I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Orākei Local Board will be held on:

 

Date:                      

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Thursday, 1 May 2014

3.30pm

St Chads Church and Community Centre
38 St Johns Road
Meadowbank

 

Orākei Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Desley Simpson, JP

 

Deputy Chairperson

Mark Thomas

 

Members

Ken Baguley

 

 

Troy Churton

 

 

Kate Cooke

 

 

Colin Davis, JP

 

 

Kit Parkinson

 

 

(Quorum 4 members)

 

 

 

Georgina Morgan

Democracy Advisor

 

24 April 2014

 

Contact Telephone: (021) 302 163

Email: Georgina.Morgan@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 

 


Orākei Local Board

01 May 2014

 

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                        PAGE

1          Welcome                                                                                                                         5

2          Apologies                                                                                                                        5

3          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   5

4          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               5

5          Leave of Absence                                                                                                          5

6          Acknowledgements                                                                                                       5

7          Petitions                                                                                                                          5

8          Deputations                                                                                                                    5

9          Public Forum                                                                                                                  5

9.1     Rob Fisher - President Auckland University Football Club                            5

9.2     David Robertson - Reducing Smoking and Smoking Related Offensive Behaviour                                                                                                                                5

10        Extraordinary Business                                                                                                5

11        Notices of Motion                                                                                                          5

11.1   Notice of Motion - Ngahue Reserve Redevelopment                                       5

12        Review of dog access rules                                                                                          5

13        The Landing - Eastern End Development Proposal                                                  5

14        Financial Planning for Extreme Weather Events                                                       5

15        Bylaw review programme update - April 2014                                                           5

16        Auckland Transport Update – Orakei Local Board: April 2014                               5

17        Traffic Management at Events                                                                                     5

18        Business Association Support Fund Allocation - Ellerslie Business Association 5

19        Business Association Support Fund Allocation - Remuera Business Association    5

20        Chairperson's Report                                                                                                    5

21        Board Member Reports                                                                                                5

22        Local Board Workshop Record of Proceedings                                                        5

23        Resolutions Pending Action                                                                                        5  

24        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

25        Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public                                                                   5

C1       Proposed Acquisition in Orakei                                                                                   5  

 


1          Welcome

 

 

2          Apologies

 

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

 

3          Declaration of Interest

 

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

 

4          Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Orākei Local Board:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 3 April 2014 and the extraordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 17 April 2014 as a true and correct record.

 

 

5          Leave of Absence

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for leave of absence had been received.

 

6          Acknowledgements

 

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

 

7          Petitions

 

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

 

8          Deputations

 

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

 

9          Public Forum

 

A period of time (approximately 30 minutes) is set aside for members of the public to address the meeting on matters within its delegated authority. A maximum of 3 minutes per item is allowed, following which there may be questions from members.

 

9.1       Rob Fisher - President Auckland University Football Club

Purpose

1.       Rob Fisher, President Auckland University Football Club, will be in attendance to present to the Board on the history of the football club and the clubs current and potential future usage of Colin Maiden Park.

Executive Summary

2.       Rob Fisher contacted the Local Board Services team with a request to speak to the Board during Public Forum. The purpose of the presentation is to brief the Board on the club’s history and to share with the Board some ideas on possible further development of Colin Maiden Park.

3.       In addition, Rob Fisher will be joined by Claire Donnelly, junior club member, Chris Seagar, senior club member and Neil Cotton, ASC Architects, to answer questions the Board may have.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Orākei Local Board:

a)      Thanks Rob Fisher, President Auckland University Football Club, Claire Donnelly, junior club member, Chris Seagar, senior club member and Neil Cotton, ASC Architects for their presentation on the Auckland University Football Club and development of Colin Maiden Park.

 

 

 

9.2       David Robertson - Reducing Smoking and Smoking Related Offensive Behaviour

Purpose

1.       David Robertson, will be in attendance to present to the Board on reducing smoking and smoking related offensive behaviour. 

Executive Summary

2.       David Robertson contacted the Orakei Local Board with a request to speak to the Board during Public Forum. The purpose of the presentation is to cover reasons for addressing the Orakei Local Board on this issue.

3.       The focus of the address is reducing smoking (including tossing of cigarette butts on the ground) and spitting in public places.

4.       In addition, examples of what is occurring in the Central Business District and Orakei Local Board will be covered as well as how to move forward with interested parties.  

 

Recommendation/s

That the Orākei Local Board:

a)      Thanks David Robertson for his presentation on reducing smoking and smoking related offensive behaviour.

 

 

 

 

10        Extraordinary Business

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

11        Notices of Motion

 

11.1     Notice of Motion - Ngahue Reserve Redevelopment

In accordance with Standing Order 3.11.1, the following Notice of Motion has been received from Board Member Troy Churton for inclusion on the agenda for the Orākei Local Board meeting being held on day, Thursday, 1 May 2014:

 

Recommendation/s

That the Orākei Local Board:

a)      Requests council officers to waive the development contribution for the Ngahue Reserve development.

 

Background

Oceania Football Confederation has received a development contribution request of nearly $500,000.00 for its development of Ngahue Reserve. The Orakei Local Board has been at pains to promote this reserve development as being at no cost to ratepayers. Extensive consultation took place pre resource consent application and an eventual grant of resource consent was made and managed all 'effects' from the proposal.

Council has since applied its development contribution policy largely on the interpreation that the Ngahue development can create greater demands on infrastructure, and in this case, allegedly through effects such as stormwater related effects due to areas of impermeable surface. The team leader of the Assessment team has also stated:

The relevant sections of the LGA are Sec. 199 & paragraph 64 of the DCP. This talks about councils requiring Development Contributions where additional infrastructures are required from a development project.

Also Section 198 & paragraph 56 of the DCP. This talks about Council requiring Development Contribution where consents are granted for projects.

Both those situations apply to this project. Where consent is required for a development project, council may require Development Contribution for additional demand placed on infrastructure from the development project.

The key provisions of the Local Government Act (s199 - 201) anticipate a "consequence of capital expedniture" for Council  from the development. Arguably that consequence should have a proximate nexus to the development itself and not be a potential consequence extrapolated out in many years from the development. The basis of a grant of resource consent is also part tool to deal with potential effects and considerable planning and investment by Oceania was made to tailor a development to meet community needs as well as its own.

Signatories

Authors

Troy Churton, Orakei Local Board Member

Authorisers

Adam Milina - Acting Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

 

 


Orākei Local Board

01 May 2014

 

 

Review of dog access rules

 

File No.: CP2014/06112

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report is for the local board to adopt a Statement of Proposal containing proposed changes to local dog access rules in its local board area for the purposes of public notification for submissions in mid 2014.

Executive Summary

2.       The local board in 2013 decided to review current local dog access rules in the following areas to determine whether any changes should be proposed.

·        All beach and non-beach coastal areas and any adjoining parks.

·        Waiatarua Reserve.

·        Thomas Bloodworth, Shore Road, Shore Road East reserves

·        Saint Johns

·        Dog exercise areas

·        Safe swimming areas or lanes

·        Picnic and fitness apparatus areas

·        Significant ecological areas

3.       To assist the board in identifying whether any changes to the current local dog access rules in the above areas should be proposed, community views were sought through an on-line survey and at the Orakei Local Board EXPOs. Internal views were sought from biodiversity, biosecurity, local and sports parks, licensing and compliance, and community policy and planning.

4.       The information gathered has been used to identify issues and develop reasonably practicable options. The issues and options are contained in the Statement of Proposal in Attachment B and restated under “Issues and Options” below.

5.       The decision required of the board is to select a preferred option for each issue and adopt a Statement of Proposal for any option that requires a change to a current local dog access rule.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Orākei Local Board:

a)      Confirm its intention to amend the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 pursuant to section 10(8) of the Dog Control Act 1996.

b)      Adopt the following options in relation to the dog access rules reviewed:

Issue

Preferred option

Coastal dog access Okahu Bay to Roberta Reserve

[to be determined by local board, refer Table 1 for options]

Protection of coastal wildlife

Option 1 of Table 2 - apply under control on-leash dog access on the foreshore from Hobson Bay to The Landing, and retain current dog prohibition on Tahuna Torea Reserve and associated beach and foreshore areas.

Waiatarua Reserve

Option 1 of Table 3, retain under control off-leash dog access except in western part of the reserve (on-leash) and wetland (prohibited).

Shore Road sportspark redevelopment

[to be determined by local board, refer Table 4 for options]

Under control off-leash access in Saint Johns

Option 1 of Table 5 - no change. Current opportunities for under control off-leash dog access in St Johns adequate.

Legacy council confusing and ambiguous dog access rules

Option 1 of Table 6 - reclassify dog exercise areas as under control off-leash areas and revoke general picnic and fitness apparatus rule.

c)      Subject to any amendments to give effect to b) above, adopt the statement of proposal titled “Statement of Proposal Amendment Auckland Council to Policy on Dogs 2012 – Orakei  Local Board area May 2014” (Attachment B of this report) that is to contain only proposed changes to current dog access rules for public consultation through the special consultative procedure.

d)      Confirm that the proposed amendments:

i)        are consistent with the policy, principles and criteria for making dog access rules contained in the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012; and

ii)       are not inconsistent with any decision in relation to region-wide dog access rules contained in the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012; and

iii)      are in accordance with relevant legislative requirements in particular the Local Government Act 2002 and Dog Control Act 1996.

e)      Authorise the Manager Policies and Bylaws to make any minor edits or amendments to the statement of proposal to correct any identified errors or typographical edits.

f)       Appoint three members as a panel to receive, hear and deliberate on submissions and other relevant information and recommend changes to the proposal.

g)      Delegates to the Chairperson of the Orakei Local Board the ability to make changes to the panel appointed under f) where this becomes necessary because of the withdrawal or unavailability of any of those persons.

 

 

Discussion

6.       The adoption of the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 (policy on dogs) introduced the power for local boards to change local dog access rules in their local board areas. It also introduced a process to co-ordinate changes to across all 21 local boards for specific parks and beaches on an annual basis. This provides a more timely and robust discussion of dog access at specific locations that require review as opposed to the previous practice which reviewed every area once every five to ten years.

7.       The Orakei local board area has a population of around 81,000 people, has around 28,000 households and around 5,600 dogs. This means around 18 percent of households in the Orakei local board area has a dog[1].

8.       The local board in 2013 decided to review current local dog access rules in the following areas to determine whether any changes should be proposed.

·        All beach and non-beach coastal areas and any adjoining parks.

Reason: To comply with the delegated duty of the board to undertake this review.

·        Waiatarua Reserve.

Reason: To investigate matters raised in submissions in 2012 to the policy on dogs.

·        Thomas Bloodworth, Shore Road, Shore Road East reserves

Reason: To identify any changes as a result of the redevelopment of these reserves.

·        Saint Johns

Reason: To investigate adequacy of under control off-leash areas in Saint Johns.

·        Dog exercise areas

Reason: To clarify which areas meet the new criteria in policy on dogs, and which should be reclassified as areas where dogs can be taken under control off a leash.

·        Safe swimming areas or lanes

Reason: To clarify where these areas are and the type of dog access.

·        “Picnic” and “fitness apparatus” areas

Reason: To clarify where these areas are and the type of dog access.

·        Significant ecological areas

Reason: To clarify where these areas are and the type of dog access.

9.       To assist the board in identifying whether any changes to the current local dog access rules in the above areas should be proposed, the following research and engagement initiatives were undertaken:

·        On-line survey in March 2013 promoted through Our Auckland Orakei edition, Orakei subscribers to People’s Panel, Orakei Local Board stakeholders register, Orakei Local Board Facebook and Neighbourly webpages, and council’s local consultations webpage. The survey attracted 320 responses, including 119 Orakei dog owners, and 157 Orakei non-dog owners.

·        Displays at the three Orakei Local Board EXPOs held on 10, 11 and 15 February 2014. Discussions with residents at the EXPO greatly assisted the development of the on-line survey. However, the number of respondents was low and not reported here.

·        Consultation with selected environmental groups including Tahuna Torea Rangers and Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Whai Maia Ltd heritage and resource management unit.

·        Internal consultation with biodiversity, biosecurity, local and sports parks, licensing and compliance, and community policy and planning.

10.     The information gathered from the research and consultation was used to identify issues and develop reasonably practicable options. The issues and options are contained in the Statement of Proposal in Attachment B and restated under “Issues and Options” below.

11.     The decision required of the board is to select a preferred option for each issue below and adopt a Statement of Proposal for any option that requires a change to a current local dog access rule.

12.     A report on the survey results and maps may be provided as a supplementary report.

Issues and Options

Coastal dog access rules Okahu Bay to Roberta Reserve

13.     The issues are firstly, whether the current dog access to coastal areas (beach, foreshore, parks adjoining and accessible from the beach or foreshore, and safe swimming areas and lanes) provide for public safety and comfort and the needs of dogs and their owners. The second issue is to identify where these areas are and to clarify the type of dog access.

14.     The outcome sought is to provide for public safety and comfort and the needs of dogs and their owners, and to ensure dog access rules are easier to understand (less complicated) by clarifying or revoking ambiguous dog access rules, and ensuring any changes are easy to understand “on the ground”.

15.     Current coastal rules generally apply a time and season rule on beaches (see Table 1A), and allow dogs under control on a leash on adjoining parks. Exceptions include Roberta Reserve which is an under control off-leash area, and safe swimming areas or lanes which are prohibited to dogs. Neither beaches or safe swimming areas or lanes are identified by name making dog access rules difficult to understand or communicate.

16.     Community views in an on-line survey are that:

·        The most popular top 3 places in Auckland that 117 Orakei dog owners like to take their dog are

Place

Number of dog owners

Place

Number of dog owners

1.   Waiatarua Reserve

58

2.   Kohimarama Beach

45

3.   Saint Heliers Beach

40

4.   Orakei Basin Reserve

36

·        The most popular beaches by both Orakei dog owners and Orakei non-dog owners are in Mission Bay, Kohimarama Bay and St Heliers, followed by Okahu Bay.

·        Beaches are visited most one to two times a week throughout the year, with the most visits in January and March.

·        The most popular activities in January and March are relaxing, picnicking and playing on the sand. Walking and running both with and without a dog are constant activities throughout the year.

·        Attitudes towards dogs are polarised. The majority (64 percent) of Orakei dog owners do not mind being approached by other people’s dogs, while the majority of Orakei non-dog owners (65 percent) do not want to be approached by dogs.

·        Around 60 percent of non-dog owners were concerned about dog behaviour on beaches in the last two years, compared to 19 percent of dog owners. The most common concerns related to dog owners not controlling their dogs, ignoring the rules, and not removing faeces, followed by being jumped on, licked, sniffed, or pawed by dogs or frightening children.

·        Orakei dog owners think summer rules should start on 1 December (33 percent), closely followed by labour weekend, but only on weekends, public and school holidays (30 percent). Labour weekend was preferred by only 11 percent of Orakei dog owners, with 21 percent preferring daylight saving. Orakei non-dog owners prefer daylight saving (46 percent) or labour weekend (31 percent).

·        Orakei dog owners are divided on when summer rules should end, with 35 percent choosing daylight savings and 33 percent choosing 1 March. Orakei non-dog owners clear preference is daylight saving (48 percent).

·        Both Orakei dog owners and non-dog owners think beaches are averagely to very busy in summer after 5pm on weekends (over 70 percent). In contrast, both groups think beaches are not very busy after 5pm on weekends in winter and before 10am on weekends in summer or winter (more than 60 percent for non-dog owners and more than 80 percent of dog owners).

·        In winter, both groups think beaches are not very busy before 10am in summer or winter (more than 60 percent in summer and 80 per cent winter).

·        The below tables show the desired dog access time and season rules for beaches in Orakei and reflect the combined views of the most frequented beaches (Okahu Bay, Mission Bay, Kohimarama Bay and St Heliers Bay).

Orakei time and season rule desired by Orakei dog owners

Orakei time and season rule desired by Orakei non-dog owners

Summer

 

 

Summer

 

 

Before 10am

10am to 6pm

After 6pm

Before 9am

9am to 6pm

After 6pm

Off-leash

On-leash

Off-leash

On-leash

Prohibited

On-leash

Winter

 

 

Winter

 

 

Before 11am

11am to 4pm

After 4pm

Before 11am

11am to 4pm

After 4pm

Off-leash

On-leash*

Off-leash

On-leash

On-leash**

On-leash

*    44 percent of dog owners selected on-leash, however 43 percent selected off-leash.

** 46 percent of non-dog owners selected on-leash, however 44 percent selected prohibited.

·        The majority of Orakei residents (both dog owners and non-dog owners) do not know what the current beach dog access rules are in summer or winter, with the exception of Tahuna Torea. Less than 10 percent of either group correctly wrote the whole rule, and less than around 40 percent correctly wrote a part of the rule.

·        In the Hobson Bay foreshore, Orakei dog owners prefer dogs under control off-leash (67 percent) while Orakei non-dog owners prefer dogs under control on-leash (50 percent).

17.     Iwi views:

·        Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei own Okahu Bay - the land on the seaward side of Tamaki Drive including the grass and sand to mean high water springs. The land is managed by the Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Reserves Board as a reserve for the enjoyment of the public.

·        Under the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012, Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei are empowered to determine dog access on this area. This means, the Orakei Local Board only has jurisdiction to decide dog access on the foreshore, the area below mean high water springs.

·        At the time of writing, consultation with the Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Reserves Board had yet to be completed. Staff will provide an update at the meeting.

18.     The views of council staff involved in parks, animal management and bio-diversity are:

·        Okahu Bay to Ladies Bay

o   These are the busiest beaches in Orakei, and particularly Mission Bay, Kohimarama Bay and St Heliers Bay.

o   It is noted that Okahu Bay beach (above mean high water springs) is owned by Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei and subject to co-governance with Auckland Council, meaning it is not within the jurisdiction of the Orakei Local Board.

o   The current time and season dog access rules should remain unchanged as adopting the standard times and season of 5pm and 1 March would compromise public safety and comfort. The peak busy period extends to 31 March / end of daylight saving and well after 5pm to as late as 8pm or 9pm.

o   The current under control on-leash rule should continue to apply to the areas adjacent to Mission Bay beach, Kohimarama Bay beach and St Heliers Bay beach, this includes Selwyn Reserve, Kohimarama Bay Beach Reserve and St Heliers Bay Beach Reserve and includes the boardwalks.

o   The only designated swimming areas are in Kohimarama Bay and St Heliers Bay and dogs should continue to be prohibited from these areas.

· Ladies Bay to Roberta Reserve

o   This stretch of coastline is not as busy and parks staff consider this area could provide opportunity for more dog access. That said, animal management staff consider that some form of restriction should apply because dog owners do seek out places to take their dog and the areas are small with narrow access and limited parking. Animal management staff suggest retaining the current time and season rule for consistency.

o   The parks adjoining beach and foreshore areas should remain under control on-leash from Ladies Bay until Roberta Reserve which should remain an under control off-leash area.

19.     Reasonably practicable options are identified and analysed in Table 1 below that respond to the above views in accordance with the range of statutory, policy and delegated authority decision-making requirements.

20.     It is noted that the Orakei local board is required to use of the region-wide summer beach time and season standard (10am to 5pm, Labour weekend to 1 March) wherever a time and season rule is deemed appropriate to manage the safe interaction between dogs with their owners and people without dogs. Where a local board considers that doing so would contravene its statutory obligation to provide for public safety and comfort, it must either request an exemption from the governing body, or adopt a proposal that would not be inconsistent with the region-wide summer beach time and season standard.

Table 1: Options in relation to dog access on beach and foreshore areas

Option

Pros and Cons

Option 1

·   Apply the current time and season rule in Table 1A to Okahu Bay foreshore, and beach and foreshore areas after Okahu Bay to Roberta Reserve.

·   Retain the current under control on-leash rule in areas adjacent to Mission Bay beach to (but not including) Roberta Reserve. This includes Selwyn Reserve, Kohimarama Bay Beach Reserve and St Heliers Bay Beach Reserve and associated boardwalks).

Pros

·    No change to current rules.

·    Consistent rule on beach and foreshore areas between Okahu Bay and Roberta Reserve.

·    Protects public safety and comfort on busiest beaches.

·    Better supports views of non-dog owners, and parks and animal management staff.

·    Provides for public safety and comfort on areas adjoining beaches while still allowing under control on-leash dog access.

Cons

·    Requires Governing Body exemption to be inconsistent with region-wide summer standard time of 10am and 5pm. All other aspects of the rule are within the delegated authority of the Orakei Local Board. Note: the most important statutory obligation of the Orakei Local Board is to ensure decisions on dog access provide for public safety and comfort and the needs of dogs and their owners, consistency is a secondary objective.

·    Option unlikely to be supported by dog owners.

Option 2

·   Apply time and season rule in Table 1B to Okahu Bay foreshore, and beach and foreshore areas after Okahu Bay to Roberta Reserve.

·   Retain the current under control on-leash rule in areas adjacent to Mission Bay beach to (but not including) Roberta Reserve. This includes Selwyn Reserve, Kohimarama Bay Beach Reserve and St Heliers Bay Beach Reserve and associated boardwalks).

Pros

·    As per Option 1, except that it is a change to current dog access rules.

·    Provides single rule for both sand and water to reduce confusion.

Cons

·    As per Option 1, except that an exemption is only required to the 5pm standard summer beach time.

Option 3

·   Apply time and season rule in Table 1C to Okahu Bay foreshore, and beach and foreshore areas after Okahu Bay to Roberta Reserve.

·   Retain the current under control on-leash rule in areas adjacent to Mission Bay beach to (but not including) Roberta Reserve. This includes Selwyn Reserve, Kohimarama Bay Beach Reserve and St Heliers Bay Beach Reserve and associated boardwalks).

Pros

·    Consistent rule between Okahu Bay and Roberta Reserve.

·    Consistent with region-wide standard summer beach time and season (does not require exemption from Governing Body).

·    Maybe more supported by dog owners.

·    Provides for public safety and comfort on areas adjoining beaches while still allowing under control on-leash dog access.

Cons

·    May result in public safety and comfort issues. All views agree the beaches from Okahu Bay to St Heliers Bay are busy after 5pm, at least till 6pm. Parks and animal management staff indicate beaches are busy as late as 9pm in Mission Bay

·    Parks and animal management staff do not recommend this option. If the option is adopted, parks staff recommends dogs be prohibited after 5pm.

·    Unlikely to be supported by non-dog owners.

Option 4

·   As per option 2 except, that:

·   Apply the time and season rule in Table 1A to only Okahu Bay foreshore, and beach and foreshore areas after Okahu Bay to Ladies Bay.

·   Apply under control off-leash at all times rule to all beach and foreshore areas from Ladies Bay to Roberta Reserve.

Pros

·    As per option 1 for Okahu Bay to St Heliers Bay.

·    Allows under control off-leash access at all times on beach and foreshore areas from Ladies Bay to the current under control off-leash area on Roberta Reserve.

Cons

·    As per option 1 for Okahu Bay to St Heliers Bay.

·    May create public safety and comfort issues as may attract more dog owners than can be accommodated. The beach areas are difficult to access (narrow and steep walkways) with limited parking. Some foreshore areas may not be a very desirable place for dog owners to take their dog.

·    Animal management staff do not recommend this option.

·    Creates an inconsistent dog access rule to other beaches which may create confusion.

 

Table 1A: Current beach time and season rule

Note: Bold font indicates times or seasons inconsistent with region-wide summer time and season standard and which would require an exemption from the governing body.

Summer (Labour Weekend to Easter)*

 

Before 9am

9am to 7pm

(9pm Mission Bay)

After 7pm

(9pm Mission Bay)

Sand

On-leash

Prohibited

On-leash

Water

Off-leash

Prohibited

Off-leash

Winter (after Easter to before Labour weekend)*

 

Before 10am

10am to 4pm

After 4pm

Sand

Off-leash

On-leash

Off-leash

Water

Off-leash

Off-leash

Off-leash

*   Dogs prohibited at all times from marked swimming areas on Kohimarama beach and St Heliers Beach.

 

Table 1B: Optional beach time and season rule

Note: Bold font indicates times or seasons inconsistent with region-wide summer time and season standard and which would require the local board to request an exemption to the standard.

Note: There a variety of times, seasons and type of dog access that could be selected for this option based on the views obtained. These alternatives are shown in [   ].

Summer (Labour Weekend to 31 March)* [1 December], [Daylight saving]

 

Before 10am

[9am]

10am to 7pm (9pm Mission Bay)

[9am], [6pm]

After 7pm (9pm Mission Bay)

[6pm]

Sand and water

On-leash

[Off-leash]

Prohibited

[On-leash]

On-leash

[Prohibited]

[Off-leash]

Winter (1 April to before Labour weekend)* [Daylight saving]

 

Before 11am

[10am]

11am to 4pm

[10am]

After 4pm

Sand and water

Off-leash

[On-leash]

On-leash

[Prohibited]

[Off-leash]

Off-leash

[On-leash]

*   Dogs prohibited at all times from marked swimming areas on Kohimarama beach and St Heliers Beach.

 

Table 1C: Optional beach time and season rule

Note: There a variety of types of dog access that could be selected for this option based on the views obtained. These alternatives are shown in [   ].

Summer (Labour Weekend to 31 March)*

 

Before 10am

10am to 5pm

After 5pm

Sand and water

On-leash

[Off-leash]

Prohibited

[On-leash]

On-leash

[Prohibited]

[Off-leash]

Winter (1 April to before Labour weekend)*

 

Before 11am

11am to 4pm

After 4pm

Sand and water

Off-leash

[On-leash]

On-leash

[Prohibited]

[Off-leash]

Off-leash

[On-leash]

*   Dogs prohibited at all times from marked swimming areas on Kohimarama beach and St Heliers Beach.

 

Protection of coastal wildlife

21.     The issue relates to uncertainty about where coastal significant ecological areas are in the Orakei local board area that contain wildlife or natural habitat vulnerable to dogs and to determine whether the current dog access rule provides for the protection of that wildlife or natural habitat.

22.     The outcome sought is to provide for the protection of wildlife and natural habitat vulnerable to dogs, and to ensure dog access rules are easier to understand (less complicated) by clarifying or revoking ambiguous dog access rules, and ensuring any changes are easy to understand “on the ground”.

23.     Current rules require dogs to be under control on a leash in significant ecological areas, with the exception of Tahuna Torea in which dogs are prohibited at all times. With the exception of Tahuna Torea, significant ecological areas are not identified, making dog access rules difficult to communicate and understand.

24.     Protected bird species particularly vulnerable to dogs are those that nest, roost, breed or feed in wetland or inter-tidal areas.  The presence of dogs can cause ground-nesting and other birds to leave the nest resulting in loss of clutches and broods, can disrupt feeding which is particularly important for migratory birds, and ground-nesting species are particularly vulnerable to attack by dogs.

25.     Dog restrictions in protected wildlife areas is not only about protecting wildlife, but also avoiding the possible destruction of dogs and significant penalties on owners. Under the Dog Control Act 1996 it is an offence to allow dogs to roam or attack protected wildlife. Penalties include seizure and destruction of the dog and for the owner imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or a fine not exceeding $20,000, or both. Under section 63 of the Wildlife Act 1953 it is an offence to kill or disturb wildlife. Penalties for individuals include imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine not exceeding $100,000, or both.

26.     The views of environmental groups are that:

·        Tahuna Torea dog prohibition should remain. Area of nationally significance, seasonal home for migratory wading birds (including Terns, Oyster Catchers). Birdlife vulnerable to mid-tide from disruption to feeding and nesting.

·        Dogs should be under control on a leash in Hobson Bay.

27.     Iwi views obtained from a representative of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei are that:

·        Dogs should be under control on-leash on in areas of ecological restoration, including in Kepa Bush, Whenua Rangatira, Dingle Dell Reserve, Okahu Bay, Orakei Domain and Orakei Basin Reserve. Dogs should either be under control on-leash or prohibited from significant ecological areas.

·        It is noted that most of these parks are currently under control on-leash areas, with the exception of Okahu Bay where the beach has a time and season rule, and Orakei Basin Reserve which allows dogs under control off-leash.

28.     The views of council staff involved in parks, animal management and bio-diversity are:

·        Hobson Bay to The Landing

o   Dogs should be allowed under control on-leash on Hobson Bay and upper reaches adjacent to Kepa Bush to better protect birdlife. Wildlife is partially protected by the soft substrate which makes physical access difficult, meaning on-leash access will not result in dogs moving far from the shoreline. The adjoining land is also mostly under control on-leash areas following the Hobson Walkway, boating areas, Tamaki Drive and Ngapipi Road.

o   The above recommendation would mean changing the current time and season dog access on Wilson’s Beach to under control on-leash. It is a small beach, at the end of the main entrance from Victoria Avenue and part of the Hobson Bay Walkway.

o   Dogs allowed under control off-leash in the Orakei Basin, which is consistent with the under control off-leash access on the adjacent Orakei Basin West and East Reserves. There is no birdlife in the basin needing protection because the impounding of the water has destroyed any habitat.

·        Tahuna Torea

o   Dogs should continue to be prohibited at all times from Tahuna Torea to better protect birdlife. It is an important water and shorebird feeding area with a hard substrate making physical access easier.

29.     Reasonably practicable options are identified and analysed in Table 1 below that respond to the above views in accordance with the range of statutory, policy and delegated authority decision-making requirements.

Table 2: Options in coastal protection of wildlife

Option

Pros and Cons

Option 1

·   Apply under control on-leash dog access on Hobson Bay and upper reaches adjacent to Kepa Bush, including Wilson’s Beach to The Landing (8-12 Tamaki Drive).

·   Retain the current dog prohibition on in Tahuna Torea and associated beach and foreshore from the public walkway between 24 and 26 Vista Crescent to its boundary on West Tamaki and Tahaki Roads.

Pros

·    Protects wildlife in Hobson Bay and Tahuna Torea.

Cons

·    Negligible. Changes proposed are in areas less used with the possible exception of Wilson’s Beach which has been recently developed and has no dog signage.

·   Option 2 No change to current rules

Pros

·    No change to current rules.

Cons

·    Does not address concerns about better protecting birdlife, or protecting dogs from possible destruction and owners from significant penalties should incidents of dogs attacking or disturbing protected wildlife occur.

 

Waiatarua Reserve

30.     The issue is whether the current dog access in Waiatarua Reserve provide for public safety and comfort and the needs of dogs and their owners, and the protection of wildlife.

31.     The outcome sought is to provide for public safety and comfort, the needs of dogs and their owners, and the protection of wildlife.

32.     Current rules allow dogs under control off a leash in Waiatarua Reserve. This excludes the wetland area and car park where dogs are allowed under control on a leash; the playground, basketball court, and skateboard bowl where dogs are prohibited and must be under control on a leash in the vicinity when in use; and the maintenance sheds, yards and toilet blocks where dogs are prohibited unless allowed by a sign or person in charge. A map of the current dog access rules is contained in Attachment A.

33.     Current signage contradicts the current rules. The wetland area has 7 dogs prohibited signs (instead of on-leash). The remainder of the park has 2 on-leash signs (instead of off-leash) and 5 off-leash signs. However, 3 of 5 off-leash signs incorrectly refer to a 10m prohibition areas around playgrounds (current rule is on-leash in vicinity when in use).

34.     Community views from the on-line survey are that:

·        Waiatarua Reserve is the most popular “top 3 place” in Auckland that Orakei dog owners like to take their dog.

·        Dog owners want to retain current off-leash access in the grass areas (84 percent) and under control on-leash access to the wetland area (46 percent).

·        Non-dog owners support off-leash access on the grass (32 percent), although 28 percent prefer under control on-leash access. In the wetland area, non-dog owners are split between prohibiting dogs and allowing dogs under control on-leash (36 percent).

·        General reasons emphasise the reserve as a great place to take dogs under control off-leash, the need to protect bird breeding and nesting areas in the wetland, and problems with dogs near the playground and skate park.

·        The survey results appeared to identify some uncertainty about what “wetland” means. Consultation with environmental groups and staff were sought to clarify this issue.

35.     Community views from environmental groups are that:

·        the wetland (the wet areas of the reserve that is physically difficult to access) should be prohibited to dogs to better protect wildlife, including Malards and Pukeko.

36.     The views of council staff involved in parks, animal management and bio-diversity are:

·        that the grass areas should remain under control off-leash.

·        that the wetland (the wet areas of the reserve that is physically difficult to access and the viewing platforms, but excluding the pond where dogs currently play in the water) should be prohibited to dogs to better protect wildlife.

·        the western part of the reserve off Grand Drive should be under control on-leash for public safety comfort. This area contains the car park, playground, basketball court and skateboard bowl. The area is well defined with a fence separating this area from the vast majority of the park.

37.     Reasonably practicable options are identified and analysed in Table 2 below that respond to the above views in accordance with the range of statutory, policy and delegated authority decision-making requirements.

Table 3: Options in relation to dog access in Waiatarua Reserve

Option

Pros and Cons

Option 1 (see Map in Attachment A)

Dogs allowed under control off-leash in Waiatarua Reserve, except:

(i)  in the wetland area where dogs are prohibited.

Wetland means the area in the middle of the reserve that is physically difficult to access and includes the two wetland viewing platforms, but excludes the pond on the eastern edge of the wetland where dogs are allowed under control off-leash.

(ii) in the western part of the reserve where dogs are allowed under control on a leash.

The western part of the reserve is the area off Grand Drive containing the car park, playground, basketball court and skateboard bowl to the fence before the open grass areas.

Pros

·    Clarifies dog access rules

·    Retains under control off-leash access on grass and bush areas.

·    Better protects wildlife in main wetland area.

·    Better provides for public safety and comfort around playground, basketball court and skateboard bowl.

Cons

·    Dog owners may perceive change as a reduction in dog access.

Option 2 No change to current rules

Pros

·    No change to current rules.

Cons

·    Does not address concerns about better protecting birdlife, or public safety and comfort around playground and skateboard bowl.

 

Thomas Bloodworth, Shore Road, Shore Road East, Waitaramoa and Wharau reserves

38.     The issue is whether the current dog access rules when applied to Thomas Bloodworth, Shore Road and Shore Road East reserves (three adjoining parks) following the planned redevelopment will provide for public safety and comfort and the needs of dogs and their owners. The redevelopment is intended to improve sportsfield quality and capacity while at the same time also improving informal recreation opportunities.

39.     The outcome sought is to provide for public safety and comfort and the needs of dogs and their owners.

40.     Current rules when applied after three adjoining parks are redeveloped will mean dogs will continue to be allowed under control off a leash on sports fields at certain times and seasons on Thomas Bloodworth and Shore Road reserves (see table below), but prohibited at all times on sports fields on Shore Road East reserves.


 


Current Thomas Bloodworth and Shore Road time and season rule

Summer (Labour Weekend to Easter)

 

Before 8am

8am to 7pm

After 7pm

Marked grass sports surface

On-leash

Prohibited

On-leash

Winter (after Easter to before Labour weekend)

 

Before 8am

8am to 5pm

After 5pm

Marked grass sports surface

Off-leash

Prohibited

Off-leash

41.     Dog access on sports surfaces in Thomas Bloodworth and Shore Road reserves are a local exemption that seeks to provide dog owners access to large flat open grass areas to enjoy with their under control off-leash dogs at times when not being maintained or used for sports.

42.     The local exemption is park specific and does not apply to Shore Road East Reserve. Instead the Auckland wide rule would apply which prioritises the health of sports players from disease in faeces and urine, field health for sport use, avoidance of conflict with ground maintenance work (which also provides for the welfare of dogs from chemical exposure and machinery) and avoidance of conflict with other casual users.

43.     The current rules when applied after three adjoining parks are redeveloped will also mean dogs will continue to be allowed under control on a leash on the remainder of Thomas Bloodworth and Shore Road reserves, but under control off a leash on Shore Road East reserve.

44.     The Hobson Bay walkway would traverse both under control on-leash and under control off-leash areas.

45.     A map of dog access rules post park redevelopment is contained in Attachment A.

46.     Community views from an on-line survey are that:

·        Thomas Bloodworth / Shore Road reserves are the sixth most popular “top 3 place” in Auckland that Orakei dog owners like to take their dog.

·        Both Orakei dog owners (61 percent) and non-dog owners (78 percent) think dogs should be prohibited on artificial sports surfaces.

·        On grass sports surface, Orakei non-dog owners prefer dogs to be prohibited (54 percent), Orakei dog owners are more divided between under control on-leash access (32 percent) and time and season (31 percent).

·        On Hobson Bay walkway and all other parts of Thomas Bloodworth, Shore Road and Shore Road East reserves, Orakei dog owners prefer dogs under control off a leash (54 percent and 56 percent respectively), while Orakei non-dog owners prefer dogs under control on a leash (74 percent and 58 percent respectively).

·        On the open grass areas of Waitaramoa and Wharau Reserves, Orakei dog owners prefer dogs under control off-leash (around 83 percent). Orakei non-dog owners are more divided, with around 38 percent suggesting under control off-leash dog access, and another 36 percent suggesting under control on-leash dog access.

·        In the Waitaramoa and Wharau Reserve wetland both Orakei dog owners and non-dog owners prefer dogs under control on-leash (around 45 percent each).

47.     Community views from sports groups are that:

·        Parnell Cricket Club and Grammar Juniors Rugby Football Club representatives prefer dogs to be prohibited from grass and artificial sports surfaces, and under control on a leash in all other parts of Thomas Bloodworth, Shore Road and Shore Road East reserves. Reasons include unhealthy playing surfaces from dog faeces and urine, in particular the heightened risk of toxoplasmosis, and damage to grass cricket wicket.

48.     Community views from environmental groups are that:

·        Dogs should be prohibited in the wetland (the areas physically difficult to access)

49.     The views of council staff involved in parks, animal management and bio-diversity can be summarised as

·        Prohibit dogs on sports surfaces (both grass and artificial surfaces) and allow dogs under control on-leash in all other areas of Thomas Bloodworth, Shore Road and Shore Road East Reserves.

·        To mitigate the reduction in dog access on the sports parks, allow dogs under control off-leash at all times on Wharau Reserve and develop Waitaramoa as a “dog park”. Matters for consideration will need to include fencing of the playground on Wharau Reserve, boundary treatment of the Waitaramoa wetland and along Shore Road, development of the tracks linking Waitaramoa and Wharau Reserves to improve access and sightlines to enable continuous under control off-leash dog access, and a pedestrian crossing across Shore Road. It is important to note that boundary treatment does not necessarily mean fencing, or that fencing be a 1.8m high deer fence. Dog parks need clear access points and visual boundaries.

·        The Waitaramoa wetland would be prohibited to dogs, and Hobson Bay foreshore an under control on-leash area to protect birdlife. The difference in dog access relates to the size of the area, use of the area by birds, types of birds and ease of physical access.

·        The suggested changes would be phased. The changes to Thomas Bloodworth, Shore Road, Waitaramoa and Wharau Reserves would commence immediately. The changes to Shore Road East Reserve would occur upon redevelopment which is expected to be some time in 2020/21. The development of Waitaramoa and Wharau Reserves would coincide with the redevelopment of Shore Road East Reserve and at which time Waitaramoa Reserve would be classifies as a “designated dog exercise area”.

50.     It is noted that previous advice from the Institute of Veterinary, Animal and Biomedical Sciences at Massey University recommended that dog access to sports fields be discouraged to avoid exposing players to the possibility of falling into faeces and because of perceived health risks.

51.     Reasonably practicable options are identified and analysed in Table 3 below that respond to the above views in accordance with the range of statutory, policy and delegated authority decision-making requirements.

Table 4: Options in relation to dog access in Thomas Bloodworth, Shore Road, Shore Road East Reserves following redevelopment (and Waitaramoa and Wharau Reserves)

Option

Pros and Cons

Option 1 (see Map in Attachment A)

(i) Commencing October 2014,

·    On Thomas Bloodworth and Shore Road Reserves, prohibit dogs on sports surfaces (both grass and artificial surfaces) and allow dogs under control on-leash in all other areas. Means removing current exemption that allows time and season dog access on grass sports surfaces and adopting the region-wide rule that prohibits dogs on all sports surfaces.

·    On Shore Road East Reserve, continue to allow dogs under control off-leash.

·    On Waitaramoa Reserve retain under control off-leash dog access on open grass areas, and prohibit dogs on wetland.

(ii) Indicate an intention to develop Waitaramoa Reserve and Wharau Reserve no later than the redevelopment of Shore Road East Reserve to provide a dog park in Waitaramoa Reserve, to fence the playground on Wharau Reserve, to develop the tracks linking Waitaramoa and Wharau Reserves to improve access and sightlines to enable continuous under control off-leash dog access, and to develop a pedestrian crossing across Shore Road. Boundary treatment of the Waitaramoa wetland and along Shore Road will need to be considered.

(iii) Indicate an intention in statement of proposal (subject to further consultation) to make the following changes to dog access rules to commence on completion of redevelopment of Shore Road East Reserve into a sports park (expected in 2020/21):

·    On Shore Road East Reserve, prohibit dogs on sports surfaces (both grass and artificial surfaces) and allow dogs under control on-leash in all other areas. This would mean removing the current under control off-leash access.

·    Reclassify the open grass areas of Waitaramoa Reserve as a “designated dog exercise area”, and allow under control off-leash dog access in all other areas (excluding wetland).

·    On Wharau Reserve allow dogs under control off-leash on all areas (excluding playground).

Note: It is not appropriate to propose changes 5-6 years in advance of the change coming into effect. A further proposal closer to the 2020/21 is required.

Pros

·    Addresses concerns of non-dog owners and sports clubs.

·    Consistent with region-wide dog access rule on sports surfaces (dogs prohibited).

·    Maintains to the extent that is practicable under control off-leash access in the vicinity of Shore Road.

Cons

·    Perceived reduction in amount or quality of under control off-leash dog access. It is important to note that the current under control off-leash dog access on Thomas Bloodworth and Shore Road Reserve is time based. Shore Road East Reserve currently allows dogs under control off-leash at all times. It is suggested that the reduction in under control off-leash dog access be mitigated by allowing under control off-leash at all times dog access on Wharau Reserve and through enhancement of Wharau and Waitaramoa Reserves for under control off-leash dog access, perhaps similar to the very popular Waiatarua Reserve.

Option 2

(i)  No change to current rules

(ii) Indicate an intention in report resolutions (subject to further consultation) to make the following changes to dog access rules to commence on completion of redevelopment of Shore Road East Reserve into a sports park (expected in 2020/21). The changes would ensure consistency with dog access rules on Thomas Bloodworth and Shore Road Reserves:

·    Seek an exemption from the Governing Body to allow time and season dog access on grass sports surfaces in Shore Road East Reserve.

·    To allow dogs under control on-leash in all other parts of Shore Road East Reserve.

Note: It is not appropriate to propose changes 5-6 years in advance of the change coming into effect. A further proposal closer to the 2020/21 is required.

Pros

·    No change to current rules.

Cons

·    Does not address concerns about dog access on grass sports fields or protecting birdlife in Waitaramoa Reserve.

 

Saint Johns

52.     The issue is whether the current opportunities to take dogs under control off a leash in Saint Johns meet the needs of Saint Johns dog owners.

53.     The outcome sought is to provide for public safety and comfort and the needs of dogs and their owners.

54.     Current areas where dogs can be taken under control off a leash in and around Saint Johns include Waiatarua Reserve, Fancourt Reserve, Norman Lesser Reserve, Allan Johnstone Reserve, Morrin Reserve, Merton Road Reserve, and Eastview Reserve. A map of current under control off-leash areas is contained in Attachment A.

55.     Community views from the on-line survey were obtained from 35 St Johns residents, of which 18 were dog owners. Their views are that:

·        the top three parks in St Johns that St Johns dog owners like to visit (whether or not they have a dog) are Waiatarua Reserve (45 percent) and Merton Road Reserve (10 percent).

·        the top three parks in St Johns that St Johns non-dog owners like to visit are Waiatarua Reserve (52 percent), Stonefields (9 percent) and Merton Road Reserve (9 percent).

·        The top three parks in Auckland that St Johns dog owners like to take their dog under control off-leash are Waiatarua Reserve (32 per cent), Kohimarama Beach (16 percent) and Madills Farm (10 percent).

·        Specific changes to allow under control off-leash dog access on parks in St Johns was identified by only three St Johns dog owners. The parks were Ngahue Reserve, Rutherford Reserve and St Johns Bush.

56.     The views of council staff involved in parks and animal management are that:

·        Parks staff note that St Johns Bush has a pest management programme to help bush regeneration, and that the current rule that allows dogs under control on a leash is appropriate.

·        Parks staff note that Ngahue Reserve is intended to be developed for active recreation, including netball (Auckland Netball Centre) and football (Oceania Football Confederation). No change to dog access is recommended on this reserve at this time.

·        Animal management staff note that Rutherford Reserve is not currently suitable as an under control off-leash area. The reserve has playground areas located close to the main entrance, and not all adjoining properties are fenced.

·        In relation to the recent purchase of Colin Maiden Park from the University of Auckland, parks staff recommends no change to the current default dog access rules. Dogs are currently prohibited on sports surfaces and allowed under control on a leash in all other outdoor areas. Staff noted that a concept plan for the future development of the sports park will be initiated in the 2014/2015 business year.

57.     Reasonably practicable options are identified and analysed in Table 5 below that respond to the above views in accordance with the range of statutory, policy and delegated authority decision-making requirements.

 

Table 5: Options in relation to under control off leash dog access in Saint Johns

Option

Pros and Cons

Option 1 No change to current dog access rules

Means the Orakei Local Board is satisfied that the current opportunities in Saint Johns for dogs to be taken under control off a leash are adequate in terms of the balance between providing for public safety and comfort and the needs of dogs and their owners.

Pros

·    No change to current rules.

·    Further opportunity to revisit this matter on development of Colin Maiden Park.

Cons

·    None.

Option 2

No other reasonably practicable options have been identified, as there is no evidence that the current opportunities for under control off-leash access are inadequate.

 

n/a

 

Clarification of legacy council confusing and ambiguous dog access rules

58.     The issue is the uncertainty created by legacy council dog access rules that are confusing or ambiguous.

59.     The outcome sought is to ensure dog access rules are clear and easy to understand and communicate.

60.     Currently the Orakei local board area has a number of legacy council confusing or ambiguous dog access rules as follows.

a)      The places dogs can be taken under control off a leash in Auckland are either called “dog exercise areas” (the name used by the former Auckland City) or “off-leash areas”. Prior to 2012 these terms across Auckland were often used to mean the same thing.

The policy on dogs provides Auckland-wide definitions for consistency. “under control off-leash areas” refer to a place shared with other users while “designated dog exercise areas” refer to a place where dog owners are the priority user (e.g. a “dog park”).

Important: Regardless of the name, dog owners will still be able to take their dogs to these places under control off a leash. Exceptions apply to dogs classified by council as a “dangerous dog” – individual dogs known to be a threat to the safety of people or animals. There were two classified dangerous dogs in the Orakei local board area in 2010. Classified dangerous dogs must be under control on a leash and muzzled, even in under control off-leash areas.

b)      Dogs must be under control on a leash in picnic and fitness apparatus areas. The problem is that neither term is defined but there are many instances of isolated tables and BBQ facilities on parks. As a result resident’s (including dog owners) do not know where the rule applies (if they were aware of it at all), the rule is not widely communicated, and not enforced by animal management officers

61.     The views of council staff involved in parks and animal management are as follows:

a)      that all 35 current “dog exercise areas” are shared spaces where dog owners are “shared user” and should be called “under control off-leash areas”.

b)      that there are no local picnic or fitness apparatus areas that have boundaries that are easily seen when viewed “on the ground” or of a meaningful size that justifies a specific dog access rule. The existence of picnic and fitness assets should inform decisions on dog access on the whole or more meaningful part of a park.

62.     Reasonably practicable options are identified and analysed in Table 4 below that respond to the above views in accordance with the range of statutory, policy and delegated authority decision-making requirements.

Table 6: Options in relation to the clarification of legacy council confusing and ambiguous dog access rules

Option

Pros and Cons

Option 1

(i)    Reclassify dog exercise areas as under control off-leash areas

(ii)   Revoke general picnic and fitness apparatus rule.

 

Pros

·    Makes dog access rules easier to understand and communicate.

·    Removes confusion and implements policy on dogs about classification of “designated dog exercise areas” and “under control off-leash areas”.

·    Removes legacy confusing and ambiguous picnic area and fitness apparatus rules that are largely unknown and not enforced.

Cons

·    Cost to replace signage. This can be mitigated by including as part of parks maintenance.

·    Possible dog owner concern if change perceived to reduce dog access. The proposed changes does not reduce dog access (except for dogs classified as a “dangerous dog” of which there were two in the local board area in 2010). This can be mitigated through careful communication of the proposed changes.

Option 2 No change to current

Pros

·    No potential for dog owner concern that dog access is being reduced.  The proposed changes do not reduce dog access (except for “dangerous dogs”).

Cons

·    Inconsistent with policy on dogs.

·    Dog access rules remain difficult to communicate to public due to legacy council confusing or ambiguous nature of the rules.

Consideration

Decision-making requirements

63.     The process to change dog access rules requires the local board to comply with a range of statutory, policy and delegated authority requirements, including the adoption of a Statement of Proposal for the purposes of public notification for submissions.

64.     The most important statutory requirement is to ensure decisions on dog access provide for public safety and comfort and the needs of dogs and their owners. This means having regard to:

·        “the need to minimise danger, distress, and nuisance to the community generally; and

·        the need to avoid the inherent danger in allowing dogs to have uncontrolled access to public places that are frequented by children, whether or not the children are accompanied by adults; and

·        the importance of enabling, to the extent that is practicable, the public (including families) to use streets and public amenities without fear of attack or intimidation by dogs; and

·        the exercise and recreational needs of dogs and their owners.”

Section 10(4) Dog Control Act 1996

65.     The most important practical requirement is to make dog access rules easy to understand “on the ground”. Current dog access rules are a combination of general and specific dog access rules, meaning to know where you can take your dog under control off a leash, the dog owner must first find out all the places they cannot go. This approach is difficult to communicate and confusing for dog owners and general public alike.

66.     Further detail of the decision-making requirements and process (including policy on dogs and delegated authority requirements) is provided in Attachment C.

Local Board Views

67.     The views of other local boards have not been sought.

Maori Impact Statement

68.     Following the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee’s resolution in September 2013, officers have worked closely with the Independent Māori Statutory Board, and the Te Waka Angamua team within the council to develop an engagement plan and briefing papers for Māori. The council invited Mana Whenua representatives to give their views on animal management matters. Following the distribution to 19 iwi of an information sheet on animal management issues, iwi representatives were invited to attend two hui on 21 and 22 October 2013.

69.     Feedback from representatives at the two hui related to the ability of iwi to determine dog access on Marae, a focus on control, responsible dog ownership, and ensuring the protection of sensitive ecological areas.

70.     Where dogs are required to be under control on a leash and the protection of sensitive ecological areas within the local board area is a matter that the local board has the power to decide.

71.     The other matters are addressed elsewhere. Region-wide dog access rules provide for the iwi to determine dog access on Marae. Control and responsible dog ownership are matters promoted by the Dog Control Act 1996 and Auckland Council’s Licensing and Compliance Services.

72.     At the time of writing, consultation with the Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Reserves Board had yet to be completed. Staff will provide an update at the meeting.

Implementation Issues

73.     Issues related to implementation relate to the local board costs for public notification initiatives; and the cost of any signage. The costs of implementation are expected to be obtained from existing budgets. The cost of signage will become clearer as the review progresses.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Maps

5

bView

Statement of Proposal

5

cView

Decision-making

5

      

Signatories

Author

Paul Wilson - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Andrew Simon Pickering - Manager, Planning, Policies and Bylaws

Adam Milina - Acting Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

 


Orākei Local Board

01 May 2014

 

 








Orākei Local Board

01 May 2014

 

 























Orākei Local Board

01 May 2014

 

 





Orākei Local Board

01 May 2014

 

 

The Landing - Eastern End Development Proposal

 

File No.: CP2014/08123

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report is to present a concept proposal submitted by Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei on behalf of the eastern end users of the Landing for a marine activities and education centre, Okahu Moana, for consideration of the Ōrākei Local Board. 

Executive summary

2.       A revised Landing concept plan was approved by the Ōrākei Local Board (Board) on 08 August 2013 and an implementation plan approved at the September 2013 meeting. The concept plan identifies a multi-sport paddling centre as a new development on the eastern end of The Landing, along with the Akarana Marine Sports Trust operations centre.

3.       The key steps approved to progress implementation regarding the eastern end of The Landing were:

·    subject to the Local Board approving a concept design for the eastern end Multi-sport paddling centre, indicate the Ōrākei Local Board’s intention to work with Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei to progress a Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei led development of a proposal for a multisport paddling centre at the eastern end of The Landing. 

·    Develop a strategy to address existing leases at the eastern end to enable the multisport paddling centre development to commence

 

4.       The eastern end users, Ōrākei Water Sports, Auckland Canoe Club, Hauraki Water Sports, Fergs kayak, Waterwise Auckland and Auckland Sailing Club have been working with Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei to progress a concept plan that accommodates all users. Their proposal is now presented for the Board’s consideration, Attachment A.

5.       The next steps for the group, if the concept is to be progressed includes:

·    developing a formal structure under which to work. The proposal received suggests a Limited Liability Partnership be the mechanism. This is not a traditional structure that is usually used by Auckland Council when entering into a community lease arrangement. This needs careful consideration and further discussion with the group as to whether this is the appropriate mechanism.

·    developing a business case and testing the feasibility of the development.  This will require investment by the groups and commitment of time to complete.

 

6.       Progression of the eastern end development is contingent on gaining tenure of the land. A critical element to be addressed is the existing lease arrangements with Coastguard and Auckland Sailing Club, both of which have a renewal date in 2015 and termination in 2020. Coastguard were kept abreast of the Landing Concept Plan development and initial discussions have occurred with them about the possibility of early termination of their lease. These discussions, and discussions with Auckland Sailing Club now need to progress in order to provide some certainty as to the timeframes in which this project can be progressed.

 

Recommendations

That the Orākei Local Board:

a)      That the report be received

b)      The Ōrākei Local Board approve the concept design for the eastern end development of The Landing, Okahu Moana- Marine Activities and Education Centre as presented, noting that as design progresses the location of public ablutions and the use of the event facility space noted on the concept will need to be agreed with the board.

c)      The Ōrākei Local Board confirms its intention to work with Ōrākei Water Sports, Auckland Canoe Club, Hauraki Water Sports, Fergs kayak, Waterwise Auckland and Auckland Sailing Club to progress a Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei led development of a proposal for a multisport paddling centre at the eastern end of The Landing, noting that further discussions are required to agree an appropriate business structure for any future potential lease arrangement.

d)      That officers report back on further discussions with Coastguard and Auckland Sailing Club about potential options to relinquish their leases before expiry.

 

 

Comments

7.       The Ōrākei Local Board adopted the revised concept plan at an extraordinary meeting on 08 August 2013.  Key elements of the revised plan are:

·    A sailing led multi-use marine sports centre development on the site of the Royal Akarana Yacht Club with an operations centre at the eastern end

·    A multi-sports paddling centre at the eastern end accommodating Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei,  Ōrākei Watersports, Auckland Canoe Club, Hauraki Watersports and Fergs kayak operations

·    Extending the public boat ramp at the northern end and additional pontoons

·    Improved parking provision and efficient storage provision

·    Installation of the infrastructure to support a Travelift® operation pending a satisfactory business case

·    Public open space development at the three corners of the site with increased opportunities to access the water and improved connections to Okahu Bay and along Tamaki Drive

 

8.       An implementation plan was then developed and adopted by 5 September 2013. In relation to the eastern end development the Ōrākei Local Board resolved as follows:

 

B) i. commence discussions with the Coastguard Northern Region on the potential for relinquishing their lease prior to the 2020 lease termination date.

 

ii.     commence discussions with Auckland Sailing Club about options for relinquishing their lease of the R-Class Building on or before the 2015 renewal date.

 

iii.    issue Akarana Marine Sport Trust and Auckland Sailing Club with a Letter of Intent on behalf of the Orakei Local Board, co-signed by the Local Board Chair and The Landing Sub-Committee Chair, to confirm the Board’s commitment to work with them to progress an operations centre at the eastern end of The Landing, and the need to determine the design and alignment of the operations centre with the multi-sport paddling centre development and potential public ablution block;

 

iv.    subject to the Local Board approving a concept design for the eastern end Multi-sport paddling centre, issue Ngāti Whātua Orākei with a Letter of Intent on behalf of the Orakei           Local Board, co-signed by the Local Board Chair and The Landing Sub-Committee Chair,   confirming the Board’s commitment to work with Ngāti Whātua Orākei on the development of the eastern end Multi-sport paddling Centre at The Landing.

 

9.       A concept design and suggested structure has been submitted by Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei on behalf of the eastern end users Ōrākei Watersports, Waterwise Auckland, Auckland Canoe Club, Hauraki Watersports, Auckladn Sailing Club and Fergs kayak to the local board for consideration.

10.     The group has been working together informally and formed a shared vision and objectives for the development and documented this in a draft Memorandum of Understanding.  They have also expressed their commitment to work together in a meeting with members of The Landing Sub-Committee.  Auckland Sailing Club (ASC) has now become a foundation user of Akarana Marine Sports Centre (AMST), the AMST will now be directly engaged in discussion with the group (previously represented by ASC) regarding the AMST operations centre development.

Concept Plan

 

11.     The concept plan as presented accommodates all users and complements the AMST development at the other end of The Landing. Two areas in particular need further investigation if the concept plan is approved.  These can be addressed as any design progresses:

·    Public Ablution Block – there are currently two options for the location of the public ablutions.  One as shown in the plan as part of the development and a second option as a separate block located near the temporary dinghy lockers.

 

·    Events Space - The use of the events facility space adjacent the pontoon as a café space has been suggested by the eastern end users.  The Landing Sub-committee has asked for further discussion on this element. 

 

Proposed business structure

 

12.     Given the commonality of purpose, Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei is suggesting that an appropriate business structure would be a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP).

13.     This is not a structure that Council has used before when dealing with a community organization and in community lease arrangements. The appropriateness of this as a structure as compared to other commonly used approaches, such as charitable trusts, will require further discussion with Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei and the other user groups.

Business case and tenure of land

 

14.     In order to progress the development of the eastern end development, the group will need to develop a business case and assess the feasibility to develop what is proposed.  This will require the commitment of financial resources and the group member’s time.

15.     A key issue to address is the existing leases with Coastguard and Auckland Sailing Club. To date preliminary discussion has occurred with the Coastguard Chief Executive, following the September board meeting, on relinquishing their lease at renewal or prior to the 2020 lease expiry. It was agreed that further discussion would occur when a firm timeframe could be given to Coastguard to consider.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

16.    The Landing Sub-Committee has received a presentation on the concept plan for the eastern end development and met with the groups to confirm their commitment to work together, led by Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei, and address any concerns the groups may have had. It was agreed that the concept plan and proposed business structure would be presented to the Ōrākei Local Board business meeting for consideration.

Maori impact statement

17.     Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei, as mana whenua of the area, has a strong interest in all aspects of the development and management of The Landing. They have an interest in leading the development of the eastern end of The Landing and in particular leadership of the eastern end paddling centre development, Okahu Moana- Marine Activities and Education Centre.

Implementation

18.     The next phase of implementation, if the Board approves the eastern end paddling centre concept plan, is to progress discussion with Coastguard and Auckland Sailing Club to establish whether they are willing, and on what basis, to relinquish their leases earlier than the termination date.

19.     This will then give some direction to Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei and the wider group as to when they should commit resources to develop the business case for Okahu Moana- Marine Activities and Education Centre, to then come back to the local board for further consideration.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Memorandum - The Landing Structure

5

bView

Business Case - Tourism Growth Partnership

5

cView

Okahu Moana Views - Artist Impression

5

dView

Okahu Moana Marine Activities Education Centre - Concept A

5

eView

Okahu Moana Marine Activities Education Centre - Concept B

5

      

Signatories

Author

Jane Aickin - Manager Local and Sports Parks Central

Authorisers

Ian Maxwell - Manager Parks, Sports & Recreation

Adam Milina - Acting Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

 


Orākei Local Board

01 May 2014

 

 





Orākei Local Board

01 May 2014

 

 



















Orākei Local Board

01 May 2014

 

 


Orākei Local Board

01 May 2014

 

 


Orākei Local Board

01 May 2014

 

 


Orākei Local Board

01 May 2014

 

 


Orākei Local Board

01 May 2014

 

 


Orākei Local Board

01 May 2014

 

 



Orākei Local Board

01 May 2014

 

 

Financial Planning for Extreme Weather Events

 

File No.: CP2014/08217

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       This report provides an overview of the current financial management practice for dealing with extreme weather events in local parks assets across the region.  There are a number of issues and inconsistencies with the current practice and therefore it is recommended that a new and consistent approach be adopted. 

Executive Summary

2.       Auckland is prone to a range of extreme weather events including tornadoes, high tides, high winds, high rainfall and drought, all of which can contribute to sudden erosion, plant loss, tree fall, fixed asset damage and land slips.  12 local boards have some funding to deal with land slips and other effects from extreme weather but it is rarely sufficient when serious issues arise.  Nine boards have no inbuilt financial capacity to cope with the impact of weather events.

3.       Council has an obligation to plan for extreme weather events.  There is a legal and moral obligation to ensure that some rates funding is set aside for this purpose given that weather damage, while unpredictable in timing and location, is none-the-less a constant in the Auckland region as a whole. 

4.       Three options are considered in this report.  This first is to continue with the ad-hoc funding arrangement i.e. do nothing.  The second is to pool local board funding to essentially develop a regional self-insurance fund (local unallocated budget).  The third is to seek a regional fund, controlled by the governing body, which is applied for on a case by case basis.  The second approach is recommended.  The current arrangement will result in the need for local boards to cut existing budgets from time to time to react to weather events and overspend or approach the governing body regarding unforecast over expenditure.    The second option, which involves funding moving to the area of greatest need, is likely to cover most weather events, without changing existing regional expenditure, and minimizes the time delays/bureaucracy involved.

5.       In 2011, storms affected many areas and resulted in a number of severe slips on Waiheke Island.  In 2012 the Upper Harbour Local Board was hit by a major cyclone event and dealt with the extensive damage via cuts in their current work and over expenditure.  In 2013 all boards were affected by drought and a number of local boards have been affected by slips and erosion.  The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board and the Waitemata Local Board, in particular, are finding their current liabilities well beyond their individual ability to fund the remedies.  In general terms, extreme weather events affect coastal areas and older suburbs more than rural, flat or inland areas however all areas are prone to wind, drought and flooding.

6.       The financial information relating to events that have occurred in the last three years is poor due to the fact that funds were taken from a variety of Auckland Council sources and expenses were not labelled consistently.  As such the average financial risk for the region over the last three years is not specifically known.  While it is possible for damage to be catastrophic and incalculable (if there is a regional disaster) it is only the common weather occurrence that is contemplated in this report.  Over the last three years costs have been in the realm of six figures every year and the burden has traversed local boards. 

7.       Current budgets are operational.  Damage from extreme weather events often results in the need for the development of new retaining or structures to protect existing assets from ongoing slips or similar.  There is currently no capital funding sitting with local boards specifically tagged for storm damage remediation.  It is recommended that a portion of the existing funding be allocated to capital budgets to provide for this eventuality.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Orākei Local Board:

a)      agrees to allocate the current (less expenses to date) and future “storm damage” budget of $109,874 per annum to a local unallocated “extreme weather event” self-insurance budget, which can be utilised by the board for repair or rehabilitation of areas affected by extreme weather events on an as required basis.

b)      supports a portion of the pooled operating budgets being allocated to local unallocated capital funding.

c)      notes that expenditure against the local unallocated operational and capital storm damage budgets will be reported to all local boards annually.

 

Discussion

8.       Auckland is prone to a range of extreme weather events including tornadoes, high tides, high winds, high rainfall and drought all of which can contribute to sudden erosion, plant loss, tree fall, fixed asset damage and land slips. 

9.       The scale or impact of extreme weather events is particularly felt in urban parks where space is at a premium and landscapes are heavily developed.  Although weather events still have an impact on regional parks the scale of the regional park landscapes and the management of those landscapes (i.e. a lot more fully restored streams and coastal dunes) means the impact of extreme weather events can usually be tolerated without affecting the day to day use of the park.  In general terms, extreme weather events also affect coastal areas and older suburbs more than flat or inland areas however all areas are prone to wind, drought and flooding.

10.     The financial impact of managing damage associated with extreme weather events in the urban park environment has historically been dealt with in three ways:

·    Self-insurance – a fund is kept to call on for unforeseen damage

·    Reforecasting – no funds are set aside for unforeseen damage and as a result current projects and operational expenses are put on hold while funding is diverted to managing the impact of extreme weather events.

·    Overspend – where neither of the two options above are possible then some costs have been worn as an overspend

11.     Auckland City Council held specific “storm damage” budgets for parks and other Council’s had a level of self-insurance against unforeseen damage.  Others had nothing.

12.     Upon amalgamation the funding pool held by Auckland City Council was divided amongst the local boards in those areas. Local boards in the old Manukau City had some funding allocated to cater for this possibility in their local budgets.  This resulted in very small buckets of money being allocated to 12 local boards. 

13.     This local board budget allocation has largely defeated the purpose of the self-insurance fund as extreme weather events do not happen regularly in any given area. They can affect a localised area or a large scale area that has no correlation to local board boundaries.  This means that individual local boards can go many years without an extreme weather event while its neighbor or another local board may have several events in short succession.  This random occurrence is normal and the current budget allocation does not befit this natural phenomenon.

 

 

 

 

14.     The current operational “storm damage” budgets held across the region are:

 

YTD Actual (Feb)

 Budget

 Albert-Eden

 

                       $77,558

 Maungakiekie-Tamaki

 

                       $96,947

 Orakei

                       $13,101

                    $109,874

 Puketapapa

                          $2,197

                       $64,632

 Waiheke

 

                       $19,389

 Waitemata

                          $7,508

                    $102,894

 Franklin

 

                       $20,371

 Howick

 

                       $30,451

 Mangere-Otahuhu

 

                       $15,515

 Manurewa

 

                       $16,926

 Otara-Papatoetoe

 

                       $16,715

 Papakura

 

                       $11,158

Total

               $22,806

             $582,431

 

Note: there are a number of commitments or costs expected in Waitemata and Orakei that are not yet shown in the these budgets

Consideration

15.     Council has an obligation to plan for extreme weather events.  Under property law there is term known as lateral support which is about the right of a landowner to have their land physically supported in its natural state by both adjoining land and underground structures. There are around 4000 local and sports parks and each of these parks have neighbours.  Any excavation or alteration council makes to park land may, at a later time, damage and affect a neighbour and leave council liable. Our neighbours have a right to enjoy their land in its natural condition.  This includes the right to have their land held in place from the sides by the neighbouring land unless both are subject to unforeseen natural events.

16.     In addition to this legal obligation to neighbours, some extreme weather events come at such a substantial cost that the budget available to an individual board is either unable to wear the cost of the recovery or the cost of recovery affects a range of other activities within a local board area.  This budget shortfall creates a liability and its own set of risks for council and the community.

Options

17.     The following options have been considered for ongoing/future management of storm damage:

 

Option

Pro’s

Con’s

1

Do nothing:

Some boards have limited funds available, others have nothing

·   No change to boards budgets.  A small contingency fund remains available for those boards with funding.

·   No boards have sufficient funding to deal with medium size weather event – this exposes council to a range of risks

2

Create local unallocated fund (self-insurance):

This would be a ring fenced fund for all boards to access allocated to the local and sports parks activity.  It would be established from existing storm damage budgets held by some local boards. 

·   Funding is accessible across the region i.e. funds go where the storm goes

·   The size of the fund, pooled across the region, is more likely to accommodate regional extreme weather events than current arbitrary and small funding base available to those boards that have funding

·   Can be established immediately (providing all the boards agree) thereby helping with current liabilities

·   Risk of the fund being inappropriately used for day to day weather events.  This is a current risk and can be more readily mitigated as a local unallocated fund.  It is recommended that there would be a single Tier 4 manager with a regional view determining a consistency of approach.

·   Some boards contribute to this solution while others benefit without contribution – may be seen as inequitable

3

Ask governing body to cater for most impacts of extreme weather events on a case by case basis.

·   No change needed and governing body would pick up costs of damage (if agreed/funding found).  Local boards that have existing funding would potentially need to show expenditure of current budgets before being eligible.

·   The time delay and bureaucracy involved in making this happen means that most applications will be retrospective and expose the Council to financial risk

·   No funding is currently available at a governing body level.  May take time to advocate for/secure

 

Local Board Views

18.     This report is being circulated to all local boards to canvas their views on this issue.

Maori Impact Statement

19.     In many cases extreme weather events can damage archeological sites or sites of significance to Tangata Whenua. This can trigger the need for cultural impact assessments and more careful/expensive restoration works to protect the values of the site.  Without a fund to support rehabilitation or restoration work recently discovered or damaged sites of significance cannot be attended to as there are no funds.  A regional self-insurance fund would help to mitigate risk for council.

General

20.     As previously mentioned a variety of extreme weather events have affected parks over the years.  For instance in 2011 storm damage caused extensive slips across Waiheke.  Repair work is ongoing and existing storm damage funding has been insufficient to cope. In 2012 a tornado hit Hobsonville causing widespread damage to trees and houses.  The arboricultural and general cleanup was unforeseen and no budget for this kind of work was available to the Upper Harbour Local Board.  In this case the cost of repair was funded by savings in the local board budget combined with a budget overspend. 

21.     During September last year, a major storm event hit the east coast beaches, particularly in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area but also affecting Rodney, Orakei and Howick Local Boards.  A storm surge of 0.8 metres on top of high tide caused substantial erosion. Orewa Beach was hit the hardest with significant sand loss and coastal structure damage. 

22.     Weather events are part of the life of Auckland.  The current inconsistent, and in many cases non-existent, planning for extreme weather events is a risk and exposes council to a high likelihood of budget blowout in any given year and local board area. 

23.     The unpredictable nature of extreme weather events means that we cannot anticipate what portion of funding is needed for capital and operational funding.  However, based on the last three years weather events, we know that there is a need for both operational and capital funding.  It is therefore recommended that a portion of the current operational funds be allocated to capital funding to offset these costs.

Implementation Issues

24.     If a regional self-insurance fund, initially created from existing local board funds, is universally supported by formal resolution from all local boards then this fund can be created in the current 2013/14 financial year.

25.     The expenditure against the local unallocated operational and capital storm damage budgets will be reported to all local boards annually.

26.     There are currently several areas affected by storm damage that have projected funding shortfalls that could benefit from immediate implementation of the regional solution. The beneficiaries from this fund will change from year to year. Some recent historical events and current events and associated funding requirements are detailed in Attachment A.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Historical and current events and associated funding requirements

5

     

Signatories

Author

Jane Aickin, Manager Local and Sports Parks Central

Authorisers

Ian Maxwell, Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Karen Lyons, Manager Local Board Services

 


Orākei Local Board

01 May 2014

 

 



Orākei Local Board

01 May 2014

 

 

Bylaw review programme update - April 2014

 

File No.: CP2014/07967

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       This report provides an update on bylaw review (policy) and bylaw implementation (operations), covering June 2013 to April 2014. This joint approach to reporting ensures that local boards have a comprehensive overview of the end-to-end programme through to 2015.

Executive Summary

2.       Consultation on the proposed navigation safety bylaw closed on 17 March 2014. Staff are now preparing a summary of submissions alongside the full submissions to the hearings panel. The proposed cemeteries and crematoria bylaw was adopted by the Regulatory and Bylaws committee and Governing Body in March, and submissions opened from early April.

3.       Further proposed bylaws will be presented to the Regulatory and Bylaws committee shortly covering the next set of topics: Outdoor fires; Stormwater; Trading in public places; Alcohol controls and Animal management (covering animals other than dogs).

4.       The 2014 programme for review of local dog access rules is underway with the local boards that are proposing changes this year. Information about the proposed changes will be included with material provided as part of the annual dog registration cycle to minimise costs and ensure simplified communication with these customers.

5.       Implementation projects are well underway for the upcoming commencement of Health and hygiene (from 1 July 2014) and Public safety and nuisance (from 26 May 2014). Planning for the new Health and hygiene bylaw and associated licensing has included particular attention for operators where the rules have changed significantly. The majority of these newly registered premises will receive a visit from a member of the environmental health team, and a welcome pack that summarises the standards they are required to meet.

6.       The Alcohol licensing readiness project has now completed its key work relating to establishing the new licensing structures needed under the new alcohol act. These are running as intended from 18 December 2013.

7.       Review work is continuing on further topics to support completion of the review programme by October 2015, alongside implementation planning for the resulting changes.

8.       No formal requests for local board bylaws have been received over the period covered by this report.

9.       An investment proposal for the integrated programme is being progressed, to be submitted for consideration as part of preparing the draft 2015-2024 Long-term Plan.

 

 

Recommendations

That the Orākei Local Board:

a)      Note the progress of bylaw review and implementation and the forward programme that will complete the review of the legacy bylaws by 2015.

 

 

Discussion

The bylaw review programme

10.     The bylaw review programme was originally endorsed by the Regulatory and Bylaws committee in December 2010 (refer CP2010/00962) and February 2011 (refer CP2011/00453). It will review the legacy bylaws (that is, the bylaws inherited from the former councils) across approximately 30 topics. A new bylaw will be prepared for each topic where appropriate, or a recommendation made that the underlying issue or outcome is better handled another way.

11.     The Regulatory and Bylaws Committee has ownership of the review and local boards are participating through individual workshops and reports. Local Boards are also able to propose that local bylaws are made, to apply only in their area (refer sections 24 to 28 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009). Any requests for local bylaws are reported to the Regulatory and Bylaws committee. As stated above, there have been no local board proposals for local bylaws over the last period. This report covers the period June 2013 to April 2014.

12.     As this is the first report on this programme since the 2013 local government elections, attachment A provides a brief background to bylaws, including an outline of each bylaw topic.

Update on review of bylaw topics

13.     The current state of the review work programme is presented in the table below and the detailed comments for several topics that follow. Attachment B provides an overview of the timeline for the programme.

14.     The table below includes reviews that have already been completed. It also covers bylaws that may be folded into other topics (Freedom camping; Arkles Bay Set Netting); the ongoing local boards’ review of dog access rules; and the review that must take place within five years of any bylaw’s adoption.

 

Table 1: Summary of status and next steps for review of bylaw topics

 

Topic

Status and Progress – 7 stages

Comments

 

Status

1-Preparation

2-Pre-consultation

3-Options

4-Write Bylaw

5-Adopt draft

6-Spec Cons Proc

7-Adopt final

 

Reviews completed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dog management

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Completed

Election Signs

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Completed

Food safety

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Completed

General administration

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Completed

Health & hygiene

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Completed

Offensive trades

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Completed

Public safety and nuisance

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Completed

Solid waste (Waste m/ment)

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Completed

Trade waste

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Completed

Transport (Auckland Transport)

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Completed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Work programme

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Navigation Safety

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See below

Outdoor / Rural fires

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trading in public places

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See below

Stormwater management

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Signs

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See below

Election signs (amend)

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See below

Alcohol licensing fees

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alcohol controls

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See below

Animal management

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Air quality

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Boarding houses and hostels

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cemeteries and crematoria

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commercial sex industry

A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On hold pending unitary plan outcomes

Construction and development

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Onsite wastewater

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hazardous Substances

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See below

Orakei Basin

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recreational and cultural facilities

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Transport (Parks / AC controlled land

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Water supply and wastewater (reticulation)

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wharfs & Marinas

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other work

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Review - local dog access rules

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviews by local boards - ongoing

Filming fee review

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See below

Freedom camping

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arkles Bay set netting

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Five year reviews

B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Status summary codes

G

Green - Work is progressing as planned, due date will be met or any revised date will not have wider impacts

A

Amber – Original due date at risk of being missed and this may have wider impacts; or an issue has arisen.

R

Red - Due date has or will be missed and this will have wider impacts; or an issue has arisen that will have wider or significant impacts.

B

Blue - Not yet scheduled. However, background work is underway.

 

Table 2: Additional comments for particular topics in the bylaw review programme

 

Public safety & nuisance

On track

G

This bylaw topic crosses the jurisdiction of both Auckland Council and Auckland Transport (meaning there are two parallel bylaws). The new bylaws were adopted in 2013 and come into force in May 2014.

 

Navigation safety

On track

G

Public submissions were invited on this topic from 14 February to 17 March. Just under 400 submissions were received and are being reviewed. A range of communication approaches – including radio and attendance at relevant events – were used to help publicise the proposal and invite submissions. Hearings are expected in May.

 

Trading in public places (policy and bylaw)

On track

G

This review will deliver a single draft policy and two draft bylaws (for the council and Auckland Transport). Drafting of these is well underway. It is expected that these will be reported to the Regulatory and Bylaws committee and then the governing body in May. Any new bylaws could come into force for July 2015 (allowing any fee changes to also be put in place with the council’s long-term plan).

 

Signs

On track

G

Discussions with local boards are currently underway to identify their views on particular matters including local approaches to issues such as sandwich boards and cross-street banners. Comments from those discussions and other discussions with representatives of businesses and the signage industry will support the preparation of a draft bylaw later in 2014.

 

This project is also monitoring the progress of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, as this plan also includes signage provisions.

 

Election signs (amendment)

On track

G

The Election signs bylaw was adopted by Auckland Transport in May 2013, and was in place for the 2013 local government election. A number of operational issues arose during that election period, and the clarity of relevant clauses is planned to be addressed through a series of drafting amendments that will support a better democratic process. These improve clarity for issues including the use of candidate and “team” signs, signs on private property, the readability of authoriser statements and the display of signs promoting election issues rather than candidates or teams. The amendments also provide for the possible later addition of explanatory notes into the bylaw, where desirable to provide further guidance.

 

The proposed amendments are being reported to the Auckland Transport Board in April, to allow for consultation on the proposed changes. Local boards will receive further information then.

 

Changes are also being considered to remove or adjust some of the specified sign sites in the western area. These follow a review of sites against criteria including practicality and safety, and are intended to address issues that arose in 2013. Those local boards where changes are being considered will receive further information on this.

 

Alcohol controls

On track

G

Each of the legacy councils had adopted an Alcohol Control bylaw, and put in place a series of alcohol controls through that bylaw. Alcohol controls (previously called liquor bans) prohibit the consumption of alcohol within a specified place, during a specified time.

 

Legislative changes introduced alongside the government’s reform of laws relating to the sale and supply of alcohol provide the council and police with enhanced powers in relation to alcohol controls. Those changes also require the council to review its existing alcohol controls against a new threshold, as part of any decision to carry those controls forward past October 2015. Following a review of available data, the majority of existing controls across Auckland are considered to meet the new requirements.

 

A proposed bylaw is planned to be reported to the Regulatory and Bylaws committee shortly. The existing bylaws are broadly similar, and so the new proposed bylaw will largely seek to continue the current arrangements. In line with consultation with local boards from 2011 (alongside other alcohol-related matters), the new bylaw will facilitate local board involvement in decisions on alcohol controls and an improved community-based focus on alcohol issues.

 

Community-focussed approaches may include crime prevention through environmental design, local community initiatives, discussions with nearby licensees, youth and leadership development programmes, partnering with central government agencies including the Police and the Ministry of Justice, and partnering with local agencies including sports clubs and iwi and town centre / business associations.

 

These non-regulatory approaches can often lead to significant reductions in alcohol harm and have better long-term effects than regulatory approaches such as making an alcohol control.

 

Hazardous substances

On track

G

The former Auckland City Council had a hazardous substances bylaw. A review of this bylaw has indicated that the issues it covered are now addressed adequately through other means, including provisions in other bylaws, the Resource Management Act, National environmental standards, and regulations made under various acts.

 

Comment is being sought from the local boards where the legacy bylaw currently applies, following which a proposed approach (that could include allowing the bylaw to lapse in 2015) will be brought to the Regulatory and Bylaws committee.

 

Dog access review

On track

G

Local boards are able to review dog access rules for local parks and local beaches in their areas on an annual basis. This allows a better response to community views than was possible under the legacy councils’ approaches.

 

For 2014 selected dog access are being reviewed by the following local boards: Kaipatiki, Orakei, Maungakiekie-Tamaki, Puketapapa, and Hibiscus and Bays.

 

To ensure that registered dog owners are advised of the proposed changes (as required by legislation) the local boards are including a joint notice within the dog registration package in June. This will reduce costs, and ensure that dog owners receive a single combined communication from the council, rather than multiple messages.

 

Filming fees review

On track

G

The Auckland Film Protocol was adopted in 2013, after wide consultation with local boards, the screen production industry, council-controlled organisations and other stakeholders. The protocol aims to create a film-friendly culture across Auckland, based on a two way commitment from the wider council organisation and from filmmakers. It also seeks to help deliver a customer driven service that provides certainty to filmmakers in a globally competitive market, and to enable public good will towards the film industry by setting out expectations of film crews when filming in public places.

 

Currently there is a range of filming fee structures in place, inherited from the former councils. A filming fees review is now underway to understand how this element of the filming process can be harmonised and improved. The Policies and Bylaws unit is working with ATEED on this project, and it is expected that local board input will be sought on this over the next few months.

 

 

Update on implementation of new bylaws

15.     Detailed implementation planning is developed by the responsible operations division alongside the process for reviewing each of the bylaws, through a cross council programme called the Integrated Bylaw Review and Implementation (IBRI) programme. Initial planning for implementation starts when the bylaw topic review identifies the issues and options related to each topic. This approach provides the operations division an early indication of the possible shape of the bylaw and its implementation considerations.

16.     This programme includes the main groups involved in operating bylaws and delivering the relevant services to our customers. The programme is also helping ensure bylaw reviews can be aligned to other related transformational changes such as the consolidation of information technology systems, customer service improvement programmes and the organisation’s capacity to implement those changes.

17.     Implementation of new bylaws will generally cover

·    ensuring that the council meets its statutory obligation;

·    ensuring that effective operational practices on the control and enforcement of the new bylaws are implemented consistently across the region, and are made available to the general public;

·    ensuring that communications to the general public and other stakeholders are well planned and implemented in a timely manner;

·    developing and implementing standard business rules and processes that help achieve the council’s customer service standards;

·    ensuring that internal services are planned and delivered when needed, and are in alignment with other transformation initiatives;

·    putting any changes to fees in place; and

·    ensuring that staff are informed throughout the process and are trained on delivering the new services.

18.     The table below shows the current status of implementation projects.

 

Table 4: Summary of status and next steps for implementation projects

 

Implementation project name

Status and Progress

Link to bylaw topics / Other comments

 

Status

1-Preparation

2-Planning

3-Implementation

4-Closure

 

Underway

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alcohol licensing readiness

G

 

 

 

 

Completed

Alcohol licensing fees

G

 

 

 

 

See below

Animals (Stage 1)

G

 

 

 

 

Completed

Dog access review

G

 

 

 

 

 

Electoral Signs 2013

G

 

 

 

 

Completed

Electoral Signs 2014

G

 

 

 

 

 

Environmental

G

 

 

 

 

 

Facilities

G

 

 

 

 

 

Food safety

G

 

 

 

 

Completed

Health protection

G

 

 

 

 

Health & hygiene bylaw and code of practice; See below

Marine

G

 

 

 

 

 

Public safety & nuisance

G

 

 

 

 

 

Revoked bylaws

G

 

 

 

 

General admin; Offensive trades; Others

Signage

G

 

 

 

 

 

Stormwater

G

 

 

 

 

 

Street trading / Trading in public places

G

 

 

 

 

Trading in public places policy and bylaw

Waste management

G

 

 

 

 

Solid waste bylaw

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proposed future

 

 

 

 

 

 

Air quality

B

 

 

 

 

 

Alcohol controls (liquor bans)

B

 

 

 

 

 

Animals (Stage 2)

B

 

 

 

 

 

Construction

B

 

 

 

 

 

Transport (AC land)

B

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5: Additional comments for particular implementation projects

 

Alcohol licensing readiness

On track

G

The alcohol licensing project has now completed successfully. This project set out to ensure that the council was able to implement the requirements of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012, including the new licensing system and new fees that had to operate from 18 December 2013.

 

Alcohol licensing fees

On track

G

The Governing Body has resolved that the council adopt its own fees for licensed premises. This is provided for in the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. The council can change the fee amounts, using the cost / risk fee categories that have been set by central government. Work is underway to capture actual information on costs, based on operating the new licensing system and the parts of those costs that can be recovered through licensing fees.

 

Health protection

On track

G

The Health protection project is implementing the new Health and hygiene bylaw and code of practice (which will come into force from 1 July 2014). A range of user-friendly brochures that summarise key provisions of the health protection code have been prepared to help communicate the requirements to all the people who operate these businesses.

 

A series of approaches are underway to help ensure operators are aware of the requirements to be followed. The new bylaw (with its risk-based approach) has resulted in some premises that are newly required to be registered, and the communication activities are focussed on these premises. Most of these will receive an individual visit, with an appropriate information pack.

 

There are also some premises that no longer need to be registered with the council, and this is also being communicated to them.

 

Funding for bylaw review and implementation

19.     The scope and scale of the expected changes mean that implementation requires significant effort and resources, and cost, for some topics. The Strategy and Finance committee made an initial provision for funding the IBRI programme at its meeting of 9 May 2013 (in part; refer item 16, SF/2013/67).

20.     As provided for in the resolution, a further investment proposal is being prepared for the 2015-2024 long-term plan. The programme continuously monitors its approach to each bylaw, and where possible captures any cost efficiencies and learnings for later bylaws.

Consideration

Local Board Views

21.     Local boards are involved in the review of each bylaw topic (consistent with the review’s principles). This report provides an update on the programme for local boards.

Maori Impact Statement

22.     This report does not raise any specific issues relating to Māori. The review of each topic includes considering whether that topic includes any elements of special interest to Māori, and if so the appropriate way to seek a greater level of engagement. Where appropriate, consultation with Māori (on a particular topic) may be linked to consultation on other related topics through the Unitary Plan or other initiatives.

General

23.     The recommendations in this report do not trigger the council’s policy on significance.

Implementation Issues

24.     Implementation issues are addressed as relevant to each topic, as noted above.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Background to bylaws

5

bView

Overview of the timeline for the programme

5

     

Signatories

Author

Andrew Simon Pickering - Manager, Planning, Policies and Bylaws

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Adam Milina - Acting Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

 


Orākei Local Board

01 May 2014

 

 









Orākei Local Board

01 May 2014

 

 



Orākei Local Board

01 May 2014

 

 

Auckland Transport Update – Orakei Local Board: April 2014

 

File No.: CP2014/08428

 

  

 

Executive Summary

1.       The purpose of this report is to update the Board on a range of transport related issues in Orakei area during April 2014.

 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Orakei Local Board:

a)         receives the April 2014 Auckland Transport Update report.

 

 

Monthly Overview

 

2.       Consultation

During the month the board have opened consultation on :

KEA Crossing at Stonefields School

Broken Yellow Lines at Fancourt St Meadowbank

 

3.       Tamaki Drive to Glen Innes Cycleway

The first of these project meetings have been scheduled for 6th May, Board Member Baguley is the representative of the board at these meetings.

 

4.       Orakei Point Development

Auckland Transport and Auckland Council updated the board at the end of March with where this project is currently. There is ongoing work with the developers and it is unclear what the final outcome will be.

 

5.       Regional Land Transport Programme (RLTP)

An initial meeting was held in April with Local Boards to introduce them to the next round of planning for the RLTP. There will be futher updates and information as the draft document is prepared.

 

Orakei Local Board Transport Discretionary Capital Fund

6.       The process for discretionary fund projects:

Either a Rough Order Of Cost will be provided to the Orakei Local Board for projects, or if a project does not meet the listed criteria it will be declined.

 

7.       When the Rough Order Of Cost is provided the Orakei Local Board must formally authorise the next step in the delivery of these projects, which is detailed investigation, design and a firm estimate. The Board then approves or not, the project for construction. The costs incurred for detailed investigation, design, consultation and construction of these projects will be deducted from Orakei Local Board’s Transport Capital Fund.  See attachment A - Local Board Transport Capital Fund – Financial Update for Local Board.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Implementation Issues

 

AT Ref #

TPL Ref #

Issue

Discussion

Action

AT2012/007954

9.8

Suggestions for new Pedestrian Crossing layouts in Ellerslie Town Centre

Auckland Council Urban Design staff have suggested options for improving pedestrian crossings in this town centre.

This project currently sits under the Corridor Management Plan package of works. It will progress when these packages have been signed off.

 

9.99

Shore Road Median Strip

A number of safety concerns have been raised about Shore Road, particularly in the area near Bloodworth Park and the Shore Road Reserve.

This project is on the programme, however, it is unlikely to be delivered until the 2016/2017 financial year. If the board would like to have this refuge delivered before then, the board could consider prioritising this as a Transport Capital Fund project. Auckland Transport are looking to provide a pedestrian link from the new walk way across Shore Road, by the entrance to Martyn Wilson Reserve. 

N/A

N/A

Stonefields Parking

It has been reported that the high density housing units that are currently being built, only have one car park for each three bedroom unit and there are no parking bays on the streets.

 

Many of the new units are used as rental properties and have multiple vehicles at each residence.

 

This is resulting in the streets having cars  parked down both sides, some partly on the berms and reducing the road width (at times) to one lane only.

 

This issue was discussed at the May, Orakei Local Board Meeting.

 

Auckland Transport was asked to comment on a memo from Auckland Council.

 

Auckland Transport has provided comment and has asked for this matter to be removed from the ‘Issues Register’. 

 

At the July Orakei Local Board meeting members requested that this item remain on the register.

 

A meeting with Auckland Transport and the Stonfields Residents association is scheduled for 26 March. Preliminary discussions have been held with the parking team and they are happy to support where they can.

N/A

9.98

‘The Landing’ Entrance

The Orakei Local Board has raised the issue of safety around the entrance to ‘The Landing’.

Auckland Transport’s Community Transport Team have committed to completing an investigation of this area and developing proposals to separate the footpath and cycleway and to modify the entrance to the Landing.

 

The landing is a project  that will be handed over from the Harbour Edge Development team. Currently this project has not progressed.

CAS-53331-Q7N6T6

 

Broken Yellow Lines St Johns Road and Gowing Drive

Broken yellow lines have been installed around the St Johns Road and Gowing Drive intersection. A Board member has requested that they be extended further, because cars are still allowed to park on St Johns Road at the top of the T-intersection with Gowing Drive, creating very tight turn, with little room between traffic turning right from St Johns Road onto Gowing Drive and traffic continuing on St Johns Road towards College Road.

This is currently in investigation design and will be  implemented by end of May 2014.

N/A

 

Support Orakei Local Board urban design initiatives

Auckland Transport will work with Auckland Council’s Urban Design Team on the following issues:

1 - Creating a boulevard effect by planting further oak trees on the north side of Remuera Rd around the Victoria Ave shops; and

2 - Issues relating to the Village Green project in respect of aspects where Auckland Transport has a role.

Auckland Transport continues to work with Auckland Council to support development of the Village Green plan on an as required basis.

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                

                                                                                                                                                                

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Local Board Transport Capital Fund – Financial Update for Local Board

5

     

Signatories

Author

Melanie Dale, Elected Member Relationship Manager, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon, Elected Member Relationship Team Manager, Auckland Transport

 


Orākei Local Board

01 May 2014

 

 



Orākei Local Board

01 May 2014

 

 

Traffic Management at Events

 

File No.: CP2014/08296

 

  

 

Executive summary

1.       Providing the Orakei Local Board with the opportunity to provide feedback to officers on the cost of traffic management for events in Auckland.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Orākei Local Board:

a)      receives the Traffic Management at Events report and memorandum.

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Traffic Management at Events Report

5

bView

Memorandum to Local Boards from Independent Maori Statutory Board - Traffic Management at Events

5

     

Signatories

Author

Georgina  Morgan - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Adam Milina - Acting Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

 


Orākei Local Board

01 May 2014

 

 




Orākei Local Board

01 May 2014

 

 



Orākei Local Board

01 May 2014

 

 

Business Association Support Fund Allocation - Ellerslie Business Association

 

File No.: CP2014/08343

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       This report provides the Orakei Local Board with the Ellerslie Business Association application form received in April 2014 for the Business Association Support Fund.

Executive Summary

2.       The Orakei Local Board is committed to assisting groups to provide activities, projects, programmes, initiatives and events that make a positive contribution within the Board area. This includes supporting Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) and other business associations with funding on application to the Board, for activities that support economic development in their communities.

3.       This report recommends that the Orakei Local Board allocates $5,000 towards the ARTerslie 2014 project from its 2013/2014 Business Association Support Fund.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Orākei Local Board:

a)         receives the Ellerslie Business Association Business Association Support Fund application and approves $5,000.00 from its 2013/2014 Business Association Support Fund to the Ellerslie Business Association for the ARTerslie 2014 project.

b)         notes that there is $1,678.57 remaining in the 2013/2014 Business Association Support Fund for future Ellerslie Business Association applications.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Business Association Support Fund Application - Ellerslie Business Association

5

     

Signatories

Author

Georgina  Morgan - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Adam Milina - Acting Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

 


Orākei Local Board

01 May 2014

 

 


















Orākei Local Board

01 May 2014

 

 

Business Association Support Fund Allocation - Remuera Business Association

 

File No.: CP2014/08423

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       This report provides the Orakei Local Board with the Remuera Business Association application form received in April 2014 for the Business Association Support Fund.

Executive Summary

2.       The Orakei Local Board is committed to assisting groups to provide activities, projects, programmes, initiatives and events that make a positive contribution within the Board area. This includes supporting Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) and other business associations with funding on application to the Board, for activities that support economic development in their communities.

3.       This report recommends that the Orakei Local Board allocates $9,500.00 towards the Bastille Day Street Festival from its 2013/2014 Business Associations Support Fund.

 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Orākei Local Board:

a)      receives the Remuera Business Association Business Association Support Fund application and approves $9,500.00 from its 2013/2014 Business Association Support Fund to the Remuera Business Association for the Bastille Day Street Festival.

b)      notes there are no funds remaining in the 2013/2014 Business Association Support Fund for future Remuera Business Association applications.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Business Association Support Fund Application - Remuera Business Association

5

     

Signatories

Author

Georgina  Morgan - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Adam Milina - Acting Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

 


Orākei Local Board

01 May 2014

 

 


















Orākei Local Board

01 May 2014

 

 

Chairperson's Report

File No.: CP2014/08203

 

  

 

Executive Summary

Providing the chairperson the opportunity to update the Orakei Local Board on projects and issues they have been involved with since the last meeting.

 

Recommendation/s

a)         That the Chairperson’s report to the Orakei Local Board be received.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Chairperson's Report - May 2014

5

    

Signatories

Author

Georgina  Morgan - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Adam Milina - Acting Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

 


Orākei Local Board

01 May 2014

 

 






Orākei Local Board

01 May 2014

 

 

Board Member Reports

File No.: CP2014/08197

 

  

 

Executive Summary

Providing board members the opportunity to update the Orakei Local Board on projects and issues they have been involved with since the last meeting.

 

Recommendation

a)            That the Orakei Local Board Member reports be received.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Board Member Thomas - May 2014

5

bView

Board Member Churton - May 2014

5

cView

Board Member Cooke - May 2014

5

    

Signatories

Author

Georgina  Morgan - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Adam Milina - Acting Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

 


Orākei Local Board

01 May 2014

 

 




Orākei Local Board

01 May 2014

 

 


Orākei Local Board

01 May 2014

 

 









Orākei Local Board

01 May 2014

 

 

Local Board Workshop Record of Proceedings

File No.: CP2014/08208

 

  

 

Executive Summary

Attaching for the Board’s information the record of proceedings for the Orakei Local Board workshops held on 10 and 17 April 2014.

 

Recommendation

a)         That the record of proceedings for the Orakei Local Board workshops held on 10 and 17 April 2014 be received.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Orakei Local Board Workshop notes 10 April 2014

5

bView

Orakei Local Board Workshop notes 17 April 2014

5

    

Signatories

Author

Georgina  Morgan - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Adam Milina - Acting Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

 


Orākei Local Board

01 May 2014

 

 


Orākei Local Board

01 May 2014

 

 


Orākei Local Board

01 May 2014

 

 

Resolutions Pending Action

File No.: CP2014/08207

 

  

 

Executive Summary

Providing the Orakei Local Board an opportunity to track reports that have been requested from officers.

 

Recommendation/s

a)         That the Orakei Local Board resolutions pending action report be received.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Resolutions Pending Action Table - April 2014

5

    

Signatories

Author

Georgina  Morgan - Democracy Advisor

 


Orākei Local Board

01 May 2014

 

 







     

 


Orākei Local Board

01 May 2014

 

 

Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

 

That the Orākei Local Board:

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

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

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

 

C1       Proposed Acquisition in Orakei

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

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

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(b)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information.

In particular, the report contains information regarding a proposed acquisition in Orakei..

s7(2)(j) - The withholding of the information is necessary to prevent the disclosure or use of official information for improper gain or improper advantage.

In particular, the report contains information regarding a proposed acquisition in Orakei..

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

 

   



[1] Figures based on 2009 population and household data and 2010 dog register data.