auckland development committee agenda - october 2015

8/20/2019 Auckland Development Committee Agenda - October 2015

1/52


2/52


3/52

TERMS OF REFERENCE

Responsibilities

This committee will lead the implementation of the Auckland Plan, including the integration of

economic, social, environmental and cultural objectives for Auckland for the next 30 years. It willguide the physical development and growth of Auckland through a focus on land use planning,housing and the appropriate provision of infrastructure and strategic projects associated with theseactivities. Key responsibilities include:

Unitary Plan

Plan changes to operative plans

Designation of Special Housing Areas

Housing policy and projects including Papakainga housing

Spatial Plans including Area Plans

City centre development (incl reporting of CBD advisory board) and city transformation projects

Tamaki regeneration projects

Built Heritage

Urban design

Powers

(i) All powers necessary to perform the committee’s responsibilities.

Except:

(a) powers that the Governing Body cannot delegate or has retained to itself (seeGoverning Body responsibilities)

(b) where the committee’s responsibility is explicitly limited to making a recommendationonly

(ii) Approval of a submission to an external body

(iii) Powers belonging to another committee, where it is necessary to make a decision prior to thenext meeting of that other committee.

(iv) Power to establish subcommittees.


4/52

Exclusion of the public – who needs to leave the meeting

Members of the public

All members of the public must leave the meeting when the public are excluded unless a resolutionis passed permitting a person to remain because their knowledge will assist the meeting.

Those who are not members of the public

General principles

Access to confidential information is managed on a “need to know” basis where access to theinformation is required in order for a person to perform their role.

Those who are not members of the meeting (see list below) must leave unless it is necessaryfor them to remain and hear the debate in order to perform their role.

Those who need to be present for one confidential item can remain only for that item and mustleave the room for any other confidential items.

In any case of doubt, the ruling of the chairperson is final.

Members of the meeting

The members of the meeting remain (all Governing Body members if the meeting is aGoverning Body meeting; all members of the committee if the meeting is a committee meeting).

However, standing orders require that a councillor who has a pecuniary conflict of interest leavethe room.

All councillors have the right to attend any meeting of a committee and councillors who are notmembers of a committee may remain, subject to any limitations in standing orders.

Independent Māori Statutory Board

Members of the Independent Māori Statutory Board who are appointed members of thecommittee remain.

Independent Māori Statutory Board members and staff remain if this is necessary in order forthem to perform their role.

Staff

All staff supporting the meeting (administrative, senior management) remain. Other staff who need to because of their role may remain.

Local Board members

Local Board members who need to hear the matter being discussed in order to perform theirrole may remain. This will usually be if the matter affects, or is relevant to, a particular LocalBoard area.

Council Controlled Organisations

Representatives of a Council Controlled Organisation can remain only if required to fordiscussion of a matter relevant to the Council Controlled Organisation.


5/52

Auckland Development Committee

15 October 2015

Page 5

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 Apologies 7

2 Declaration of Interest 7

3 Confirmation of Minutes 7

4 Petitions 7

5 Public Input 7

6 Local Board Input 7

7 Extraordinary Business 8

8 Notices of Motion 8

9 Reports Pending Status Update 9

10 Summary of information memos and briefings - 15 October 2015 17

11 Port Future Study Update 19

12 Urban Location Analysis results for Panuku Development Auckland 25

13 Housing Supply, Choice and Affordability: Trends, Economic Drivers and

Possible Policy Interventions 37

14 C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group - Auckland Council Membership 41

15 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

16 Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public 51

C1 Confidential Reports Pending Status Update 51

C2 Special Housing Areas Tranche 8 Recommendations 52

This report will be provided in an addendum agenda.


6/52


7/52


15 October 2015

Page 7

1 Apologies

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

2 Declaration of Interest

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

3 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 10 September 2015,including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

4 Petitions

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

5 Public Input

Standing Order 7.7 provides for Public Input. Applications to speak must be made to theDemocracy Advisor, in writing, no later than one (1) clear working day prior to themeeting and must include the subject matter. The meeting Chairperson has the discretion

to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders. Amaximum of thirty (30) minutes is allocated to the period for public input with five (5) minutes speaking time for each speaker.

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

6 Local Board Input

Standing Order 6.2 provides for Local Board Input. The Chairperson (or nominee of thatChairperson) is entitled to speak for up to five (5) minutes during this time. TheChairperson of the Local Board (or nominee of that Chairperson) shall wherever practical,

give one (1) day’s notice of their wish to speak. The meeting Chairperson has thediscretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of StandingOrders.

This right is in addition to the right under Standing Order 6.1 to speak to matters on theagenda.

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


8/52


15 October 2015

Page 8

7 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-

(a) That item may be discussed at that meeting if-

(i) That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the localauthority; and

(ii) the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a timewhen it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting;

but

(b) no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that itemexcept to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for furtherdiscussion.”

8 Notices of Motion

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


9/52

I t e m 9


15 October 2015

Reports Pending Status Update Page 9

Reports Pending Status Update

File No.: CP2015/20777

Purpose

1. To update the committee on the status of Auckland Development Committee resolutionsfrom February 2015, requiring follow-up reports.

Executive Summary2. This report is a regular information-only report that provides committee members with

greater visibility of committee resolutions requiring follow-up reports (Attachment A). Itupdates the committee on the status of such resolutions. It covers committee resolutionsfrom February 2015 and will be updated for every regular meeting.

3. This report covers open resolutions only. A separate report has been placed in theconfidential agenda covering confidential resolutions requiring follow up reports.

4. The committee’s Forward Work Programme 2015/2016, is also attached for information(Attachment B).

Recommendation/sThat the Auckland Development Committee:

a) receive the reports pending status update.

Attachments

No. Title Page

A Auckland Development Committee - Reports Pending Status Update - 10September 2015

11

B Auckland Development Committee - Forward Work Programme2015/2016

13

Signatories

Author Tam White - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy


10/52


11/52

A t t a c h m e n t A

I t e m 9


15 October 2015



12/52


13/52

A t t a c h m e n t B

I t e m 9


15 October 2015



14/52

AttachmentB

Item 9


15 October 2015



15/52


I t e m 9


15 October 2015



16/52


17/52

I t e m 1

0


15 October 2015

Summary of information memos and briefings - 15 October 2015 Page 17

Summary of information memos and briefings - 15 October 2015

File No.: CP2015/20780

Purpose

1. To receive a summary and provide a public record of memos or briefing papers that mayhave been distributed to committee members since 10 September 2015.

Executive Summary2. This is a regular information-only report which aims to provide greater visibility of information

circulated to committee members via memo or other means, where no decisions arerequired.

3. The following presentations/memos were presented/circulated as follows:

9 September 2015: Spatial Priority Areas (SPA)

9 September 2015: City Centre Integration Group update

9 September 2015: Downtown carpark

23 September 2015: Tamaki Regeneration Project presentation

4. These and previous documents can be be found on the Auckland Council website, at thefollowing link:

http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/

o at the top of the page, select meeting “Auckland Development Committee” from the drop -down tab and click ‘View’;

o Under ‘Attachments’, select either HTML or PDF version of the document entitled ‘Extra

Attachments’ 5. Note that, unlike an agenda report, staff will not be present to answer questions about

these items referred to in this summary. Committee members should direct any questionsto the authors.


a) receive the summary of information memos and briefings – 15 October 2015.

Attachments

No. Title Page

A Spatial Priority Areas (SPA) presentation (Extra Attachments)

B City Centre Integration update (Extra Attachments)

C Downtown Carpark presentation (Extra Attachments)

D Tamaki Regeneration Project presentation (Extra Attachments)

Signatories

Author Tam White - Democracy Advisor


http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/


18/52


19/52

I t e m 1

1


15 October 2015

Port Future Study Update Page 19

Port Future Study Update

File No.: CP2015/20822

Purpose

1. This report broadly outlines progress on the Port Future Study since its establishment by the Auckland Development Committee on 14 May 2015. It also provides Dr Rick Boven, theIndependent Chair of the Study, the opportunity to report on the process thus far and answerquestions Committee members may have.

Executive Summary2. On 1 April 2015 the Auckland Development Committee resolved to commence the Port

Future Study (Resolution No. AUC/2015/61). Consistent with the Committee’s subsequentresolution on 14 May (Resolution number AUC/2015/95), a collaborative Māori andstakeholder process has been established to investigate the long term future of Auckland’sport.

3. On 28 May the Governing Body appointed Dr Rick Boven as Independent Chair of the PortFuture Study.

4. As directed, two groups have been established from stakeholder organisations and manawhenua; a Reference Group and a Consensus Working Group.

5. The Reference Group currently consists of around 80 members. At its May meeting, theCommittee endorsed an initial list of member organisations. This list has since beenexpanded to accommodate further interested parties. The Reference Group has met oncesince its plenary meeting in July, on 30 September.

6. On 14 July mana whenua iwi chairs met to discuss a method of representation for four manawhenua seats on the Consensus Working Group (CWG). It was decided that a model of

representation similar to that developed for the Tāmaki Collective could be used for thisproject. A member from each of Ngāti Whātua, Marutūahu, Waiohua Tāmaki and Waikato-Tainui have been selected for the CWG.

7. The 16 members of the CWG have met fortnightly during August and September. Asresolved by the Auckland Development Committee, the CWG has finalised the Study Scopeafter making some additions to the draft scope signed-off by the Committee.

8. The CWG largely agreed with the draft scope and have made changes broadly in-keepingwith it. The CWG did however make material revisions to ‘environmental’ considerations tobetter represent the breadth and depth of the issues covering the natural and builtenvironment.

9. The Study Scope agreed by the CWG is included as attachment A.


a) receive a verbal update from Dr Rick Boven, Independent Chair for the Port FutureStudy.

b) receive the Port Future Study Scope finalised by the Consensus Working Group.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications10. The views of Local Boards have not specifically been taken into account for the purposes of

this update report.


20/52

Item 11


15 October 2015


11. The project team gave a briefing about the Study at the Local Board Chairs Forum on 22June 2015. Local Board Chairs have also been provided with the finalised Scope.

Māori impact statement

12. The views of neither Māori, nor the Independent Māori Statutory Board, have beenspecifically elicited for the purposes of this update report.

13. As noted, there are four mana whenua members of the CWG who provide mana whenuainput to the Study. The chairs and commercial arms of Auckland’s mana whenua iwi havealso been invited to be members of the Reference Group, which will enable their directparticipation in the Study.

Attachments

No. Title Page

A Port Future Study Scope 21

Signatories Author Toby Shephard – Strategy Advisor, Strategic Scanning Unit

Authorisers Jacques Victor – General Manager Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy


21/52


I t e m 1

1


15 October 2015



22/52

AttachmentA

Item 11


15 October 2015



23/52


I t e m 1

1


15 October 2015



24/52

AttachmentA

Item 11


15 October 2015



25/52

I t e m 1

2


15 October 2015

Urban Location Analysis results for Panuku Development Auckland Page 25

Urban Location Analysis results for Panuku Development Auckland

File No.: CP2015/20078

Purpose

1. To outline the results of the Urban Location Analysis project.

2. To seek endorsement for the results of this project to be provided to Panuku Development Auckland for their consideration.

3. To outline the next steps for future engagement and decision making on ‘Type 1’programmes for Panuku Development Auckland to lead on.

Executive Summary4. As part of the Development Auckland transition work stream, the Urban Location Analysis

project was set up to establish recommended locations to focus Panuku Development Auckland’s (Panuku) new ‘Type 1’ urban redevelopment programme. A Type 1 programme

is one that will require a high custodial, long term approach to redevelopment (i.e. such asthe redevelopment activities occurring at the Auckland Waterfront).

5. This project was facilitated by council’s Growth and Infrastructure Strategy Team, incollaboration with the wider council family. Progress was reported through various groups inthe transition work stream, including the Steering Group, the Board Advisory Group, a ManaWhenua hui and the Auckland Development Committee.

6. The Auckland Development Committee has had three workshops in June, August andSeptember 2015 to steer and guide the project – this included considering assessmentcriteria and weighting preferences of the criteria.

7. The work to date acknowledges and builds on the significant amount of strategic, statutory

and non-statutory planning work that Auckland Council and CCOs have engaged in on aregion-wide and area specific level (i.e. plans, policies, strategies and initiatives). Theproject focused on data collection and on delivering a clear set of criteria to allow forcomparative analysis of potential redevelopment locations. This helped to create atransparent decision making framework to identify Type 1 locations options.

8. The work done through this project, and the focus of Panuku especially as it relates to Type1 locations, is integral to council priorities (such as Spatial Priorities and Special Housing Areas). The results of this project helps Panuku focus within Spatial Priority Areas forexample, and also assists our infrastructure providers with some of their own investmentdecisions.

9. The results of the detailed assessment and final set of priority locations are:

a) Manukau d) Newmarket g) Mt Eden Station

b) Otahuhu e) Northcote h) Avondale

c) Onehunga f) Takapuna i) Henderson

10. The location analysis information and results can now be passed over to the Panuku tocomplete the process – the Board can shortlist Type 1 locations from the results of thisproject and develop a Type 1 programme. In addition, Panuku will also consider andprioritise the existing portfolio carried over from Auckland Council Property Limited and thetreatment of these projects into other less custodial programmes. Panuku will seek todevelop a view on the full range of programmes (including the next order Type 2 and 3locations) they will take forward across the Auckland region and will engage further withCouncillors, local boards and communities on this before the end of the year.


26/52

Item 12


15 October 2015


11. At this point the recommendations in this report will allow the new Panuku Board to considerthe potential Type 1 locations identified, so they can establish a recommended shortlist tobring back to this Committee for endorsement. This will occur firstly by way of a workshop inNovember and then to the scheduled December Committee meeting.

Recommendation/s

That the Auckland Development Committee:a) recommend the results of the Urban Location Analysis to Panuku Development Auckland

for their consideration in its Type 1 programme.

b) request Panuku Development Auckland to report back to the 10 December 2015 AucklandDevelopment Committee meeting with their recommendations, for the Committee’sendorsement, of its Type 1 programme shortlist specifically, but also Type 2 and 3programmes generally.

CommentsBackground

12. As part of the Development Auckland transition work stream, the Urban Location Analysisproject was set up to establish a set of recommended locations to focus any new ‘Type 1’urban redevelopment programmes led by Panuku Development Auckland (‘Panuku’).

13. A Type 1 location is one that will require a high custodial, long term approach toredevelopment, where a significant amount of housing and/or commercial redevelopmentwill take place (i.e. such as the activities occurring at the Auckland Waterfront). A Type 2programme is about unlocking the redevelopment potential of specific large sites wherethere is market interest (i.e. through development partnerships), and a Type 3 programme isabout enabling an active market (i.e. disposal of surplus land).

14. The project was facilitated by the council’s Growth and Infrastructure Strategy Team, in

collaboration with representatives from Waterfront Auckland, Auckland Council PropertyLimited and across the council family. The project has also had specialist input from theHousing Project Office, Auckland Transport and Watercare.

15. The project has been reported through political workshops (one with the CCO Governanceand Monitoring Committee in May 2015 and three with the Auckland DevelopmentCommittee in June 2015, August 2015 and September 2015), as well as the transition workstream Steering Group, the Development Auckland Board Advisory Group and the ProjectIntegration Team on a regular basis. A Mana Whenua hui was held on this process andsubsequent iwi engagement was undertaken on an individual basis.

16. It should be noted that the work done through this project is integral to council priorities,such as Spatial Priorities and Special Housing Areas, rather than additional to those. The

focus for council, and Panuku, is on priorities already identified – both location andinvestment wise. Many of the priority locational identified through this project therefore fallwithin Spatial Priority Areas. However, due to aspects such as capital complexity, marketpotential and appeal, and scale, some development opportunities, and therefore locations,fall outside of Spatial Priority Areas. This was given due consideration during theassessment. The development potential of some locations outside of Spatial Priority Areashowever warrant their consideration and inclusion.

17. The Implementation section below provides more detail around the proposed consultationand engagement prior to Panuku outlining its proposals for a shortlist of Type 1 locations,due to be reported to the Auckland Development Committee in December 2015.

Method

18. The Urban Location Analysis project was completed in four broad stages, as shown byFigure 1, and described below.


27/52

I t e m 1

2


15 October 2015


Figure 1: Location Analysis Method

19. Stage A of this project included an initial shortlisting of locations, and sought to establishwhere brownfield redevelopment opportunities exist in Auckland. This included various town

centres, Spatial Priority Areas, Special Housing Areas, and areas of infrastructureinvestment across urban Auckland. An initial shortlist of around 70 locations wasestablished, and these are outlined in Attachment A.

20. Stage B involved narrowing this shortlist down further to establish a set of ‘potentialdevelopment locations’ for a more detailed assessment in Stage C. This was achievedthrough a high level criteria assessment that included five criteria and three key questions.The criteria included:

land holdings (i.e. the number of sites and total hectares of Council family holdings)

land fragmentation (i.e. the degree to which the locations had been subdivided)

scale (i.e. redevelopment potential for new dwellings and business floorspace)

proximity to the Rapid Transit Network (i.e. walking distance to mass transit options)

infrastructure readiness (i.e. water, waste water and transport)

21. Three key questions where then considered in order to remove shortlisted locations thatwere already underway or where considered to be a more ‘longer term’ proposition. Thesequestions included:

what is the current state of play (i.e. planning/implementation work)?

what is the proposed spend (i.e. projects/investments)?

what are the opportunities (i.e. known sites/schemes)?

22. The current status of the locations, in terms of whether redevelopment was alreadyunderway or not, was an overriding consideration. If the redevelopment of a location waswell underway (i.e. Hobsonville) it was downgraded in the analysis as the rationale forPanuku intervention would be limited.

23. Other considerations included the amount of planning already undertaken for the locationand the level of investment (either proposed or committed). These factors will havesignificant influence on the redevelopment potential of a location in the short term. Theexistence of any significant new infrastructure projects affecting the locations were alsoconsidered given the growth enabling impacts and the potential to capture value from these.

24. Following a series of workshops the assessment resulted in a set of 17 potential

development locations, which are outlined in Attachment B.


28/52

Item 12


15 October 2015


25. Stage C involved the development of a detailed assessment framework in order todetermine a set of ‘high priority locations’. These locations would then form the basis of theType 1 project recommendations to Panuku. The assessment framework was developed asa multi criteria analysis (MCA) and comprised thirty separate criteria grouped by six differentobjectives (see Attachment C for a summary outline).

26. The detailed assessment was a mix of both qualitative and quantitative information which

was scored using single utility values for each criterion to provide an overall result for eachlocation. In order to score the different criteria, a number of specific pieces of analysis wereundertaken to input into the detailed assessment. This information provides the evidencebase for this project, and informs the individual data profiles for each location assessed.

27. As part of Stage C, external consultancy advice was provided from the Strategic IntelligenceGroup (‘SIG’), who analysed the 17 potential development locations from a marketperspective to input into the detailed assessment. Their scope included a market basedassessment of the development outlook for the locations and a high level assessment ofopportunities and actions for value creation potential in each location. The SIG marketassessment forms part of the technical reporting of this project and is available separately.

Results

28. The detailed assessment of the potential development locations has revealed some keylocations that score very strongly and others that are more sensitive to the criteria used.This has been shown through the use of different criteria weighting scenarios. There arealso a set of locations that do not score as strongly relative to the others and would be lesslikely to be part of the final set of high priority locations.

29. Weighting preferences were expressed by the Auckland Development Committee throughworkshops. Whilst there were some slightly different weighting scenarios, the consensussettled around a preference for a largely equal weighting to be applied to the criteria used.

30. Based on the criteria, the analysis concluded the overall ranking of the potentialdevelopment locations outlined in Figure 2 below. The size of the segments in each bar

highlights the contribution to the location’s score for each of the six objective groups. Figure 2: Location Assessment Results


29/52

I t e m 1

2


15 October 2015


31. When considering these results, the transition work stream Steering Group provided adirection that the locations within the Tamaki Redevelopment Company boundary and theCity Centre should not be taken forward as options. This is because there are alreadydelivery agents in these areas and it is implicit that Panuku will continue to work in theseareas as part their Type 1 programme. Therefore Glen Innes, Panmure and the Aotea/Karangahape Road Precincts were excluded from the final set of high priority

locations. All three of these locations score very well relative to the others, which underlinestheir importance as locations for Panuku involvement.

32. The ranking outlined in the location assessment also helped determine which locationswould be prioritised and which will drop out given they failed to score well. A subset oflocations consistently scored in the bottom third of the rankings using different weightingscenarios as a test of robustness. As a r esult, a cut off score of ‘40’ was used and thefollowing locations were removed for further consideration at this stage: Royal Oak,Westgate, Albany, Point Chevalier and Morningside Station.

33. Therefore, the final set of high priority locations to be provided to Panuku are:

a) Manukau (within Spatial Priority Area)

b) Otahuhu (within Spatial Priority Area)c) Onehunga

d) Newmarket

e) Northcote

f) Takapuna (within Spatial Priority Area)

g) Mt Eden Station

h) Avondale (within Spatial Priority Area)

i) Henderson

34. These results serve as an indicator of which locations score best against the multiple criteriaused, and the data assessed will assist Panuku to understand the value and opportunities ineach of these locations. Profiles of each location using key data and information that wasconsidered in the location assessment will be outlined for Panuku to consider.

35. Stage D, the final stage of the project, will now move forward under the leadership ofPanuku. Further analysis of these locations will be undertaken in order to arrive at a finalshortlist of 2 to 3 locations that Panuku will recommend to the Auckland DevelopmentCommittee through its Board, and which will constitute the ‘Type 1’ programme.

36. Panuku will also seek to develop a view on the full range of programmes (including Type 2and 3 locations) they will take forward across the Auckland region and will engage furtherwith Councillors, local boards and communities on this before the end of the year.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

37. Local Board chairs were invited to the July 2015 workshop on this project. During thisworkshop they were introduced to the project and were given the opportunity to providefeedback on criteria weighting. Points of clarification were raised by the chairs present andthe workshop highlighted that Panuku will need to explain the implications of anyredevelopment programme in their areas.

38. The Panuku Statement of Intent requires the development of a framework for working withindividual local boards in redevelopment locations (Type 1 and 2) to determine respectiveroles and responsibilities. Staff from Local Board Services and Panuku are currently working

towards this goal and to identify the implications of any shortlisted redevelopmentprogrammes in their areas.


30/52

Item 12


15 October 2015



39. This project was reported to the steering group that oversaw the establishment of Panuku.The steering group included the CEOs of Auckland Council and the Independent MāoriStatutory Board (IMSB) and direction was sough on the proposed method and criteria used.

40. Specific iwi engagement was initiated with a Mana Whenua hui held by Panuku on 18 August 2015. This included representation from the Mana Whenua of Tamaki Manakau andwas an opportunity to introduce the project and the development intentions of Panuku. Iwiwere subsequently invited to further individual hui to allow for more specific discussionsconcerning their rohi and rangatiratanga. These are currently ongoing and have set a goodplatform for Panuku to continue to work with iwi and to include them in the decision makingon future development activity.

41. This project seeks to contribute to Māori wellbeing by including high level considerationswithin the criteria used. In particular, the analysis undertaken has sought to identify wherethere are potential opportunities to partner with iwi in the locations identified and to rankwhich locations have the greatest opportunity to impact on Māori communities (i.e. the areasconsidered have a range of demographic characteristics, of which the percentage of Māori ineach location ranged from 3% to 20% - Māori is currently 11% of Auckland’s ethnic diversity

based on the 2013 Census).

42. As Panuku takes this project forward further engagement with iwi are being scheduled fromOctober 2015. It is expected iwi will be key partners in all work going forward and asprojects become identified have opportunities to shape project outcomes and advise onmatters (i.e. the application of Te Aranga Design principles to concept plans). Iwi feedbackhas also highlighted that Cultural Values Assessment would be appropriate to undertakeonce a final shortlist of locations is established.

Implementation43. The location analysis data and analysis will now be provided to Panuku. This includes a

robust set of information to consider the options for future Type 1 locations. Panuku will alsoconsider and prioritise what this means for the existing portfolio carried over from ACPL andthe treatment of potential Type 2 and 3 locations. This will form the basis for future reportingto the Auckland Development Committee before the end of the year.

44. Panuku staff will engage widely over October and November 2015 to ensure that keystakeholders are involved in the process and have an opportunity to add further informationto assist decision making.

Attachments

No. Title Page

A Initial Shortlist of Development Locations 31

B Potential Development Locations 33

C Detailed Assessment Criteria 35

Signatories

Author David Taylor - Principal Business Growth & Infrastructure Advisor

Authorisers Jacques Victor – General Manager Auckland Plan Strategy and Research



31/52


I t e m 1

2


15 October 2015



32/52


33/52


I t e m 1

2


15 October 2015



34/52


35/52

A t t a c h m e n t C

I t e m 1

2


15 October 2015



36/52


37/52

I t e m 1

3


15 October 2015

Housing Supply, Choice and Affordability: Trends, Economic Drivers and Possible PolicyInterventions

Page 37

Housing Supply, Choice and Affordability: Trends, Economic Driversand Possible Policy Interventions

File No.: CP2015/21135

Purpose1. To present the Chief Economist’s report “Housing supply, choice and affordability; Trends,

economic drivers, and possible policy interventions”, which was publicly released onWednesday 30 September 2015.

Executive Summary2. Auckland's house prices have risen to very high levels relative to incomes and relative to

rents. The median house price ($765,000 in metro Auckland in August 2015) is currentlynearly ten times Auckland’s median household income (of about $80,000). That is — itwould take nearly ten years of a representative household’s gross annual earnings to buy arepresentative house in Auckland.

3. High prices have raised the prosperity of many Auckland households. However, it raisesmajor barriers to home ownership and worsens inequality that will provide long-termchallenges to our social fabric. Such high prices also provide risks to the wider economyfrom a major price downturn.


a) note the Chief Economist’s report “Housing supply, choice and affordability; Trends,economic driver s, and possible policy interventions”

b) thank the Chief Economist’s Unit for its work.

Comments

Background

What is the report and why it was commissioned

4. Auckland Council (in collaboration with government agencies as applicable) has been at theforefront of ways to address housing issues with our work on the Housing Strategic ActionPlan, future urban land supply strategy, Special Housing Areas, the Unitary Plan, the Auckland Plan, and promoting quality urban design.

5. However, the context for housing policy is continually changing. Auckland house prices havecontinued to increase. The expiry date for the 3-year HAASHA Act 2013 is approaching, andthe policy debate had been steering towards the impacts on national economic stability anddemand-side measures.

6. In response to this evolving context and to queries from councillors, the Mayor and DeputyMayor requested that a report be produced to identify the full spectrum of levers for thecouncil, the government, and the industry to address the housing affordability problem. Thescope of the report was to:

analyse prices and affordability over time, and understand the problems;

identify possible root causes of the problems, and;

assess the tools and options available to both the council and the government.

7. Given time and resource constraints, the report was focused on ‘housing affordability’generally (the overall price level), rather than ‘affordable housing’ in particular (i.e. low pricedhomes). The latter is being picked up in the “Fast Ideas for Affordable Homes Forum” workstream that was presented at the ADC workshop on 6 October.


38/52

Item 13


15 October 2015


Page 38

8. The council’s various work areas on housing contribute to the ‘Affordable Housing Review’that is on the Auckland Development Committee forward work programme adopted in July2015.

9. The council’s Chief Economist Unit was asked to undertake this work and provided anindependent economic think piece and advice. The report is not council policy, but the reportwill help inform the council's ongoing strategy for action and advocacy.

Drivers of demand

10. The report argues that it is high demand that has driven Auckland’s house prices todecouple from the rest of New Zealand since 2012, as follows:

a. this is a consequence of Auckland's growth outlook, and the employmentopportunities, lifestyle and amenity that attracts people to Auckland;

b. current growth projections indicate that Auckland needs to accommodate up to nearlyone million more people in the next 30 years;

c. the market is signalling the need for a large amount of new housing andredevelopment, and for land (particularly in the isthmus) to be used more

economically. It is doing this by setting very high prices, for land in particular.

Supply issues

11. The other fundamental issue is supply. A number of factors make the creation of new homesrelatively slow and expensive. These factors include:

a. planning rules and notification requirements

b. design requirements

c. the provision of infrastructure to support land supply; and

d. issues for the building sector relating to productivity, quality and capacity.

12. The role of urban planning policy is to ensure that people have choices about where theylive and work, without compromising other urban priorities. These other factors includepublic space, amenities, heritage, infrastructure capacity (like stormwater systems and roadspace), and the environment. The challenge is to balance all of these factors whilst notworsening housing affordability.

Strategic target

13. The report found that there is a host of measures that the government and the council cando that combined have the potential to reduce the median house price to only five multiplesof household income by 2030. These relate to opportunities to reduce cost, to reduce risk todevelopers, to improve building productivity, to use land more efficiently, to improveinfrastructure to support more land for effective housing supply, and to increase the supplyof cheaper attached dwellings.

14. The report proposed that the council and the government to work together to achieve ahome buyer's price-to-household income ratio of five to one by 2030. The purpose of such astrategic housing affordability target is to motivate and to contextualise the package ofmeasures needed. Some of the measures in isolation would be challenging to socialise andimplement. It will also be critical to work closely with the wider construction and developmentsector.

15. The target is significant enough to challenge all parties to take meaningful steps. Such atarget would help guide both the council and the government in the development of anypolicies, plans, regulations, legislation etc that may relate to housing supply, either directly orindirectly. This includes the council’s primary instrument on the matter of housing supply: theUnitary Plan, which is currently being considered by the Independent Hearings Panel.


39/52

I t e m 1

3


15 October 2015


Page 39

16. A broader range of measures relating to housing affordability and other housing policyissues could complement such a target. For instance, measures that took account of interestrates (such as the Massey University housing affordability index), and measures relating tohousehold crowding.

17. Why five multiples of household income, and why by 2030?

a) Fifteen years was chosen rather than ten, because it may take some two to five yearsfor some policy changes to be made, especially relating to construction regulation andinfrastructure provision. This would leave ten years subsequently to fully compoundthe gains required year on year, rather than only five.

b) Five multiples of household income was established by a combination of bottom-upanalysis from the literature review (refer to conclusion of Chapter 3), and an overallintuitive judgement. The judgement was that Auckland could, over the space of 15years, potentially close in on other world cities (in the USA in particular) that have kepthouse prices close to three multiples of household income. Indeed, New Zealandsustained a price to income ratio of 3:1 for many decades before 1990.

The levers assessed

18. The report reviewed a long-list of 34 tools and options (or levers) on how to address ormitigate Auckland's housing problem. These were both demand and supply, and both thegovernment and the council.

19. Supply side measures included:

a. increasing land for development

b. improving the funding, financing, and planning of infrastructure and services

c. making design and construction easier

d. improving residential construction productivity and supply, and

e. supporting foreign investors that wish to build.

20. Overall most tools relate to supply, rather than to demand. The report found that the councilcan do a great deal to support supply. But there is also a significant scope for thegovernment to assist with supply-side measures. Indeed only when working together couldthe 5.0 by 2030 target come close to being reached.

21. There are no silver bullets, and a host of measures would be required to achieve the 5.0 by2030 target. Some levers are already a part of the land scape, whereas others are relativelynovel.

Consideration


22. The report found that housing affordability issues were an Auckland-wide phenomena: the

issues affect the economic and social well-being of people across the region. However,some of the social issues that arise from unaffordable housing may impact more heavily onouter suburbs and those areas that are less accessible to the labour market. Local boardareas that have lower median income would be at greater risk of social problems arisingfrom inequality if housing affordability cannot be addressed in the long-run.


23. The report focused on social and economic issues generally. However, the social inequalityrisks will likely be relatively greater for Maori (and Pacific Islanders too) given their lowermedian household incomes. The median house price is some 12 multiples of median incomefor Auckland Maori households. This report is an input to policy work being undertaken bythe Community Social Policy department on Maori housing.


40/52

Item 13


15 October 2015


Page 40

Implementation24. Further work is required by staff (including in CCOs) to broadly identify and analyse the

areas of the council’s activities that need to be maintained, improved, or commenced inorder to achieve the proposed 5.0 by 2030 target. Given the reliance on the governmentcontributing to achieving this target, council staff should consult with government agenciesas appropriate.

25. Council staff will report back to the Auckland Development Committee on the results of theanalysis, the implications, risks, and the outline of a high level implementation strategy assoon as practicable. This work can continue under the “Affordable Housing Review” item inthe Committee’s forward work programme.

Attachments

No. Title Page

A Housing supply, choice and affordability; Trends, economic drivers, andpossible policy interventions report (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Author Chris Parker - Chief Economist



41/52

I t e m 1

4


15 October 2015

C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group - Auckland Council Membership Page 41

C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group - Auckland Council Membership

File No.: CP2015/20947

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to seek endorsement for Auckland Council’s membershipapplication to the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group.

Executive Summary2. C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group (C40) invited an application from Auckland Council at

the World Cities Summit in Singapore in June 2014. C40 is a strategic global network ofover 75 leading cities working together to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and climaterisks. Members share knowledge, best practice and research and commit to leading globallyon climate change.

3. A report on this subject was originally submitted to this committee on 12 March 2015.Resolution number AUC/2015/41 stated:

4. “That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) agree that Item 11 – C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group – Auckland Councilmembership, be deferred to a subsequent meeting of the Auckland DevelopmentCommittee, until such time when further financial information can be provided.”

5. This report provides that financial information, along with the wider business case formembership of C40.

6. There is no membership fee to join C40 and membership obligations are outlined in a tablewithin this report. Limited staff time will need to be dedicated to meeting memberobligations, much of which is already part of existing work programmes. Limited expenditurefrom/with existing budgets will cover participation and meeting our obligations and no

additional funding is sought or required.7. Strategic international partnerships, beyond our traditional sister-cities partnerships, are an

important tool for implementing the Auckland Plan and associated strategies like the Auckland Economic Development Strategy. C40 membership creates international profileand recognition for member cities, promotes the role of cities as leaders in climate changeinnovation and will provide benchmarking for Auckland among global peers for successfulimplementation of Low Carbon Auckland and council’s climate adaptation work. It should benoted that both of Auckland’s Tripartite partners, Guangzhou and Los Angeles, are C40members. Engaging with them in this context would add value to those existingrelationships and further enable delivery of the Tripartite work programme.

8. Given strong alignment with the relevant strategic direction and targets in the Auckland Plan,

membership of C40 is expected to accelerate implementation of the Low Carbon Auckland Action Plan. A recent survey of C40 cities indicates that membership had been a positivefactor in accelerating strategy and programme implementation.

9. In the context of Auckland Council, this is likely to mean easier identification of futureemissions reductions and associated cost savings. For instance, over the past 4 years, Auckland Council has saved or avoided at least $1.5-$2M annually from reduced energy,waste and water use (Attachment A). While council will be continuously seeking savingsand emissions reductions, they will become more challenging to identify and implement inthe future. Sharing best practice and innovation ideas with C40 cities will assist in identifyingand achieving such savings which, consequently, have corresponding emissions reductionsbenefits.


42/52

Item 14


15 October 2015


10. Auckland is currently a member of ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI).ICLEI and C40 have similar aims and are well-coordinated; in fact, they combined resourcesto deliver the Compact of Mayors, of which Auckland is a recent signatory. ICLEI and C40,however, serve different purposes and different audiences and Auckland is well-positionedto attain value from membership of both networks. Most C40 cities are also ICLEI members.


a) endorse Auckland Council’s application for membership to the C40 Cities ClimateLeadership Group.

Comments

Strategic alignment

11. The commitment to action on climate change is now at the top of the agenda for citiesaround the world. In Auckland, the strategic context for action is set out clearly in the Auckland Plan, particularly in Auckland’s Development Strategy, Contribute to tacklingclimate change and increasing energy resilience. Strategic Direction 8 of the Auckland Plan,

Auckland’s response to climate change, outlines three priorities, each with a number of morespecific directives:

Mitigate climate change (including Directives 8.1 and 8.2)

Improve energy efficiency, security and resilience (including Directives 8.3 and 8.4)

Adapt to a changing climate (including Directives 8.5 and 8.6)

12. The Auckland Plan also sets out reduction targets (based on 1990 levels) for greenhousegas emissions: 10-20% by 2020, 40% by 2040 and 50% by 2050.

13. A number of Auckland Plan Transformational Shifts relate directly to climate change actionalong with other relevant strategies and plans like the Economic Development Strategy and

the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. In particular, the Low Carbon Auckland Action Plan -approved by Council in June 2014 and launched on 1 July 2014 by the Mayor, Councillors,businesses and community groups - is a roadmap for achieving the targets and strategicdirection set out in the Auckland Plan.

14. Strategically aligned international partnerships like C40 can be useful tools to driveimplementation of the Auckland Plan and Low Carbon Auckland.

Benefits of C40 membership and relationship to ICLEI and Compact of Mayors

15. Membership of C40 offers a number of benefits:

a. Accelerate implementation of the Low Carbon Auckland Action Plan, helping to identifycarbon and cost savings which will deliver on the targets and commitments in the Auckland Plan.

b. Access and collaborate with a global network of technical advisers with expertise todesign and implement climate programmes and high-impact projects.

c. Access a vast array of research with potential for peer-to-peer exchanges.

d. Position and benchmark Auckland and Auckland Council alongside other leadingglobal cities.

e. Connect Auckland to international best practice and in turn, provide a uniqueopportunity to profile the work Auckland is doing to an international audience.

16. C40 has an established set of seven “networks” that focus on particular challenges related to

climate change. They include transportation, energy, sustainable communities (includingurban development), solid waste management, finance and economic development,measurement and planning, and adaptation and water.


43/52

I t e m 1

4


15 October 2015


17. These networks mirror the five transformation areas in Low Carbon Auckland, albeit with afew additions (e.g., finance, adaptation). Thus, accessing these networks would have directrelevance and utility to implementing Low Carbon Auckland.

18. Auckland is currently a member of ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI).ICLEI is an association of over 1,200 local governments that represents the interests of localauthorities within the United Nations and at international policy forums. ICLEI and C40 have

similar aims; in fact, they combined resources to deliver the Compact of Mayors, of which Auckland is a recent signatory. Most C40 cities are also ICLEI members.

19. ICLEI and C40, however, serve different purposes and different audiences. ICLEI iscomprised primarily of numerous smaller towns and cities focused on wider environmentalinitiatives including climate change, whereas C40 is mainly composed of a select fewleading mega-cities and innovator cities focused solely on climate change. ICLEI does notimpose any climate-specific target, whereas C40 requires council to set a target and monitorprogress.

20. Auckland, due to its size, unique position as an internationally-facing city and emergence asa leader in climate issues, is in a position to attain value from membership of both networks.Since council has already made commitments to a target and to monitoring, joining C40

would be an opportunity to demonstrate leadership to those existing commitments.

Resourc ing and costs

21. C40 membership requirements include emissions reporting, participation in regionalnetworks, attendance at biennial meetings and completion of case studies and a city profilefor the C40 website. Work is already programmed and will meet membership requirements.Reporting requirements for the Compact of Mayors are similar for C40 and are alreadyunderway to be completed by December 2015. Resourcing and management of therelationship with the network and creation of case studies and the city profile would be led bythe Chief Sustainability Office, with input from relevant teams across council.

22. There is no membership fee to join C40. Limited expenditure from existing budgets will cover

participation and meeting our obligations and no additional funding is required. In fact, theopposite is likely to be true: membership is meant to unlock ideas, innovation and bestpractice that lead to emissions reductions and cost savings to council. A recent survey ofC40 cities suggests that membership accelerates strategy and programme implementation.

23. This is likely to mean easier identification of future emissions reductions and associated costsavings. For instance, over the past 4 years, Auckland Council has saved or avoided atleast $1.5-$2M annually from reduced energy, waste and water use (Attachment A). Whilecouncil will be continuously seeking savings and emissions reductions, they will becomemore challenging to identify and implement in the future.

24. Gaining access to C40 cities would help us implement Low Carbon Auckland and identifysuch savings and emissions reductions. Council would be able to use the expertise, ideas

and research of C40 member cities without having to duplicate work and findings ourselves.

Part ic ipat ion requirements for Auckland Coun ci l membersh ip of C40 networ k

25. Auckland would be an Observer city for its first year of membership. Following that, Auckland would seek to become an Innovator City. To become an Innovator City, Aucklandwould need to be internationally recognised for barrier-breaking climate work; be a leader inthe field of environmental sustainability; and be a regionally recognised “anchor city” for therelevant geographical area (South East Asia and Oceania Regional network).

26. The following table outlines the implementation requirements that council would need tocommit to in the longer term as part of being an effective participant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_sustainabilityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_sustainability


44/52

Item 14


15 October 2015


C40 Membership requirements Preliminary Assessment

Year 1 – Observer city status

a) Disclose available data, where possible, toC40 annually via Carbon Disclosure Project

(CDP) or other identified platform

Already in progress for other obligations, to becompleted by December 2015. No additionalresource or budget requirements.

b) Prepare to publicly disclose, wherepossible, a complete greenhouse gas(GHG) inventory (including developcapacity to collect data not initiallyavailable)

Already in progress. Corporate GHG emissionsare reported annually as part of sustainabilityreporting and in council’s annual report. A regionalGHG inventory was completed for development ofLow Carbon Auckland and is currently beingupdated as part of an annual inventoryprogramme led by RIMU. No additional resourceor budget requirements.

c) Complete City Profile via C40 website Minor staff time implication. No additional budgetrequirements.

d) Attend biennial C40 Mayors Summit atsenior level

To be funded from existing budgets if aligned withother business.

Year 2 – In addition to Year 1 requirements – Innovator city status

e) Participate in all C40 data collection anddisclosure efforts, where possible, inparticular efforts to baseline city emissionsand opportunities

Already in progress. No additional resource orbudget requirements.

f) Participate actively in at least two C40initiatives/networks

Minor staff time implication, networks chosenbased on alignment with and utility to existingwork programme.

g) Participate in a regional network orcollaboration

Staff time implication anticipated to be low leveldue to integration into existing work programme.No additional budget requirements.

h) Establish short and long term climatemitigation and adaptation goals &associated action plan

High level goals/targets already established in theLow Carbon Auckland Action Plan (for mitigation).

Adaptation work to be included within the NaturalHazards Risk Management Action Plan (in draft).No additional budget requirements.

i) Update City profile on C40 website and postat least two case studies/ implementationexamples to the website.

Minor staff time implication. No additional budgetrequirements.

Year 3 – In addition to Year 1 and Year 2

requirements:

j) Make measurable progress towardsmeeting goals, and report progress on anannual basis, where possible

Achievable, already in progress and coordinated

by Chief Sustainability Office through Low Carbon Auckland and through Natural Hazard RiskManagement Action Plan as appropriate.

In addition to the above, Innovator Cities mustcommit to the following:

Participate as co-lead or mentor city in atleast one C40 Initiative or Network

Staff time implication, co-lead or mentor citychosen based on alignment with and utility toexisting work programme.

Post at least five case studies/implementation examples to C40 website.

Minor staff time implication, integrated into currentwork programme.


45/52

I t e m 1

4


15 October 2015


Risks of membership

27. The status of Innovator City demands a high performance threshold. It involves undertakingactions that are globally innovative and derive transferable learning from council’s activities.By way of example, other Innovator Cities have posted case studies on District EnergySchemes (Vancouver), Sustainable Buildings (Melbourne), and the Electric Vehicle Capitalof the World (Oslo). Work is underway to implement Low Carbon Auckland and a number of

actions may rise to such an innovative level. One year of Observer membership status alsoallows time to consider the status of Innovator City and set any additional actions in train tomeet the requirement. Additional background information on C40 Cities is provided in Attachment B.

Consideration


28. Local Boards have not been specifically consulted on the potential application for C40membership, but it should be noted that some local boards are already taking action onclimate change and membership of C40 may provide additional momentum for, and visibility

of, their efforts. For instance, as a response to the Low Carbon Auckland Action Plan, theWaitematā Local Board is preparing a Localised Carbon Reduction Plan.


29. Many of the issues and opportunities raised in this report are of interest to and may impacton Mana Whenua, who will be consulted as this information is considered and anysubsequent work programmes developed.

30. A Māori Working Group was established to advise and work alongside council to ensure theissues, actions and opportunities of importance to Māori were woven into the Low Carbon Auckland Action Plan. The Māori Working Group developed a stand-alone Māori Action Planin response to these objectives. The standalone document will form the basis for on-going

recommendations into the Low Carbon Auckland Action Plan.31. Some Māori organisations have already indicated a strong interest in being involved in the

implementation of the Low Carbon Auckland Action Plan. Auckland Council staff (includingTe Waka Angamua) are working with a Mana Whenua working group on Auckland GrowingGreener, which will provide a basis for delivering on Auckland’s environmental sustainabilityvision including measures to mitigate and adapt to climate change. This engagement willprovide an opportunity for broader active Māori involvement and leadership to improvesustainability outcomes that are of particular interest and importance to Māori.

Attachments

No. Title Page A Further Financial Information 47

B Additional Background Information on C40 Cities Climate LeadershipGroup

49

Signatories

Authors John Mauro - Chief Sustainability Officer

Authorisers Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research



46/52


47/52


I t e m 1

4


15 October 2015



48/52


49/52


I t e m 1

4


15 October 2015



50/52

AttachmentB

Item 14


15 October 2015



51/52


15 October 2015

Public Excluded Page 51

Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Informationand Meetings Act 1987

That the Auckland Development Committee:

a) exclude the public from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting.

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason forpassing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) ofthe Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolutionfollows.

This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government OfficialInformation and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 orsection 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of theproceedings of the meeting in public, as follows:

C1 Confidential Reports Pending Status Update

Reason for passing this resolutionin relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected(where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) forthe passing of this resolution

The public conduct of the part ofthe meeting would be likely to resultin the disclosure of information forwhich good reason for withholdingexists under section 7.

s7(2)(b)(ii) - The withholding of theinformation is necessary to protectinformation where the makingavailable of the information wouldbe likely unreasonably to prejudicethe commercial position of theperson who supplied or who is thesubject of the information.

In particular, the report contains

commercially sensitive informationregarding development proposals.

s7(2)(c)(i) - The withholding of theinformation is necessary to protectinformation which is subject to anobligation of confidence or whichany person has been or could becompelled to provide under theauthority of any enactment, wherethe making available of theinformation would be likely toprejudice the supply of similarinformation or information from thesame source and it is in the public

interest that such informationshould continue to be supplied.

In particular, the report containscommercially sensitive informationregarding development proposals.

s48(1)(a)



52/52


15 October 2015

C2 Special Housing Areas Tranche 8 Recommendations

Reason for passing this resolutionin relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected(where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) forthe passing of this resolution

The public conduct of the part of

the meeting would be likely to resultin the disclosure of information forwhich good reason for withholdingexists under section 7.

s7(2)(b)(ii) - The withholding of the

information is necessary to protectinformation where the makingavailable of the information wouldbe likely unreasonably to prejudicethe commercial position of theperson who supplied or who is thesubject of the information.


s7(2)(c)(i) - The withholding of theinformation is necessary to protectinformation which is subject to an

obligation of confidence or whichany person has been or could becompelled to provide under theauthority of any enactment, wherethe making available of theinformation would be likely toprejudice the supply of similarinformation or information from thesame source and it is in the publicinterest that such informationshould continue to be supplied.


s48(1)(a)


auckland development committee agenda - october 2015

Documents