18.1. This chapter describes the proposed boundaries of Auckland Council and its wards, and the local council areas and their wards. The chapter also describes the proposed boundaries of the City Centre and Waterfront Community Board area. The starting point for the Commission was its terms of reference, which provide for the Commission to investigate
what changes to the boundary of the Auckland region, or to the collaborative arrangements or mechanisms involving other regions across New Zealand, are considered desirable to achieve or support the achievement of the inquiry’s objectives;1
18.2. The Commission’s proposals for the creation of the Auckland Council and local councils are set out in previous chapters. In considering boundaries for the Auckland Council and local councils, it was the Commission’s preference (for the reasons given in this chapter and Chapter 16, “Local Councils”) to utilise existing boundaries as far as possible. The existing Auckland Regional Council boundary, and existing territorial authority boundaries are shown in Figure 18.1. Submitters proposed numerous boundary changes, but the only changes recommended by the Commission are those considered necessary to support the proposed new local government arrangements.
18.3. The Commission has described the new boundary lines in detail sufficient to indicate general outcomes, but recommends that the precise determination of boundary lines be undertaken by the Local Government Commission. This point is discussed further at the end of this chapter.
18.4. The Local Government Act 2002 gives some guidance for the fixing of local authority boundaries. Salient points in the current context include the following:
18.5. With reference to the last item, “community of interest” has been defined as
a group of people in the residential locality and having one or more of the following three dimensions:
18.6. Additional factors identified by the Commission affecting the Auckland Council boundaries include the following:
18.7. There are interconnections between growth and transport strategies, as discussed in Chapters 24, “Planning for Auckland” and 25, “Transport”. Transport networks, especially public transport, are least efficient where there is low-density and sprawling urban form. The creation of new roads and services can encourage sprawl that increases the difficulty of providing adequate public transport. It is important for the Auckland Council to have jurisdiction over transport networks, as well as development location, and density, in rural areas surrounding the current urban areas.
18.8. The regional growth strategy7 prescribes the metropolitan urban limit (“MUL”),8 as shown in Figure 18.2. Under the strategy, development controls facilitate increased development density within the MUL, supported by measures to control urban sprawl outside the MUL. This approach to managing the effects of growth is very common internationally, and the Commission believes that the Auckland Council must have a large enough regional area to effectively implement this kind of policy.
18.9. The Commission does not accept that the Auckland region needs to extend only to the MUL, as suggested by some submitters. The Auckland Council must retain control over development of rural land outside the MUL to ensure that the timing, placement, and design of the development conforms to the regional growth strategy, and must have sufficient “levers” to implement the regional transport plan. The regional boundary must be far enough from the MUL to ensure that non-conforming development does not simply “leapfrog” to an area beyond the planning restrictions, and defeat the MUL objective.
18.10. The Auckland Council should also retain control of areas outside the MUL
18.11. The regional boundaries are discussed below in three sections: the northern boundary, the Hauraki Gulf boundary, and the southern boundary along the Waikato River and around the Bombay Hills, where the existing regional boundary does not coincide with the existing territorial authority (Franklin District) boundary.
Figure 18.2 Metropolitan urban limit18.12. The northern Auckland regional boundary is far enough from the MUL for the Auckland Council to be able to protect the values mentioned above, and the Commission recommends that this boundary be retained.
18.13. The Kaipara Harbour is currently under the management and control of the Auckland and Northland regions, the Kaipara and Rodney District Councils, and two Department of Conservation conservancies. There were submissions seeking a rationalisation of this arrangement and in particular seeking that there be one regional authority with responsibility for the whole of the Kaipara Harbour. The Commission agrees that the current fragmentation is undesirable, but to have the whole of the Kaipara catchment under one regional authority would be impracticable. To include the whole Kaipara catchment in the jurisdiction of the Northland Regional Council would defeat the protection of the values referred to above (especially the growth and transport strategies) because it would have the effect of removing a considerable area of the land to the north of the Auckland urban area from the jurisdiction of the Auckland region. To extend the boundaries of the Auckland region to encompass the northern part of the catchment of the Kaipara is equally impracticable as the catchment extends many kilometres north of Dargaville. The current boundaries, although no doubt fragmenting the management of the Kaipara Harbour, represent a better compromise than the alternatives suggested. Retaining the current boundaries will also avoid the fragmentation of communities of interest that would result if either of the above changes were made.
18.14. In some respects the position of the Kaipara Harbour is similar to the Hauraki Gulf. The Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 gave statutory recognition and special management arrangements to the gulf, and something similar could be considered for the Kaipara Harbour.9 In the absence of that kind of arrangement, the Auckland Council should enter a formal joint management agreement with the Northland Regional Council for the Kaipara Harbour. The Kaipara Harbour is discussed further, with a recommendation, in Chapter 8, “Environment, Urban Design, and Heritage”.
18.15. Auckland region includes the Hauraki Gulf islands as well as the sea around them out to the 12-nautical-mile territorial limit (see Figure 18.1). The significant area of sea that is included does not present significant problems. Of more importance is whether the land comprising the islands, and the island communities, ought to be included in Auckland region.
18.16. There are two groups of Hauraki Gulf islands, “inner” and “outer” islands, centred on Waiheke Island and Great Barrier Island respectively. Waiheke and the other inner islands are clearly part of, and should remain in, Auckland region. Their proximity to the Auckland central business district, to which many residents commute daily by ferry, is reason enough for this.
18.17. A few submitters have argued that Great Barrier and the outer islands should be regarded as a logical part of the Waikato region, given their proximity to the Coromandel Peninsula.10 However, the Commission understands that there is limited social and economic connection between Great Barrier and the peninsula, and no regular public transport between them. The principal connections are with Auckland, which provides a reason for Great Barrier Island remaining in Auckland region.
18.18. There is another practical reason for retaining the islands in Auckland region. Auckland City ratepayers subsidise the islands, to the extent that expenditure exceeds the rates and other revenue levied there. Figures supplied by Auckland City Council indicate that in the 2007/08 financial year the subsidy amounted to about $16 million (see Table 18.1). Submitters told the Commission that ratepayers’ money was being wasted, owing to unnecessary use of consultants by the council, and there will no doubt be some people who would question the need for such a subsidy. While the Commission accepts that some savings might be available, in broad terms it is clear that the islands are not able to pay their own way, and will need continuing support from other ratepayers in the region.
18.19. In November 2008, a petition of Waiheke and Great Barrier Islands residents was presented to the Auckland Regional Council, Auckland City Council, Environment Waikato, and Thames-Coromandel District Council asking for amalgamation with Thames-Coromandel, and transfer to the Waikato region. The petition was intended to initiate the Local Government Act boundary change processes and has been referred to the Local Government Commission, which is calling for submissions on the proposal.11 No decision had been made at the date of this report.
18.20. Similar suggestions were made in submissions to the Commission, along with proposals to form a separate territorial authority for some or all of the islands.12 Some submitters suggested that Great Barrier Island be given its own council, funded like the Chatham Islands Council from dues levied on exports and imports, as well as central government funding. The Commission did not investigate the viability of the Chatham Islands model, as it considered that it was outside the Commission’s brief, and that funding proposals (for example for wharf levies) would need to be agreed between islanders and the Government to advance this.
Table 18.1 Council revenue and expenditure at Waiheke and Great Barrier Islands, 2007/08 financial year ($)
| Waiheke Island | Great Barrier Island | |
| Direct expenditures | -15,905,522 | -7,214,685 |
| Overhead | -10,590,012 | -2,115,167 |
| Miscellaneous revenue | 7,029,989 | 1,691,937 |
| Rates revenue | 9,781,643 | 1,055,895 |
| Net expense for island | -9,683,902 | -6,582,020 |
Source: Auckland City Council.
18.21. The Commission considers that it would not be feasible to form a separate council, noting that the total population of all the islands is less than 10,000.13 Such a small body would not have the financial capacity to deliver adequate services to residents.
18.22. The Commission recommends that Waiheke Island and Great Barrier Island remain part of Auckland region, because of the transport and social connections. In the case of Waiheke, its proximity translates into very close ties with Auckland in such matters as work, education, and recreation. In the case of Great Barrier, there is a general local acceptance of the current arrangements.14 None of the islands can stand alone financially. They are currently supported by Auckland City ratepayers, and under the Commission’s proposals would be supported by Auckland Council ratepayers (meaning the whole region). This would be a relatively light burden, when spread so widely. The option of attaching Waiheke and Great Barrier to Thames-Coromandel District and Waikato region will be tested by the petition process, but seems less satisfactory from either point of view, as the external support would be carried by fewer ratepayers, and the links are not as many or as strong.
18.23. On balance, for these reasons, especially the need for financial support to the islands which can be funded only by a large group of ratepayers, the Commission has concluded that all of the Hauraki Gulf islands should remain in the Auckland region.
18.24. The southern regional boundary follows the boundary of the Waikato River catchment, through Bombay and just south of Pukekohe and Waiuku. Franklin District straddles this boundary so the district is partly in Auckland region and partly in Waikato region. The southern boundary of Franklin District is considerably further south and includes a significant area south of the Waikato River, as shown later in this chapter in Figure 18.4 (labelled “Onewhero”).
18.25. The regional and territorial authority boundaries were established in 1989 during the local government reorganisation. The Local Government Commission said at the time that it would have preferred to make the regional and district boundaries coterminous [the same] but the statutory importance given to water catchments in determining regional boundaries required a practical solution to the need to recognise the territorial community of interest. The Local Government Commission in 1989 preferred that the territorial authority straddle the regional boundary rather than create out-districts15, in order to recognise the territorial community of interest. This was described as a practical solution in situations where the water catchment did not correspond with the identified community of interest.16
18.26. The same considerations confronted the present Commission. The water catchments remain important and communities of interest still cross the regional boundary. But there is now the need, not present in 1989, to set a single regional and district boundary for the new unitary authority (Auckland Council) proposed by the Commission.
18.27. The river catchment is now more important than in 1989. Special management arrangements are proposed for the Waikato River, in the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill currently before Parliament.17 New agencies proposed in the bill will have important roles in Waikato River management, together with Environment Waikato. The Commission considered that it would be preferable for Auckland Council not to have jurisdiction over water issues in the Waikato River catchment, because this role could further complicate the management of the river.
18.28. The Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Act 2004 (“LGAAA”) effectively extended the powers of the Auckland Regional Council and Auckland Regional Transport Authority for transport purposes and the Auckland regional growth strategy, into areas of Waikato region within Franklin District. Although the boundaries were not altered, the LGAAA conferred power on Auckland Regional Council to act on transport and regional growth matters in the southern part of Franklin District.18 Environment Waikato retained all its other regional powers in the area. These statutory amendments confirm the Commission’s view that at least part of Franklin District outside the existing regional boundary is, functionally, part of Auckland region. The continuation of these extra-regional powers, with or without boundary changes, was included in the options considered by the Commission.
18.29. A starting point for the Commission was to consider whether the current southern boundary could be left unchanged. However, a mix of considerations led to the conclusion that some changes were inevitable. As with the Local Government Commission in 1989, the search was for a practical solution rather than an ideal one. The options available involve regional and district boundary changes, and special constitutional arrangements,
Table 18.2 Options for southern boundary
| Regional boundary | Franklin boundary | Regional constitution | Local council/territorial authority constitution | |
| 1 | No change | Split Franklin in two, along regional boundary | Auckland Council has transport and growth planning powers over Franklin
South. Environment Waikato has all other regional council powers in Franklin South. |
Two separate entities: northern area governed by Auckland Council, assisted by Hunua Local Council southern area governed by new district council constituted under LGA, OR merge southern Franklin into Waikato District, OR Auckland Council operates there as territorial authority only. |
| 2 | Move regional boundary north, to include all of Franklin in Waikato region | No change | Environment Waikato has regional council powers in all Franklin, except Auckland Council retains transport and growth planning powers over all Franklin. |
Franklin District Council governs all Franklin, retains full district council constitution. |
| 3 | Move regional boundary south, to include all of Franklin in Auckland region | No change | Auckland Council exercises all regional powers over all of Franklin. | Auckland Council governs all Franklin, assisted by Hunua Local Council. |
| 4 | Move Auckland region boundary south to river bank and Mercer | Remove Onewhero and Kaiaua | Auckland Council has no jurisdiction over Waikato river issues, river
remains with Environment Waikato. Auckland Council has all other regional powers over north bank. |
Auckland Council governs reduced Franklin area, assisted by Hunua Local Council. |
Notes: LGA, Local Government Act 2002.
Option 1: No change to regional boundary; split Franklin into two
18.30. Under Option 1, the regional boundary would be unchanged. The northern half of Franklin would stay in Auckland region and be governed by the new Auckland Council (as a unitary authority) assisted by Hunua Local Council, in accordance with the new arrangements proposed by the Commission. The southern part of Franklin (including the Waikato River catchment) would remain in Waikato region under Environment Waikato, subject to the Auckland Council retaining the extra-regional powers of the Auckland Regional Council under LGAAA to manage transport and regional growth. The regional arrangements under this option seem satisfactory.
18.31. Arrangements for territorial authority governance of the southern part of Franklin are where this option falls down. There are three possibilities for the southern area:
18.32. The first two of these possibilities split the communities of interest around Pukekohe between two district councils – the same communities of interest that the Local Government Commission wanted to keep together in 1989, and for which it made its “practical solution”.19 The southern part of Franklin lacks the ratepayer base and general capacity to operate as a separate unit. A new southern council would have no geographical base (since it would not include Pukekohe) and there would be significant start-up costs. Merger of the entire southern part of Franklin with Waikato District would be unsatisfactory in terms of communities of interest, and servicing the area north of the Waikato River would present practical difficulties.
18.33. The third possibility would require that the Auckland Council operate under two constitutions, being a unitary authority north of Bombay and a territorial authority only in the south, in Waikato region. The Commission rejected this as an unprecedented and over-complicated arrangement, especially when the implications for election of Auckland councillors and the role of the Hunua Local Council are considered. This also would have been contrary to the Local Government Act 2002.20
18.34. None of these possibilities being realistic, Option 1 was rejected.
18.35. The option of moving the regional boundary north to align with the current northern Franklin District boundary was suggested in submissions by Franklin District Council with qualified support from Environment Waikato.21 It would mean retaining the existing Franklin District Council with its current powers and boundaries, and extending the jurisdiction of Environment Waikato into the northern part of Franklin.
18.36. Franklin District Council made these main points in its submission:
18.37. Whilst noting these points, the Commission considers it essential to retain the area within the Auckland region in order to manage Auckland’s growth. The Commission has partly addressed Franklin District Council’s concerns by providing for governance of rural areas, including Franklin, by specifically rural local councils. It is noteworthy that the council acknowledged that in economic terms and with regard to transportation issues, Franklin is within Auckland’s “sphere of impact”.22 The Commission considers that Franklin District north of the Waikato River is an integral part of greater Auckland in these and other ways, including strong economic, cultural, and social ties.
18.38. Option 2 was rejected for the following reasons:
18.39. Under this option, the regional boundary would be moved south so that all of Franklin would be in Auckland region and be governed by Auckland Council, assisted by Hunua Local Council, in accordance with the new arrangements proposed by the Commission. Option 3 was rejected in this form because
18.40. This is the preferred option. It is a variation of Option 3. Option 4 extends Auckland region south to include some of the areas of Franklin District that are currently in the Waikato region. The proposed new region boundary is shown in Figure 18.3. Under this option Auckland region would extend as far south as the Waikato River and Mercer.
18.41. The Local Government Act 2002 requires the boundaries of regions to conform with catchment boundaries if practicable. The Commission has concluded that the options that would make the regional boundary and the catchment boundary coterminous are not practicable. Option 4 extends Auckland region into the catchment of the Waikato River, but only to the extent necessary to accommodate other values.
18.42. The reasons for recommending this option include the need to plan future growth areas. Manukau City Council, in its submission, suggested that the regional boundary be moved south to the Waikato River as a way of managing projected growth at Pokeno and Hampton Downs in Waikato region, saying, “much of this growth is likely to be reliant on Auckland for employment and economic well-being. New development outside the region’s boundaries could have a detrimental impact on Auckland, the economy and sustainability”.24 Manukau City Council suggested that this growth could be managed through collaborative planning between regions, and by extending the southern Auckland regional boundary to include development areas currently within the Franklin District. The Commission accepts this reasoning and both suggestions, adding Pokeno to Auckland region, and addressing more distant areas through regional collaboration.
18.43. The Franklin District Growth Strategy forecasts significant growth in Buckland, Tuakau, and Pokeno. According to the strategy, Pokeno’s population is expected to increase from 580 in 2004 to over 5,000 by 2051.25 The reasons given for Pokeno’s growth include its accessibility to State highways and the railway, which contributes to economic development opportunities.26 The growth forecasts and accessibility of these areas from Auckland were important factors in the Commission’s consideration of boundaries, because they indicated a high degree of participation of this area in the wider economy of Auckland.
18.44. About 12,000 people will be affected by the boundary change and will be transferred to the Auckland region. These will be the residents of the areas along the northern riverbank, Buckland, Tuakau, Pokeno, and Mercer and surrounding rural areas.27 The land area involved is about 44,000 hectares.28
18.45. The advantages of Option 4 are that by moving the regional boundary south, there will be a more adequate buffer around the MUL giving Auckland Council full control of development in the easily accessible areas immediately south of the current regional boundary. It also avoids splitting the communities of interest that straddle the Bombay Hills. Neither consideration is as strong further south or east.
18.46. In regard to Waikato River management, Option 4 minimises the area of the catchment that will be in Auckland region. Further, to avoid the complication of two regional authorities being involved in river management, the Commission considers that Environment Waikato should retain full jurisdiction over river management issues. These will include those matters referred to in the current Waikato River Settlement Bill, as well as any residual matters relating to Environment Waikato’s general statutory mandate – for example, water, erosion and sedimentation issues arising under the Resource Management Act 1991 or any other Act. This extended jurisdiction would need to be conferred by legislation, modelled along the lines of the LGAAA provisions (they give the Auckland Regional Council extra-regional jurisdiction over transport and growth planning matters in the part of Franklin within Waikato region).
18.47. The LGAAA extra-regional powers will not be needed under Option 4. Auckland Council will have sufficient powers to manage transport and growth matters within its region because the crucial areas to be managed (Buckland, Tuakau, Pokeno, and Mercer) will now be within the region.
18.48. Two areas of Franklin District are left out of this arrangement, as shown in Figure 18.4. The first is the Onewhero area, south of the river, and the second is an area bordering the Firth of Thames, including Kaiaua.
18.49. “Onewhero” is a term used for convenience. The western area shown in Figure 18.4 to be merged with Waikato District includes Onewhero and a number of other communities including Pukekawa, Port Waikato, Waikaretu, and Glen Murray. (“Onewhero” is the name used by Statistics New Zealand for the census area unit that covers this area.) Onewhero had a population of 3,700 in 2006.29
18.50. The Commission proposes that Onewhero be merged with Waikato District. The reason for this is that the Onewhero area does not have a close connection to the Auckland urban area, and there is no reason for it to be subject to systems put in place to manage Auckland urban and peri-urban issues. The only realistic option is for governance of Onewhero to continue under the ordinary Local Government Act provisions, through the Waikato District Council. The Commission notes that Onewhero was part of Raglan County (based at Ngaruawahia) until 1989, and so the proposal has some historical context.
18.51. The future of the Onewhero area was mentioned by submitters. Notably, Waikato District Council proposed that it take over Onewhero, together with Tuakau, Pokeno, and areas north of the Waikato River. Onewhero-Tuakau Community Board, Waikaretu Citizens and Ratepayers Association, and Onewhero Citizens and Ratepayers Association supported Onewhero remaining in Franklin District. The Waikaretu association said that residents’ business and social activities are oriented north (towards Pukekohe and Franklin) rather than to Hamilton and it supported continuation of an independent Franklin District.30
18.52. The Commission’s view is that while there are communities of interest that cross the river, these could not be described as Auckland communities of interest, and Onewhero has a better fit with Waikato than with Auckland.
18.53. To the east, the Kaiaua area on the Firth of Thames includes the land currently in Franklin District, split into two by the current regional boundary. In Waikato region, it is the land east of, and including, Mangatangi, and the catchment of the Mangatangi Stream. In the current Auckland region, it includes the Mangatangi Stream catchment and the coastal strip from Whakatiwai to Matingarahi Point.
18.54. The Kaiaua Citizens and Ratepayers Association submitted that their communities of interest lie to the south towards Ngatea and Thames; important linkages to those places include health services, education, sports and businesses; iwi31 have links to Hauraki and Waikato; and Kaiaua is physically separated from the Auckland Region by the Hunua Ranges. The association suggested Kaiaua should become part of Hauraki District, which would better service the area.32 Other submitters from Kaiaua said that Kaiaua has little connection to Pukekohe and the rest of Franklin District and asked that the area be placed into another council district, most suggesting that it be in Hauraki District and one suggesting Waikato District.33
18.55. There were also submissions asking for all of Franklin District on the Firth of Thames up to Matingarahi Point to be included in Waikato region. The submissions make the point that the coastal area north of Kaiaua, which is currently part of Auckland region, shares a community of interest with Kaiaua (the whole stretch is sometimes called the “seabird coast”).34 Environment Waikato in its submission asked to be given an increased share of the management of the Firth of Thames.35
18.56. The Commission accepts the validity of the submissions by the residents in this area. It accepts that they look to towns to the south for their shopping needs and that the closest secondary schools are also to the south. This area too should be in Waikato District and Waikato region. While there are undoubted connections to Hauraki District, The Commission considers that Kaiaua should be within Waikato District because it already includes adjoining localities such as Maramarua and Miranda. Joining with Hauraki would require an extensive review of district council boundaries, which is outside the scope of the Commission and considered inappropriate for it to undertake.
18.57. The Commission proposes that all the land in Franklin District bordering the Firth of Thames, including the upper Mangatangi catchment (called here Kaiaua) should be in Waikato region and Waikato District. The reasons are similar to those for including Onewhero. The remoteness of Kaiaua from Auckland means that MUL and transport issues do not arise, and it is largely in the Waikato catchment. The fact that two regional parks will be outside the Auckland Council area is not seen by the Commission as presenting practical difficulties. It is unnecessary for Kaiaua to be within the jurisdiction of Auckland Council. The proposed boundaries are shown in Figure 18.4. The Commission suggests that the boundary line be referred to the Local Government Commission for detailed mapping.
18.58. As a unitary authority the Auckland Council will have the powers of a regional council and a territorial authority. The boundaries for these two roles are different. The regional boundaries include areas of the sea, out to the 12-nautical-mile New Zealand territorial limit, as shown in Figure 18.3. Territorial authority boundaries are mainly on land, but can include some small areas of the sea, for example in harbours. The Commission proposes that the boundary of the Auckland Council as a territorial authority should contain the same land as the new regional boundary, as well as any parts of the coastal marine area within the jurisdiction of current territorial authorities.
18.59. Reasons for the establishment of the proposed six local councils are set out in Chapters 13, “Alternative Models for Reform” and 16, “Local Councils”. The Commission anticipates that adjustments will be made from time to time to the proposed local council boundaries. Reasons for changes include possible future changes to the MUL, which defines the boundaries between rural and urban local councils, and the possibility of more local councils being created over time, by dividing the proposed local council areas. A mechanism for the Auckland Council to be able to adjust these boundaries and create new local council areas is suggested below.
18.60. The approximate boundaries of the proposed local councils are shown in Figures 18.5 and 18.6. The new Auckland region, as described above, is divided into six local council areas. Every part of the region, except the city centre and waterfront, is in the area of a local council. (The city centre and waterfront will have a community board.) There are two local councils for the rural areas – Rodney and Hunua. There are four local councils covering the urban areas: Waitemata, Waitakere, Tāmaki-makau-rau, and Manukau.
18.61. Distinguishing the rural parts of the region from urban areas was urged by a number of submitters to the Commission.36 They asked that the special needs of rural areas be recognised and provided for. The Commission has accepted this point of view in setting the boundaries of the local councils by reference to the MUL, which is effectively the line between rural and urban parts of the region.
18.62. The adoption of the MUL as the line between urban and rural councils will change some existing relationships between residents and their council service centres. For example, the people in the rural area of Clevedon will need to adjust to their local council being based at Pukekohe, instead of Manukau City. The Commission does not expect that this will present any real problems after an initial adjustment period. Many Auckland Council services will be available seamlessly at all service centres, and special arrangements can be made between local councils for servicing outlying areas as necessary.
18.63. The local council boundaries have not followed the MUL in every case. In some places, urban local councils include areas outside the MUL. Notably, Waitakere Local Council includes the Waitakere Ranges; Tāmaki-makau-rau Local Council includes the Hauraki Gulf islands; and Manukau Local Council includes Auckland International Airport. The Commission expects that the line of the MUL will not be precisely followed when the detailed lines are drawn by the Local Government Commission, but that boundaries will be adjusted by factors such as communities of interest, physical features, and the statistical meshblock boundaries as appropriate.
18.64. The rationale for including the Waitakere Ranges in the Waitakere Local Council area, despite the fact that they are outside the MUL, is that they are not truly rural, in the sense of being a farming area like most of Rodney. The Waitakere Ranges provide recreational space to many Auckland residents, and provide the ethos for the “eco-city” movement, which is central to the identity of Waitakere. Detaching the ranges from the local council’s sphere of interest might undermine the eco-city ethos. The Waitakere Local Council will have an important role in the management of settlements like Piha, which have no direct road links to Rodney District. However, in practical terms it will not manage the reserve areas of the ranges to any large extent, as these are part of a regional park.
18.65. The Hibiscus Coast is included in Waitemata Local Council as part of the separation of urban and rural areas. One of the problems of the existing Rodney District is the diversity of its communities, and in some cases the clashes of values between them. Separating out the Hibiscus Coast, which is the most urban part, and joining it to Waitemata is expected to reduce some of the tensions in the remainder of Rodney, and focus the Rodney Local Council squarely on the oversight of its rural area.
18.66. The Commission considered whether Otahuhu should be included in Manukau on the basis of community of interest but decided it should be left in Tāmaki-makau-rau, at this stage. To include it in Manukau would have the disadvantage of requiring that council, until a new Auckland-wide plan is prepared, to administer the Auckland District Plan as well as those of Papakura and Manukau. The Commission is of the view that any further changes to the boundaries of the local councils would be best left to the Auckland Council. Possible future changes could include the incorporation of Otahuhu into Manukau, and (as suggested by Waitakere City) the inclusion of Avondale in Waitakere.
18.67. Papakura has been included in Manukau, because it was considered to be too small to operate as a stand-alone urban entity, and does not have the special features of geographical size and rural nature that have justified the disproportionate representation provided for the rural entities.
18.68. The Commission has described the new boundary lines in detail sufficient to indicate general outcomes, but the precise boundary determination has been left to the Local Government Commission, to be undertaken during the transition period before the new arrangements commence. We are conscious that if this work is to be done in time for the 2010 election a start on the mapping might need to be made before the legislation is passed. The Commission recommends that the Government request the Local Government Commission to start work on this exercise immediately after the adoption of this report.
18.69. The regional boundary is unchanged except in the south. The new boundary largely follows existing portions of the Franklin boundary and the Waikato River.37 The short section of the regional boundary near Mangatangi has been left to the Local Government Commission to define.
18.70. Ward boundaries for Auckland Council will also need to be established by the Local Government Commission. As stated in Chapter 15, “The Elected Auckland Council”, there will be two rural and four urban wards divided by the MUL. The northern rural ward will include the Hauraki Gulf islands. The urban wards will be defined in terms of the ordinary statutory criteria for setting territorial authority wards.
18.71. The local council boundaries are largely new, because they extensively follow the MUL. The legislation proposed for Auckland should set criteria to guide the Local Government Commission in setting local council boundaries, but because of the urgency of the initial determination, the Minister may think it desirable to exercise his powers under section 31(2) of the Local Government Act 2002.38 The criteria that need to be applied to fix the local council boundaries are generally the MUL for the boundaries of Rodney and Franklin; existing ward boundaries in the case of Hibiscus Coast; and existing territorial authority boundaries in other cases, modified as appropriate by statistical meshblock areas, communities of interest, and any practical considerations (for example existing infrastructure that is best contained within one local council administration).
18.72. The Commission’s proposal is that the urban local council wards should each have approximately 40,000 electors and two members. Compared with the urban local councils, Hunua and Rodney will have a different ratio of representatives to population, to reflect the large geographical area and smaller population. The Commission has suggested the population of the wards, and in Chapter 16, “Local Councils”, possible groupings of suburbs, but it has not drawn the ward boundaries. This has been left to the detailed consideration of the Local Government Commission. The criteria for setting the local council ward boundaries are envisaged to be the same as those for setting the boundaries for territorial authority wards. Again urgency may require a direction from the Minister under section 31(2) of the Local Government Act 2002.
18.73. Local councils are a new legal concept and their creation will require legislation. One of the matters that will need to be considered by the Auckland Council is how to provide for any perceived need in future years to realign the boundaries of the six local councils or to reduce their size by creating new councils. (For example, boundaries might be altered to reflect increases or decreases in population.) The Auckland Council should be given powers to do this, after a request from a petition of residents or a local council, or of its own motion. It would proceed subject to the special consultative process set out in the Local Government Act 2002.39 Local council wards should also be set and amended by the Auckland Council, subject to statutory criteria similar to that which exists for territorial authorities, after local council consultation.
18.74. It is the Commission’s view that the defined city centre area should be significantly greater than the area traditionally defined as the central business district. The central business district area as defined by the Auckland City Council is essentially bounded by the motorway system. The Commission considers that the city centre area should extend to Ponsonby in the west, Parnell in the east, and to New North Road in the south. This area contains Auckland’s principal retail, commercial, education, and entertainment facilities. It is large enough to cater for a mix of uses, including residential, and to provide for future expansion. It is also an area that is well served by public transport and is small enough for it to be pedestrian-friendly. The city centre area will be under the direct control of the Auckland Council with the assistance of a community board, as described in Chapter 17, “City Centre and Waterfront”.
18.75. The Commission has not attempted to define the area precisely. That task should be undertaken by the Local Government Commission. It will need to take into account communities of interest, an exercise that has not been possible for the Commission to undertake. It would also be desirable to consult with the Auckland City Council. The description that follows (and the map in Figure 18.7) therefore is necessarily expressed in somewhat general terms. The boundary between the Tāmaki-makau-rau Local Council and the city centre and waterfront area (which has no council) will follow the boundary of the City Centre and Waterfront Community Board, as shown in Figure 18.7.
18.76. The northern boundary of the city centre should take in all that area from Fergusson Wharf and Teal Park to the Harbour Bridge including the wharves and the Westhaven Marina. The western boundary should come up Shelly Beach Road, along Jervois Road to Ponsonby Road, taking in the commercial land to the west of Ponsonby Road. The line should follow Ponsonby Road to Karangahape Road, it should then go along Newton Road to the vicinity of Ian McKinnon Drive where it should turn south to New North Road. From there it should proceed in a north-easterly direction along New North Road, to its intersection with Symonds Street and Mt Eden Road. At that point the boundary should extend down Mt Eden Road to Boston Road, along Boston Road to Khyber Pass Road, and down Khyber Pass Road taking in the commercial area on its southern side to Crowhurst Street. The boundary will then run along Crowhurst Street and Gillies Avenue to Alpers Avenue, and along Alpers Avenue to the intersection of Broadway and Great South Road. The boundary should proceed along St Marks Road to the railway line and then follow the railway line north to where it goes under Parnell Road. The line would follow Parnell Road to St Georges Bay Road and down that road to the Strand, and back to the starting point.
18B Notwithstanding changes to the Auckland region boundaries described above, Waikato Regional Council (Environment Waikato) should retain its powers over all parts of the Waikato River and its tributaries and catchment in the Auckland region, including management of water quality, water extraction, damming and diversion, discharge of water or contaminants to water, flooding, drainage, erosion, and sedimentation, and other issues arising under the Resource Management Act 1991 or any other Act.
18C Six wards of the Auckland Council should be created as described in Chapters 15 and 18, comprising four urban wards within the metropolitan urban limit, with their common boundaries fixed in accordance with the ordinary statutory criteria for territorial authority wards, and two rural wards being the remainder of the district outside the metropolitan urban limit, generally north and south of the urban area. The Hauraki Gulf islands will be in the northern rural ward.
18D The Auckland Council ward boundaries for the first election of the Auckland Council should be generally as indicated in Chapter 18.
18E The boundary of the Auckland Council as a territorial authority should be the same as the new regional boundary on land, and the same as the current coastal boundaries of territorial authorities around the coast.
18F All land currently in Franklin District but outside the proposed Auckland Council boundary should be merged into Waikato District, being the land at Onewhero and Kaiaua as shown in Figure 18.4 and described in Chapter 18; the boundaries and wards of Waikato District should be amended accordingly.
18G The local council boundaries within Auckland region, and local council wards, should be as shown in Figures 18.5, 18.6, and 18.7 and described in Chapter 18, following the criteria set out in the report.
18H The Government should request the Local Government Commission to determine the exact location of each boundary referred to above for the Auckland Council, local councils, all council wards, and communities, including for the City Centre and Waterfront.
18I Once established, the Auckland Council should have the power to adjust the boundaries of local councils and their wards and to create new local councils and wards where necessary.
Transition
18 The Local Government Commission should, by April 2010, finalise all wards and boundaries of Auckland Council including the local councils and community boards.
1 See Appendix A: Terms of Reference.
2 Local Government Act 2002, Schedule 3, clause 4. A “meshblock” is the smallest statistical area used by Statistics New Zealand.
3 Local Government Act 2002, Schedule 2, Part 3.
4 Local Government Act 2002, Schedule 3, clause 3.
5 Fulcher, Helen, “The Concept Of Community Of Interest”, discussion paper prepared for the South Australia Department of Local Government, 1989 (available at www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/Files/CommissionsTribunals/bconcept.pdf, accessed January 2009).
6 Auckland Regional Growth Forum, Auckland Regional Growth Strategy: 2050, Auckland, 1999 (available at www.arc.govt.nz).
7 Ibid.
8 The metropolitan urban limit, MUL, is defined and mapped in the Auckland Regional Policy Statement (available at www.arc.govt.nz).
9 Section 16 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act creates a Hauraki Gulf Forum comprising relevant central government and local government agencies.
10 Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from Nobilangelo Charison Ceramalus. (All submissions are available at www.royalcommission.govt.nz.)
11 Local Government Commission, “Commission Consults on Hauraki Gulf Proposal”, media release, 16 February 2009 (available at www.lgc.govt.nz, accessed February 2009).
12 See Royal Commission on Auckland Governance, Report, Volume 3: Summary of Submissions, Auckland, 2009, pp. 247–251 (available at www.royalcommission.govt.nz).
13 Statistics New Zealand, “2006 Census of Population and Dwellings” – the usually resident population of Waiheke Island was 7,689; Great Barrier Island was 852.
14 Unlike Waiheke submitters, those from Great Barrier Island were generally happy with the status quo, subject to their community board having more power. (See Royal Commission on Auckland Governance, Report, Volume 3: Summary of Submissions, Chapter 23.)
15 “Out-districts” were historically provided for in the Local Government Act 1974 as an area outside a region where a regional council (or a united council) could exercise a particular function even though that area was not in its region. The provision for out-districts was not re-enacted in the amendments to the Local Government Act that came into force on 1 November 1989.
16 Local Government Commission, “Final Reorganisation Scheme for the Auckland Region”, Wellington, 1989, pp. 9–10.
17 See www.parliament.nz.
18 The Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Act 2004, section 4 (definition of Auckland Region), section 39, section 46, and Schedule 7 (amendment to Land Transport Act 1998).
19 Local Government Commission, “Final Reorganisation Scheme for the Auckland Region”, p. 10.
20 Local Government Act 2002, Schedule 2, Part 3, clause 3.
21 Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from Franklin District Council, p. 6.
22 Ibid., p. 16.
23 See Royal Commission on Auckland Governance, Report, Volume 3: Summary of Submissions, pp. 252–253.
24 Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from Manukau City Council, p. 15.
25 Franklin District Growth Strategy, Table 5.1 (available at www.franklin.govt.nz, accessed January 2009).
26 Franklin District Growth Strategy, section 7.6.4.
27 Statistics New Zealand, Census figures 2006, for the census area units of Otaua, South Waiuku, Buckland, Redoubt, Opuawhanga, Tuakau, Pokeno, and part of Mangatawhiri.
28 Calculated by Royal Commission, based on geographical information systems analysis.
29 Statistics New Zealand, Census figures 2006.
30 Submission to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from Waikaretu Citizens and Ratepayers Association.
31 Iwi – tribal grouping.
32 Submission to Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from Kaiaua Citizens and Ratepayers Association.
33 Submissions to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from G. Axlens, R. Payne, D. Swales, and J. and R. Wootton.
34 The submission of the Kaiaua Citizens and Ratepayers Association said the current regional boundary “cuts through this community leaving about two thirds in Environment Waikato and one third in Auckland Regional Council.” Kathleen Walsh’s submission also said that the community was divided by current boundaries and that Franklin District Council has identified a Seabird Coast Special Management Area between Miranda and Matingarahi Point.
35 Submission to Royal Commission on Auckland Governance from Environment Waikato, p. 1.
36 See Royal Commission on Auckland Governance, Report, Volume 3: Summary of Submissions, Chapter 5.
37 The Local Government Act 2002, schedule 2, Part 3, clause 2 provides that where a river is a boundary, the territories on each side extend to the middle line of the river.
38 “The Commission may consider, report on, and make recommendations to the Minister and any relevant local authority on matters relating to a local authority or local government that are referred to the Commission by the Minister.” “Minister” means the Minister of the Crown responsible for the administration of the Act – currently the Minister of Local Government.
39 Local Government Act 2002, section 83.
| Home | Help | Disclaimer & Copyright | Contact us | newzealand.govt.nz |