions. Unitary Plan provisions refer directly to the use of iwi planning documents by council and applicants to direct resource management outcomes. The objectives, policies and rules contained within the Iwi Management Plans influenced the direction and language used within the drafting of the Unitary Plan. 25. Unitary Plan officers have developed a database to collate and record the Iwi Management Plans that have been lodged with council and those that were lodged with legacy councils. This database has been distributed to Regional and Local Planning teams, Te Waka Angamua and the policy and development team within the Resource Consent department.
26. A clear process to receive and acknowledge Iwi Management Plans is being set up across Council. Te Waka Angamua will co-ordinate formal acknowledgement of the receipt of Iwi Management plans on behalf of Council by: reporting them to the Auckland Plan Committee for formal acknowledgement of receipt sending letters to each Iwi Authority to acknowledge receipt and lodgement on behalf of the Auckland Council. 27. Te Waka Angamua will also ensure the plans: are recorded as per section 35A of the Resource Management Act are made available to relevant departments along with advice as to their status and use. Use includes RMA statutory requirements for use; any more general application of the Plans in assisting Councils decision making; emphasising that the plans do not replace iwi consultation; and that as intellectual property in the plans is owned by Iwi Authorities, Council officers must seek permission to directly quote text. The process will also make it clear that Council officers must refer developers directly to Iwi Authorities for copies of the plans. 28. Alongside implementation of a process for receiving new Iwi Management Plans, Te Waka Angamua will advise all Iwi Authorities of the process for lodging any plans as well as seeking confirmation of the status of the plans previously lodged with legacy councils.
Attachments
There are no attachments for this report.
Iwi Management Plan
Page 64
Signatories
Authors Authorisers Joy Hames - Contractor Johnnie Freeland - Paearahi Matua - Manager Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer
Iwi Management Plan
Page 65
Item 16

Auckland Plan Committee Aug 13, Addendum

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Auckland Plan Committee Aug 13, Addendum

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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 ADDENDUM AGENDA

Independent Maori Statutory Board Alternate (Quorum 11 members)

Auckland Plan Committee 13 August 2013

Auckland Council submission on the Food Bill

Auckland Council submission on the Food Bill

Auckland Council submission on the Food Bill

Auckland Plan Committee 13 August 2013

Maori Impact Statement

Auckland Council submission on the Food Bill

Auckland Plan Committee 13 August 2013

Auckland Council submission on the Food Bill

Auckland Plan Committee 13 August 2013

Auckland Council 13 August 2013

Auckland Council submission on the Food Bill

Auckland Plan Committee 13 August 2013

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

COMMENTS ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

Auckland Council submission on the Food Bill

Auckland Plan Committee 13 August 2013

Recognition of Industry Programmes - Auckland Council supports the recognition of

Auckland Council submission on the Food Bill

Auckland Council submission on the Food Bill

Auckland Plan Committee 13 August 2013 Contact Person

Auckland Plan Committee 13 August 2013

Commentary on specific clauses

Auckland Council submission on the Food Bill

Auckland Council submission on the Food Bill

Auckland Council submission on the Food Bill

Auckland Council submission on the Food Bill

Auckland Council submission on the Food Bill

direct these appropriately.

Auckland Council submission on the Food Bill

Auckland Council submission on the Food Bill

the awarding of costs.

Auckland Council submission on the Food Bill

Auckland Plan Committee 13 August 2013

Unitary Plan update

Unitary Plan update

Auckland Plan Committee 13 August 2013

Unitary Plan update

Auckland Plan Committee 13 August 2013

Unitary Plan update

Auckland Plan Committee 13 August 2013

Unitary Plan update

Auckland Plan Committee 13 August 2013

Unitary Plan update

Auckland Plan Committee 13 August 2013

Unitary Plan update

Auckland Plan Committee 13 August 2013

Unitary Plan update

Unitary Plan update

Auckland Plan Committee 13 August 2013 29.

Unitary Plan update

Auckland Plan Committee 13 August 2013

Unitary Plan update

Auckland Plan Committee 13 August 2013

Unitary Plan update

Auckland Plan Committee 13 August 2013 44.

Maori Impact Statement

Unitary Plan update

Auckland Plan Committee 13 August 2013

Unitary Plan update