Deploying Ultra-Fast Broadband through a Collaborative Consenting Framework between Chorus and Auckland Mana Whenua

Transcription

1 Deploying Ultra-Fast Broadband through a Collaborative Consenting Framework between Chorus and Auckland Mana Whenua Graeme McCarrison 1 Spark New Zealand (previously at Chorus NZ Ltd), Graeme.McCarrison@spark.co.nz Chris Horne Incite Ltd, Auckland, chris@incite.co.nz Fiona Blight Beca Limited, Auckland Wednesday 15th April pm Keywords: Consenting framework; collaborative; mana whenua Abstract In 2011 Chorus was selected by state-owned Crown Fibre Holdings Limited, to deploy Ultra Fast Broadband (UFB) in 24 of 33 nationwide areas over a nine year deployment programme. UFB is being deployed to essentially every urban road and many rural townships. In the Auckland Region deployment has required a number of resource consents. This paper focuses on the deployment of UFB through over 3,000 sites / areas subject to mana whenua provisions under the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP). Nineteen iwi groups are recognised as mana whenua in the Auckland Region, and a number affiliate with the same protected sites and areas. Chorus has specifically chosen to respond to the changing planning framework under the PAUP by ring fencing the mana whenua provisions from its other UFB consents. This was because it wanted to dedicate appropriate attention and develop appropriate mechanisms for consenting and physically deploying UFB in mana whenua areas of interest. Chorus recognised Page 1

2 that the PAUP has introduced a need for iwi to respond to an extensive amount of new requirements, placing pressure on resourcing and response. Therefore Chorus and its consultant team challenged themselves to develop a practical pathway for mana whenua during both consenting and deployment. This resulted in development of a new planning framework approach, which sets out the requirements for ongoing collaborative working with iwi throughout the deployment years to identify and manage any adverse effects and the implementation of appropriate mitigation. The framework is supported by a GIS system (accessible to iwi), updated with deployment design and mana whenua information regularly. It includes a traffic light system agreed with mana whenua, containing three levels of risk, confirming sites / areas where Chorus and mana whenua will work together to deploy UFB. Introduction This paper provides insights into how we responded as the internal and external resource management advisors to Chorus New Zealand Limited (Chorus) when faced with the changing planning regulatory framework, introduced by the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) in relation to its Mana Whenua provisions. This significant change introduced part way through Chorus s Ultra-Fast Broadband (UFB) rollout in Auckland presented major challenges to be overcome by the project team, which is considered within the broader context of: Regulatory requirements of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) and Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act Treaty settlements in Auckland, and how this has translated for RMA purposes into the recognition of 19 iwi/hapu in Auckland with multiple overlapping areas. Rapidly expanding economic influence of Maori with an estimated asset base of $40 billion which is predicted to grow to $100 billion in the next few years. A great example of infrastructure investment was the establishment of the Te Huarahi Tika Trust to purchase of third generation spectrum (3G) radio frequency which led to the establishment of New Zealand s third mobile network, Two Degrees Mobile Ltd. The UFB project in Auckland three years into a nine year project, and the delivery expectations of Crown Fibre Holdings Ltd (CFH). Nationwide telecommunication Infrastructure Company with assets within and working in all parts of New Zealand. Public expectations and demand for fast broadband access and services. Economic development potential of the UFB project. The Auckland Economic Development Strategy and the Auckland Plan s vision to create the world s most liveable city, and develop an economy that delivers opportunity and prosperity for all Aucklanders and New Zealand. To both consent and physically deploy UFB in essentially every street in urban Auckland (and associated customer connections), Chorus and its consultant team established and obtained resource consent for a new planning framework process in regard to the resource consents needed for mana whenua matters. The challenge was how to obtain resource consent to enable the continued deployment of UFB in Auckland in a cost and time efficient manner, develop relationships with the iwi recognised as having an interest in Auckland, and create a framework which recognises that mana whenua are the kaitiaki determining the level of Page 2

3 physical or metaphysical effects on maori heritage and the management of these. This challenge for the Chorus and consultant project team was to successfully complete the project by October The framework was developed by undertaking extensive engagement with mana whenua incorporating the core values of Chorus and principles for iwi engagement embodied in the RMA using today s technology to adapt them for the future, particularly in the context of the planning regulatory framework now being established under the PAUP. The process framework developed is supported by a Geographic Information System (GIS) tool accessible by Chorus, the project team and iwi, to collaboratively share information over the coming years, and to identify key areas of interest (or higher risk) where iwi will be involved in the detailed design and physical deployment. The project team achieved and consented an adaptive system able to accommodate additional matters of sensitivity to mana whenua over time (including those sites mana whenua may not wish to have specifically mapped in the PAUP), and the evolving relationship with iwi in Auckland. Background Chorus and UFB Project Chorus is New Zealand s largest telecommunications infrastructure provider and is included in the NZX 50 Index comprising New Zealand s 50 largest domestic companies. Chorus shares also trade on the ASX. Chorus was established as a standalone, publicly listed entity on 1 December 2011, upon its demerger from Telecom Corporation of New Zealand Limited. Chorus is responsible for operating and maintaining the nationwide copper access network which includes telephone exchanges, microwave/radio sites, cabinets and copper and fibre lines. Chorus is an open access provider of telecommunications services to Retail Service Providers (RSPs). Chorus does not provide services to end user customers. This means that Chorus network is critical for all Aucklanders, regardless of their RSP. In May 2011, Chorus was selected by Crown Fibre Holdings (CFH) to roll out UFB in 24 of the 33 UFB areas nationwide. This contract, with Crown financing of up to NZD$929 million, will see Chorus deploy around 17,000 km of new fibre optic cables to areas covering around 70% of the UFB footprint in New Zealand. Chorus will install an estimated 4,000 km of fibre optic lines (overhead and underground) in Auckland. The UFB project is being deployed over a nine year build programme. Chorus is currently in the fourth year of this build programme which commenced in the financial year starting in June The build is expected to be completed by Chorus is undertaking deployment through a mix of underground and overhead methods. The Challenge Have you considered what the significance of the introduction of the mana whenua provisions in the PAUP is and what this could mean to the existing regulatory regime regarding matters of significant and value to mana whenua and the requirements for consultation or engagement with iwi? It is my 1 opinion that the Theory of disruptive innovation created by Clayton 1 Graeme McCarrison Page 3

4 Christensen 2, while not currently widely applied to planning practice, provides a relevant and useful way to consider and explore whether the mana whenua provisions in the PAUP could potentially lead to a significant change or disruption in the existing planning regulatory regimes in Auckland. The overarching principle of disruptive innovation within its traditional context is succinctly summarised in the Wikipedia definition of the term, being as an innovation that helps create a new market and value network, and eventually disrupts an existing market and value network (over a few years or decades), displacing an earlier technology. Examples of disruptive technology include how the reliance on the internet has resulted in a consequential disruption in the use of traditional written volumes of encyclopaedias, or similarly smart phones and tablets disrupting the traditional personal computer. Applying the theory of disruptive innovation to planning practice within the context of the PAUP the term disruptive can be seen to take on a positive rather than the traditional negative meaning. The PAUP approach addresses and recognises the need for protection of cultural elements of significance and value to mana whenua by enabling and requiring greater involvement of Maori. This new planning framework of objectives, policies and rules, which had immediate legal effect on public notification at 30 September 2013, (in summary) involves: Recognition or identification of 3661 site of significance or value to Maori Framework for identification of further sites of significance and value to Maori Greater level activities that require iwi engagement and sign-off to confirm whether or not a cultural impact assessment is required Prior to 30 September 2013 there was a general reliance on planning best practice and the Part 2 provisions under the RMA in regard to consulting and engaging with mana whenua when undertaking projects in Auckland. The PAUP extends further to require consultation and agreement from mana whenua to works that may affect protected sites but also where consent is required in relation to environmental matters such as stormwater and groundwater takes / diversions (as two examples). The PAUP changes are considered to be reflective of various forms of new or evolving governance regimes involving Maori around New Zealand. The PAUPs mana whenua provisions are still subject to challenge and determination via the hearing and mediation processes of the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearing Panel. It is considered that the introduction of the mana whenua framework in the PAUP has created a potential disruption by creating a new regulatory regime in relation to the acknowledgement, recognition and engagement with mana whenua in Auckland. There were numerous resource management plans in place across the Auckland Region prior to the notification of the PAUP on 30 September In the initial phases of the project Chorus deployed its UFB network exclusively by underground means. It held a number of City-Wide consents for the legacy council district plan areas 3 addressing a range of matters such as works within tree drip lines and earthworks (e.g. works outside of the geometric profile requirements of the Manukau District Plan) with variable conditions. A comprehensive Auckland Council wide consent process for Chorus s deployment programme was commenced in 2011, which 2 Harvard professor Clayton M. Christensen theory of disruptive innovation first established in relation to his research on the diskdrive industry and published in his book The Innovator s Dilemma in Seven territorial councils and one regional council were amalgamated into a single unitary council, the Auckland Council, in Page 4

5 sought consistent requirements across the operative regional and district plans for underground deployment through a series of guidelines and performance frameworks to deal with earthworks, sediment control, works within tree drip lines (a framework process for working with Council arborists was established), contaminated land, and a range of other consent triggers. Consent was required for 40 pages of rules that the day to day business of Chorus infringed or triggered consent. This consent was granted on a non-notified basis in 2013 (issued as separate consent for each legacy council area) approximately 2 weeks after notification of the PAUP. New resource consent triggers from rules with immediate legal effect in the PAUP relating to mana whenua sites and heritage places were not covered by the consents, as infringements of the relevant mana whenua and heritage PAUP provisions were not specifically applied for in the comprehensive application described above. This coincided with Chorus electing to seek consent to deploy part of its network aerially on existing pole networks. In response Chorus established a multidisciplinary consultancy team of Incite (planning), Beca (planning and GIS specialists), Arbolab (arboriculture) and Boffa Miskell (visual assessment and GIS specialists), to develop a consenting strategy initially focused on aerial deployment. Clough and Associates (archaeologists) were later added to the project team to enable a separate consenting programme for both underground and aerial infrastructure to be pursued for areas of interest to iwi. Other resource consents have either been granted or sought in relation to works affecting heritage listed buildings (in terms of customer service connections to these buildings) and excavations within and near heritage sites in the PAUP. In terms of the Mana Whenua provisions of the PAUP, broadly speaking there are two primary aspects of the Unitary Plan that trigger a need for resource consent specifically in terms of Mana Whenua issues. These include: Network utilities and associated earthworks on or within 50m of Sites and Places of Significance or Value to Mana Whenua; and Earthworks on or within 20m of an Extent of Heritage Place scheduled for heritage of Maori origin. As part of the information requirements of the PAUP and notification tests, Cultural Impact Assessments (CIAs) are expected to be provided with each application unless relevant iwi identified by Auckland Council as having an interest in the project (this is determined based on local board geographical boundaries) agree that a CIA is not required. This introduces a requirement for engagement with iwi for projects affected by mana whenua provisions. Encouraging engagement with iwi has to be viewed as a positive and an essential opportunity for mana whenua to determine the extent of any cultural effects and how these may be mitigated. In applying the disruption theory to the PAUP mana whenua provisions the following comparison is made: Disruption criteria Comments in regard to mana whenua Page 5

6 Simple or new applications introduced into the market and then relentlessly gains market acceptance. Displaces the established norm or competitors. Enables a new group or population to gain access to a product or service that previously has restricted access provisions The extensive mana whenua provisions increasing the extent of recognition and protection of cultural elements of significance and value to mana whenua. The requirement to consult with iwi and have them confirm whether they want to undertake a CIA is required for a number of activities beyond potential impacts on identified sites (i.e. stormwater and groundwater consents).? Should the provisions be confirmed into the operative PAUP following the Hearing process, then it is anticipated that the requirement to engage with iwi on a range of environmental matters (e.g. identified sites, stormwater and groundwater diversion/take/discharge consents) will become the established norm. Maori have gained wide recognition that only they are expert in guiding, advising on cultural elements of significance and value to mana whenua and have a recognised place in the regulatory process. Requirement under the PAUP to consult / obtain confirmation from iwi on CIAs means that they will be gaining access to whole level of consents that previously were reliant on being recognised as an interested party and under good practice / Part 2 consulted with. Iwi consultation approach Prior to notification of the PAUP, Chorus had no formal iwi engagement strategy in regard to engagement with mana whenua. A reactive approach was being implemented on an as need basis including consultation for resource consents. The key relationship with Maori was via Nga Pu Waea a national broadband working group that was established in 2011 by Te Puni Kokiri (Ministry of Maori Development) for the purpose of: ensuring Māori communities can be connected in a timely and efficient manner, maximising opportunities arising from the deployment of broadband; provisioning of information to Māori communities (e.g. broadband deployment timeframes and coverage); advocacy; and facilitating relationships on behalf of Māori groups or communities with other groups and organisations in the telecommunications industry. Page 6

7 There are recognised and commonly used methods of engagement and consultation which are summarised as follows: 1. No consultation (e.g. simply lodge and application and rely on the notification tests). 2. Communicate or inform. o No or minimal ability for other parties to influence. o Stakeholder informed and generally kept informed. 3. Consultation a typical regulatory approach o Information shared 2 way. o Test ideas/options. o Stakeholder contribution to mutually acceptable outcomes where possible. 4. Collaboration o Emergent process. o Stakeholder recognised. o Longer term outcome. o Relationship. o Opportunity for shared power. o Differences addressed constructively. The engagement approach implemented for the Chorus mana whenua consent applied elements of the consultation and collaboration methods. This enabled us to have open, two way, informing and trusted conversations to explore how we could achieve the best outcomes for the multiple interests of the parties: To better understand, risks and concerns when working near or in sites of known importance to Maori; To gain insights and guidance on how these concerns can be mitigated and recognised; Discuss the opportunities for Maori which the fibre project provides; To make and take time to listen and hear what makes particular a place/s, locations, areas of historic, spiritual and cultural importance; Opportunity to show with actual examples (in the Chorus Lab) how the project was being deployed and the measures being taken to manage potential environment and cultural matters; Opportunity to development long-term relationships of mutual benefit and be part of a journey that is only starting; Through treaty settlements and other changes recognise opportunities for Maori to be in regulatory co-governance roles; Meet statutory obligations in regard to RMA and PAUP; and Opportunity to hear about how iwi are investing for economic development of Maori and New Zealanders. Chorus Mana Whenua Consenting Approach Overview of Issue Page 7

8 Chorus has broken its UFB deployment down into specific build areas it refers to as Fibre Flexibility Point ("FFP") areas. In Auckland each year the project program involves constructing approximately 400 FFP areas. There can up to 200 sites open in various stages of completion at any one time. Each FFP is designed to serve approximately 288 customer premises and generally covers several streets. As notified, the PAUP included 61 Sites and Places of Significance to Mana Whenua (SSMW), and 3600 Sites and Places of Value to Mana Whenua (SVMW). Resulting from the initial hui with iwi Chorus learnt and were given guidance and insights which included: Substantially more Sites and Places of Significance and Value existed than was shown in the PAUP and there was a desire to have more protected; Support for the UFB project and opportunities it potentially provided for Maori; Acceptance of the existing networks and need to maintain and upgrade these without involvement of iwi except on sites of significance; A request to be involved in the training of Chorus workers in discovery protocol processes; and Iwi wanted the opportunity to at least review the annual deployment programme and identify where they have an interest. SSMW cover those sites assessed as having the most cultural significance to Maori, and include areas such as urupa, waahi tapu and former battlefields. These are not well defined on the planning maps as they include a simple indicative triangle, rather than the full extent of the site. Research is required to properly identify the full extent of the site and therefore where the site and the required 50m buffer area are located to determine where a resource consent is required. SVMW are more related to recorded archaeology such as middens or pits. As currently included in the PAUP these are primarily based on information taken from 'legacy' district plans, the former Auckland Regional Council's Cultural Heritage Inventory ("CHI") and New Zealand Archaeological Association ("NZAA") recorded sites information. The SVMW in particular have had a substantial impact on the Chorus UFB programme as they include a 200m diameter buffer circle centred on where best information indicates the archaeological feature is located, with a further 50m buffer around the buffer circle, resulting in a 300m diameter circle that covers an area of approximately 7ha 4. These areas therefore affect a substantial number of roads and private adjacent sites where customers will require connections. The PAUP also schedules a substantial number of heritage places and objects that are a mix of Maori and non-maori origin. Examples include features such as pa (Maori origin) and listed heritage buildings (generally non-maori in origin). Where a site contains a scheduled heritage item, the full site is generally denoted as an Extent of Heritage Place. Around these Extent of 4 There is an Auckland Council practice note (April 2014) that takes the measurement of 50m from the edge of the site where the extents are known or 50m from the centre of the circle where they are not known. However, it is unclear what legal standing this practice note has. Page 8

9 Heritage Place features/sites is a further 20m buffer within which a resource consent for earthworks is required. Where the Extent of Heritage Place abuts the road which is quite typical, the full extent of a typical 20m wide road reserve is subject to an earthworks resource consent. Due to the Auckland-wide nature of the Chorus UFB roll out, the extensive number of identified SSMW and SVMW, and Extent of Heritage Place (Maori origin), and the buffer areas provided around the these identified areas, a significant extent of Chorus's deployment (physical lines and related earthworks) was subject to resource consents in terms of Mana Whenua consent triggers. Consenting Approach Given the extent of FFP areas Chorus is deploying annually as part of its UFB rollout, and the number of instances where Mana Whenua or Heritage provisions of the Unitary Plan would be triggered by the project and require specific consent and Mana Whenua engagement, it was not considered practical to seek to consent the works on an FFP area. The specific FFPs deployed in each build year are pre-agreed with CFH and are spread quite diffusely throughout Auckland. Therefore, there would be FFPs deployed in most, if not all, Local Board areas in any given year. Further, customer connections will be undertaken across the full UFB area deployed on an ongoing basis as customers take up the UFB service. The Auckland Council currently recognises 19 iwi and hapu as Mana Whenua in Auckland, and keeps a register of the Local Board areas in which they have indicated they have an interest. Based on current Council information, the number of Mana Whenua groups with an interest in any Local Board area would range from a minimum of 8 groups to a maximum of 14 depending on the Local Board area. To consent each FFP for Mana Whenua consent matters on an individual basis would therefore require engagement with 8-14 groups depending on the Local Board area to determine any specific interest, and whether one or more Cultural Impact Assessments (CIA) is required. Aside from the timeframe, cost and logistical issues for Chorus to work through such a process, experience since notification of the PAUP has been that many Mana Whenua groups are simply not resourced to deal with the volume of work in a timely manner, particularly when combined with requests by numerous other applicants across Auckland. Accordingly, Chorus elected to seek a resource consent on an Auckland-wide basis to come up with a more practical and efficient way to deal with the multitude of Mana Whenua consents required that affect its deployment, and at the same time to develop relationships with iwi given the relatively recent formation of Chorus as a separate infrastructure company. The methodology for this consent was to seek consent for a 'Framework Process' for working with Mana Whenua throughout the deployment and installation of UFB (and maintenance and upgrading of the copper network in the same areas). Framework Process Page 9

10 The Framework Process has included the development of a 'traffic light' system set up to identify and record in a GIS database all known areas of interest/significance to Mana Whenua recorded on recognised publicly accessible databases. These include: All Mana Whenua and heritage layers in the PAUP; All identified sites of significance to Maori in the legacy district plans; The Cultural Heritage Inventory; and The NZAA database of registered archaeological sites. The traffic light system identifies three categories of risk, which are Green, Orange and Red. With the assistance of archaeological consultants Clough and Associates, these colours/levels of risk have been allocated to each FFP area in Auckland. In broad terms, a Green FFP has no known sites of interest/significance to Mana Whenua and may proceed to the build phase without further input from Mana Whenua, although the works must operate under a discovery protocol. An Orange FFP requires the Chorus project archaeologist to review the specific design and determine if the listed feature triggering an Orange risk level is impacted on by the design. This may trigger a redesign. If the design for an Orange FFP can avoid known sites of interest/significance to Mana Whenua (e.g. it may be a well recorded stream bank feature well away from the road), then it is reclassified to Green. If these areas cannot be avoided, it is reclassified to Red. Further engagement with Mana Whenua is required for all Red FFPs. Low Probability of Discovery (Green) No sites/areas identified by mana whenua during the resource consent process No sites/areas identified in operative district Plan or PAUP No sites/areas identified from CHI databases No sites/areas identified in NZAA Database Increased Potential of Discovery (Orange) FFP intersected by PAUP sites of value to mana whenua circle FFP intersected by PAUP extent of heritage area (Maori values) and 20m buffer area FFP intersects any area identified in CHI or NZAA data bases FFP contains a recorded site of interest under the operative district plan (excluding urupa and sites of significance) Sites / areas identified by mana whenua during the resource consent process which are considered of value Page 10

11 High Potential of Discovery / Spiritual component (e.g. Waahi Tapu) / Specific Work Methods Required (Red) Sites / areas identified by mana whenua during the resource consent process which are considered of significance FFP intersected by PAUP Site of Significance to mana whenua, or any associated buffer area Highly significant heritage items recorded in the area Human remains (urupa, graveyards) recorded in area Orange areas as outlined above where impacts on mana whenua sites cannot be avoided by design following inputs from the Project Works Archaeologist Figure 1: Schematic representation of Traffic Light categorisation of FFP areas The GIS database developed is a living database that will be updated as either more sites are included in the PAUP, or listed features are removed. All Mana Whenua groups who indicated an interest in the project through the consultation process have external access to the GIS tool. The Red FFP sign off process requires Chorus to confirm which Mana Whenua groups have an interest in each Red FFP, and get their sign off to the specific design prior to deployment. The sign off may come with certain requirements such as cultural monitoring or karakia. This process has been successfully implemented for the current build programme. The following appendices include information from the Mana Whenua UFB resource consent application to assist in understanding the process proposed: Appendix A shows the extent of the UFB area in Auckland colour coded by build year. Appendix B shows a series of screen shots of the GIS tool (sourced from the resource consent application AEE) showing the colour coding of FFPs across Auckland and the underlying information used to determine the risk alert category. Appendix C shows a flow chart that outlines the sign-off process with Mana Whenua for Red FFP areas under the Framework Process. The consultation outputs of the Framework Process can also be used for any authorities (consents) required under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 to modify archaeological sites. Mana Whenua engagement process Chorus undertook extensive engagement with Mana Whenua throughout the development of the Framework Process and the specific resource consenting phase. Auckland Council recognises 19 iwi and hapu as having an interest in one of more of the Local Board areas in Auckland. As Ngati Rehua only identified an interest in Great Barrier Island which is not subject Page 11

12 to the UFB roll out/consent, Chorus worked through a consultation process with the remaining 18. Commencing in May 2014, Chorus organised hui with the 13 of the 18 relevant Mana Whenua groups (the remainder either did not respond, indicated there was no need to meet or were unable to attend). These hui were generally undertaken individually and provided an introduction to Chorus and the UFB project, and the aims of the Mana Whenua engagement process for the project. In most instances, Mana Whenua shared some of their own views, values and aspirations. The first round of hui established relationships, assisted with the development of the Framework Process, and helped guide the approach for future engagement. Following the first round of hui, Mana Whenua were sent a briefing package on the UFB roll out and required consents including an overview of the proposed Framework Process. They were also provided with access to the internet based share site which included relevant project information and access to the Chorus GIS archaeological/heritage alert layer. A second round of hui was held with as many groups as possible to discuss the GIS tool and proposed Framework Process in more detail. At each hui undertaken, Mana Whenua indicated support in principle to the framework process. Through this engagement process, Chorus received written confirmation from a number of groups that further ongoing consultation was not required. A resource consent application was subsequently lodged with the Auckland Council, and Chorus requested that this be limited notified to the 14 Mana Whenua groups with an ongoing interest in the resource consent application. Chorus continued to engage with the 14 Mana Whenua groups with an on-going interest during and subsequent to the submission process including working through the sign off process for Year 4 Red FFPs. No hearing was required to be held and the resource consent was issued in November Engagement with interested iwi is continuing in order to facilitate the sign off process with iwi for designs within Red FFP areas for the coming deployment years. Since the consent was issued Red FFP areas affected by works to end of June 2015 have been signed off by iwi expressing an interest in those areas, and deployment under the consent has commenced. In some instances iwi elected to have karakia, provide briefing of work crews, or to undertake monitoring. Mana whenua did not require any formal CIA s as part of the consent process, as cultural effects are dealt with as part of the framework process via engagement over FFP designs. There is an opportunity as required through the FFP design sign off process for iwi to assess cultural impacts and suitable mitigations. 5. Learnings The Chorus framework process approach is a pragmatic way to navigate the current Mana Whenua and Heritage (Maori origin) provisions in the PAUP for a city-wide scale and ongoing infrastructure roll out project. It also provided an excellent opportunity for Chorus to embrace a collaborative and consultative approach with iwi on its projects and to establish good Page 12

13 relationships with Mana Whenua in Auckland. However, this said, the process has been at a relatively substantial cost to Chorus, and includes significant ongoing engagement commitments and is a good way of dealing with 18 iwi groups across an intensive urbanised region, but may not be appropriate for smaller scale or more location based projects. Use of a collaborative process and ongoing engagement resulted in a high level of support for the project, evidenced by the outcome of the planning process - no submissions received and no hearing required. Experience on the UFB project has been that the ability for some iwi to respond in a timely manner to Chorus in terms of attendance at hui, reviewing consultation information provided and responding to requests to sign off specific designs has been mixed, which is reflected in the variable resources available to Mana Whenua and their increased work load. The regime set up in the PAUP (as notified) is placing a relatively onerous burden on both applicants and Mana Whenua. Under the current PAUP rules, other network utility operators may have to replicate the substantial work Chorus has had to undertake for their networks, resulting in significant time and cost, and further pressure on much stretched iwi resources to respond to resource consent applications. Some further efficiencies in the planning regime would assist. For example, reduction in the very extensive buffer areas that trigger consent requirements, as would a reduction in overlapping of consent requirements with the requirements of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act These will be matters for the commissioners hearing submissions on the PAUP and the prior mediations to be held between Auckland Council and submitters. However, at least in terms of large infrastructure projects, the Chorus experience has been that it is best practice to establish open and honest relationships with iwi, stay engaged to develop good practice and cost effective processes, and use communication as a key method of mitigation. The use of technology in the form of a share site and GIS accessible to all parties in the process greatly assists in the sharing of information and identification of areas of highest risk requiring further engagement. An added bonus is the reduction of s as the parties can access the information when they choose. Observations Observations on key factors that made this project successful are: 1. Engagement to create and develop a long-term open and trusted relationship with each iwi; 2. Recognition that this will see you through the good and bad times; 3. Understanding the bigger picture - don t get lost in the current or the short-term gain for the project, for example recognising that treaty settlements across New Zealand are introducing a range of different governance relationships that do or have the potential to impact on business and regulatory responsibilities; 4. Right consultancy team: Page 13

14 Selection of the right team including an iwi relationship person with the right connections, mana and ability to open doors, provide clear insight sounding board not an RMA expert; Recognition and agreement from the outset that mana whenua are best placed to determine cultural effects and mitigation of work on these sites; Challenging the client working out the boundaries; Education; and Listening & learning. 4. Maori recognise that UFB is enabling for them as well as NZ; 5. Legal guidance the legal framework and obligations verse sensible practice and expectations of other groups including Council, iwi and Chorus; 6. Engagement approach: focused on the long-term relationship; recognition and ownership of past damage; emergent process; keeping it simple; taking the time to get to know each other; and doing what we said we would and showing that we heard what iwi told us; 7. Establishment of a framework that enables iwi to work with Chorus across Auckland within and outside PAUP mana whenua areas; 8. This process is supported by a Geographic Information System (GIS) tool accessible by Chorus, its contactors and iwi, to collaboratively share information over the coming years, and to identify key areas of interest (or higher risk) where iwi will be involved in the detailed design and physical deployment; 9. Establishment of project team culture that was collaborative and best for project, enabling internal challenge sessions to agree the appropriate way forward getting to the win-win; 10. Understanding the risks and having clear goal/outputs a resource consent supported by iwi with a framework process for on-going engagement with iwi by October 2014; 11. Internal advisor to deliver advice appropriate to Chorus and core values/drivers and business situation. The role of the internal resource management local government expert and advisor is critical: Being the champion; Exploring and developing innovative strategies and tools for constructively leading Chorus through the complex regulatory/compliance regime; Stimulate debate or challenge on what is achievable and practical getting the right people in the room to make decisions; Ensuring that the consultants options and proposals are practical and achievable or that the business is reasonable in what is it wants and understands the risks; Interface between parties e.g. Council, consultants and Chorus staff; and Leadership and responsibility; 12. Continued on-going engagement with Heritage New Zealand and Council. It was critical to have good relationship with Council (major projects team) and the Council s consultant dedicated to the UFB consenting project; and Page 14

15 13. Chorus staff and service companies understand the consent obligations and what they need to do. Conclusion Consenting a large and ongoing city-wide scale project with a delivery schedule set by a crown agency set a number of complex challenges for Chorus, particularly with the introduction of the Mana Whenua provisions of the PAUP coming into force with immediate legal effect part way through the consenting and deployment programme. While the rules in the PAUP require refinement and are currently quite a blunt instrument, particularly in terms of the large buffer areas around sites, the framework process developed and implemented by Chorus has been an effective means of establishing relationships with iwi and allowing for deployment of UFB infrastructure in a timely and pragmatic way without having to seek numerous and ongoing consents for individual project areas. To date the process has had the support of iwi who are engaged in the project. This is seen as an effective means for other infrastructure companies with linear infrastructure, and may perhaps in time lead to the development of a shared approach between infrastructure companies to allow for sharing of resources and avoid replication of work to address similar issues. What the project team achieved and had consented is an adaptive and emergent system/framework able to accommodate changes in Chorus build technology and evolving relationship with iwi in Auckland. It is now up to the parties to make it work and keep building the trusted and respectful relationship that emerged from what we have termed as the positively disruptive mana whenua provisions introduced in the PAUP. Finally remember 3 words/phases: Respectful relationships Disruptive innovation Pragmatic professional advice Page 15

16 Appropriate engagement technique collabortive engagement approach appropriate to Chorus develop collaborations within industry groups- share what you have learned take industry approaches eg training in discovery protocol Building Relationships are key open, trusted & long-term engaged, sharing information differences addressed construcutive don t listen to rumours get your own the facts know what you want and don t be afraid to ask or discuss Iwi Goverance responsibilities or changing opportunity to be an early adoptor - start the journey iwi are their own masters and each is unique Maori are and will be increasingly significant players in our (New Zealand) economic future Advice establish a consultancy and internal team appropriate to the project understanding the risks and having clear goal/outputs develop strategy and implementation plan establish internal governa ce and support structure and resources think innovative tools - GIS Page 16

17 Appendix A UFB Rollout Area Map

18 Appendix B Screenshots from Chorus GIS Archaeological/Heritage Alert Layer

19 Appendix C Red FFP Sign Off Process Bios Graeme - Engagement and Planning Manager for Chorus providing direction and guidance nationally for the Chorus & Spark consenting program and Regional & District Plan reviews. Currently a member of the working party on the review of the NES Telecommunication Facilities. Chris - Held senior positions in local government including Director Regulatory Services at Papakura District Council.Director of Incite, a resource management and environmental consultancy. Chris has 20 years of experience in planning which includes significant experience in the areas of infrastructure and public works. He was a representative of the telecommunications industry involved in the development of the National Environmental Standard for Telecommunications and has previously been seconded to Telecom as Environmental Manager. Chris is currently leading the consultant team for Chorus national UFB rollout consenting programme, including a framework process for resource consents in Auckland under the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan in response to the Mana Whenua provisions.