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

 

Date:                      

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Thursday, 9 October 2014

6.30pm

Manurewa Local Board Office
7 Hill Road
Manurewa

 

Manurewa Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Angela Dalton

 

Deputy Chairperson

Simeon Brown

 

Members

Michael Bailey

 

 

Angela Cunningham-Marino

 

 

Hon George Hawkins, QSO

 

 

Danella McCormick

 

 

Ken Penney

 

 

Daryl Wrightson

 

 

(Quorum 4 members)

 

 

 

Lee Manaia

Local Board Democracy Advisor

 

1 October 2014

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 262 5421

Email: lee.manaia@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 


Manurewa Local Board Portfolios

Portfolio Lead

Portfolio Associate

Portfolio Activity and Responsibilities

Angela Dalton

Chairperson

C/- Shop 3-5
7 Hill Road
Manurewa
Auckland 2105
Mob:  021 283 3311

Email:  Angela.Dalton@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

Simeon Brown

·         Governance portfolio

·          Board leadership

·          Board-to-Council relationships

·          Board-to-Board relationships

·          Local Board Plan

·          Local Board agreements

·          Civic duties

·          Advocacy (local, regional, and central government)

·          Community partnerships

·          Relationships with Maoridom and youth

·          Relationships with government departments and agencies

·          Relationships with Watercare

·          Relationship with Property CCO

·          Relationship with Auckland Waterfront Development

·          Local funding policy Political Working Party

·          Relationship with ATEED

·          Relationship with Regional Facilities CCO’s

·          Relationship COMET

·          Relationship Southern Initiative

 

·         Regulatory portfolio

·          Resource consents

·          Heritage

·          Gambling

·          Liquor (Simeon Brown as alternate)

·          Urban design

·          Swimming pools

·          Trees

·          By-laws

·          Airport noise

·          Unitary Plan

·          Waste management

Simeon Brown

Deputy Chairperson

C/- Shop 3-5
7 Hill Road
Manurewa
Auckland 2105
Mob:  021 0272 4242
simeon.brown@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

Daryl Wrightson

·         Community and social well-being portfolio

·          Community development (incl. CAYAD, CAB, and Manurewa Senior Citizens)

·          Neighbourhood relationships

·          Funding for neighbourhood projects

·          Community safety (excl. town centres)

·          Graffiti removal

·          Community advocacy

·          Community facilities

·          Youth Council

·          Contact CAB

Michael Bailey

·         Town centres and economic portfolio

·        Town centre renewal (incl. branding)

·        Design and maintenance

·        Town Centre marketing

·        Community safety within town centres

·        Business Improvement Districts (Michael Bailey and Simeon Brown)

·        Local priorities in relation to regional economic development initiatives

 

Michael Bailey

10 Rimu Road

Manurewa 2102

Mob:  021 287 4422

Email:  Micahel.Bailey@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

Danella McCormick

·         Sports parks and recreation portfolio

·          Stewardship of sports parks

·          Stewardship of recreation facilities

·          Relationship with sports clubs

·          Neighbourhood parks and reserves (incl. esplanade reserves and the coastline)

·          Design and maintenance

·          Plantings, playgrounds, bollards, and walkways

·          Botanic Gardens and Totara Park

·          Skateparks

·         Associate for the following portfolios:

·        Governance

·        transport

George Hawkins

·         Libraries and recreation portfolio

·        Stewardship of Manurewa libraries

·        Mobile library

George Hawkins

·         Transport portfolio

·        Local transport projects (incl. roading, footpaths, cycleways)

Angela Cunningham –Marino

C/- Auckland Council

Private Bag 92300

Auckland 1142

Ph:  266 4729

Mob:  027 504 0884

Email: 

Angela.Cunningham-Marino@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Daryl Wrightson

·         Arts, Culture and Events portfolio

·          Community celebration

·        Community identity

·        Neighbourhood gatherings and renewal

·        Event compliance

·        Artistic and cultural service levels

·        Promoting artistic endeavour (particularly among Manurewa youth)

·        Regional arts

·        Producing a music and arts centre for Manurewa

Simeon Brown

·         Recreation Services portfolio

·          Contact Manukau Leisure

Danella McCormick

·         Built and Natural Environment portfolio

·        Restoration of wetlands, streams, and waterways

·        Local priorities in relation to regional environmental management

·        Mangroves

·          Manukau Harbour

Danella McCormick

Shop 3-5, 7 Hill Road
Manurewa, Auckland 2105
Mob:  021 800 593

Email:  Danella.McCormick@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Angela Cunningham-Marino

·         Civil Defence Emergency Management portfolio

·        Relationships with the Civil Defence Emergency Management Group

·        Community preparedness, disaster response, relief, and recovery

Other Board Members:

George Hawkins, QSO

30 Lakeside Drive
Papakura, Auckland 2113
Mob:  021 969 4444

Email:  George.Hawkins@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Ken Penney

146e Great South Road
Manurewa, Auckland 2012 
Mob:  021 287 2244

Email:  Ken.Penney@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

Daryl Wrightson

Shop 3-5, 7 Hill Road
Manurewa, Auckland 2105
Mob: 021 839 678

Email:  Daryl.Wrightson@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz


Manurewa Local Board

09 October 2014

 

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                        PAGE

1          Welcome                                                                                                                         7

2          Apologies                                                                                                                        7

3          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   7

4          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               7

5          Leave of Absence                                                                                                          7

6          Acknowledgements                                                                                                       7

7          Petitions                                                                                                                          7

8          Deputations                                                                                                                    7

9          Public Forum                                                                                                                  8

10        Extraordinary Business                                                                                                8

11        Notices of Motion                                                                                                          8

12        Manurewa Youth Council Update                                                                                9

13        Manurewa Ward Councillors Update                                                                        11

14        Portfolio Update                                                                                                           13

15        Chairperson's Update                                                                                                 17

16        Manurewa Local Board Community Group Funding - Applications for Round One 2014/2015                                                                                                                      19

17        Landowner and lease approval for the Totara Park Equestrian Centre covered arena                                                                                                                                       25

18        Approval request for facility building renewal work schedule for 2014-15          41

19        Draft Community Grants Policy                                                                                 43

20        Auckland Transport Update – October 2014                                                          115

21        Integrated bylaws review and implementation programme (IBRI) update – September 2014                                                                                                                             121

22        Financial Policies Issues for Long-term Plan 2015-2025                                      131

23        Long-term Plan 2015-2025 feedback on mayoral proposal                                  149

24        Significance and Engagement Policy                                                                      151

25        Adoption of the Manurewa Local Board Plan 2014                                               179

26        Local board feedback on the draft Arts and Culture Strategic Action Plan (ACSAP) 219

27        Stormwater Priorities Consultation Submission                                                   231

28        Reports Requested - Pending - Issues                                                                   241

29        Manurewa Local Board Achievements Register 2013-2016 Electoral Term      249

30        For Information: Reports referred to the Manurewa Local Board                      255

31        Manurewa Local Board Workshop Notes                                                               257  

32        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

 

 


 

1          Welcome

 

The meeting will open with a prayer.

 

 

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 Manurewa Local Board:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 11 September 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

 

Standing Order 3.20 provides for deputations.  Those applying for deputations are required to give seven working days’ notice of subject matter and applications are approved by the Chairperson of the Board.  This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda.  Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

 

At the close of the agenda no requests to speak 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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 


Manurewa Local Board

09 October 2014

 

 

Manurewa Youth Council Update

 

File No.: CP2014/21645

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       Providing an opportunity for the Manurewa Youth Council to update the Manurewa Local Board on matters they have been involved in over the last month.

Executive Summary

2.       Nil.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Manurewa Local Board:

 

a)      receive the verbal report from the Manurewa Youth Council regarding:

 

i)         

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Signatories

Authors

Lee Manaia - Local Board Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager

 


Manurewa Local Board

09 October 2014

 

 

Manurewa Ward Councillors Update

 

File No.: CP2014/21646

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       A period of time (10 minutes) has been set aside for the Manurewa Ward Councillors to have an opportunity to update the Manurewa Local Board on regional matters.

Executive Summary

2.       Nil.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Manurewa Local Board:

a)      receive the verbal reports from:

i)        Councillor Calum Penrose regarding:

·   

ii)       Councillor Sir John Walker regarding:

·   

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Authors

Lee Manaia - Local Board Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager

 


Manurewa Local Board

09 October 2014

 

 

Portfolio Update

 

File No.: CP2014/21647

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       Providing an opportunity for Portfolio Leads to update to the Manurewa Local Board on matters they have been involved in over the last month.

Executive Summary

2.       Nil.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Manurewa Local Board

a)         receive the portfolio update from:

i)        Danella McCormick, Built and Natural Environment Portfolio Lead Associate

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

14 September Built and Natural Environment Portfolio catch up notes

15

    

Signatories

Authors

Lee Manaia - Local Board Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager

 


Manurewa Local Board

09 October 2014

 

 

Built and Natural Environment Portfolio Minutes

 

What:              Meeting with Manurewa Local Board Built and Natural Environment portfolio holders

Where:            Manurewa Local Board Office, 7 Hill Road, Manurewa

When:             Thursday, 18 September 2014, 2 pm.

Present:         Danella McCormick (Portfolio Deputy), Jenny Chilcott, Project Manager – Special Community Engagement, Solid Waste Unit, George Fietje, Project Manager – Organic Processing, Solid Waste Unit , Varsha Belwalkar (Relationship Advisor Infrastructure and Environmental Services), and David Hopkins (Local Board Advisor)

Apologies:     Angela Cunningham-Marino (Portfolio Lead)

 

 

Who to Action

1.

Reducing waste

 

George highlighted the goal of ‘zero to waste by 2040’ which is in the Auckland Plan.

Council has a waste management and minimisation strategy which includes helping communities to prepare for the changes to waste collections and disposer pays in 2016.

 

Food waste

Food waste makes up approx. 40% of what is currently being sent to landfill at present. This costs a lot to send to landfill and it wastes what could be a valuable resource.

 

Organics Collections

 

To reduce this waste and to recover value from it, a separate organics collection is being organised.

Householders will get:

·    A caddie for their kitchen

·    Biodegradable bin liners

·    An organics bin to take out to the kerb

·    A refuse bin

·    A weekly organics collection

·    A weekly refuse collection

 

What goes in the bins?

 

Food scraps including

·    vegetables and fruit peelings

·    bread rice pasta etc

·    meat scraps, cheese and so on

Excludes

·    nappies even if compostable

·    Any non-organic material (plastics metal glass)

·    Greenwaste (cut grass, branches, leaves etc)

Householders also get education support updates and feedback on project success.

 

Pilot for Organics Collections on north shore

 

From May to August this system has been piloted in a small area on the North Shore. The pilot has been successful and residents are continuing to use the organic waste collection system.

 

Pilot for Organics Collections in Manurewa and Papakura

 

From October there will be a pilot organics waste collection in Solveig Place in Randwick Park. A similar trial will be taking place in Papakura with students from Edmund Hillary School who have volunteered to act as ‘waste champions.’

 

Randwick Park

 

Solvieg Place with approximately 50 houses has been chosen. The Randwick Community House is demonstrating good waste minimisation practices, the 3 bin system and gardens etc.  Residents have participated in a gardening and composting programme that was initiated by Te Awa Ora (who received Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund funding for this project) and the Community House.

The organics waste collection trial will be offered to Solvieg Place residents In the first week of Oct.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.

Making the Most of Waste campaign

 

Council is launching a ‘making the most of waste’ education and communications campaign.

Aim is to inspire Aucklanders to make changes to reduce their waste and prepare for future changes to waste services including the organics waste collection service.

 

 

3.

Waste minimisation fund

 

Next round of funding for Waste Minimisation and Innovation initiatives is opening with up $475,000 on offer.

 

 

 

4.

Weymouth Beach

 

No update on progress at Weymouth Beach is available.

 

 

 


Manurewa Local Board

09 October 2014

 

 

Chairperson's Update

 

File No.: CP2014/21648

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       Providing an opportunity for the Chairperson to update the Local Board on issues she has been involved in.

Executive Summary

2.       Nil.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Manurewa Local Board:

a)      receive the verbal from the Manurewa Local Board Chairperson regarding:

i)   

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Signatories

Authors

Lee Manaia - Local Board Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager

 


Manurewa Local Board

09 October 2014

 

 

Manurewa Local Board Community Group Funding - Applications for Round One 2014/2015

 

File No.: CP2014/21022

 

  

 

Purpose

1.   This report presents applications received under Round One of the Manurewa Local Board 2014/2015 Community Funding programme.  The Manurewa Local Board is requested to fund, part fund or decline these applications.

Executive Summary

2.   The Manurewa Local Board has a total budget of $171,823 for the 2014/2015 financial year for the community grants programme.

3.   The applications to be considered at this time are for Round One, which is the first of two rounds for this financial year.

4.   The Manurewa Local Board considered these applications at a workshop on 23 September 2014.

5.   Twenty-six applications have been received for this round, requesting a total of $142,773.

 

Recommendation:

 

That the Manurewa Local Board considers the applications listed below and agrees to fund, part fund or decline each application in this round:

 

Fund Type

Applicant

Funds required for 

Amount requested

Local Board Discretionary Community Fund

Alfriston Indoor Bowling Club

Towards hall hire at the Alfriston Hall from 11 March to 27 October 2015.

 

$1,488

Local Board Discretionary Community Fund

Auckland Kids Achievement Trust - FYD Auckland   

Towards the delivery costs for Kiwi Can in Clendon Park Primary, Finlayson Park, Manurewa South, Manurewa West, Weymouth Intermediate, Manurewa Intermediate and Roscommon Schools.

$10,000

Local Board Discretionary Community Fund

Auckland Regional Migrant Services Charitable Trust

Towards the cost of facilitators for 6 workshops/training over a 12 month period.

$1,680

Local Board Discretionary Community Fund

Chinese New Settlers Services Trust

Towards funding for resources, equipment, venue and promotion.

$6,961

Local Board Discretionary Community Fund

Communicare (CMA)

Towards rental costs for the Manurewa Friendship Centre based at the St Andrews Church for 2015.

$1,656

Local Board Discretionary Community Fund

Father and Child Trust

Towards salary of support worker and manager, also rent, printing and distribution of magazines.

$10,000

Local Board Discretionary Community Fund

Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust NZ

Towards wages for an 'Outreach Worker' employed for 10 hours per week to work in the Manurewa local board area.

$1,702

Local Board Discretionary Community Fund

KidsCan Charitable Trust

Towards the cost of ‘Nit Treatment’ at low decile schools in the Manurewa local board area.

$5,000

Local Board Discretionary Community Fund

Manukau New Life Christian Centre - Storm

Towards camp fees for 50 young adults @ $90 each ($4,500) and a donation Towards camp transport ($1,000).

$5,500

Local Board Discretionary Community Fund

New Foundations Trust  (NFT)

Towards mentor costs to run an NFT programme (BRIDGE, Get Ready Get Set Go, and STEPS) appropriate to the needs of the at-risk youth and primary, intermediate and high schools in the Manurewa community. 

$9,200

Local Board Discretionary Community Fund

Randwick Park Residents Association

Towards costs to hold Christmas in the Park -Riverton Reserve Celebrations on Friday 5 December 2014.

$2,902

Local Board Discretionary Community Fund

Society for community Development Support Inc t/a Pregnancy Options and Help

Towards support worker wages.

$2,500

Local Board Discretionary Community Fund

South Asian Trust Inc.

Towards resources, facilitation and transport costs for the Parvarish Parenting Programme.

$6,697

Local Board Discretionary Community Fund

South Auckland Christian Foodbank

Towards costs to provide the Food Save service.

$15,000

Local Board Discretionary Community Fund

Te Whakaora Tangata

Towards venue hire at Clendon Community House and the Manurewa Marae for the Emotional Healing programme.

 

$4,248

Local Board Discretionary Community Fund

The Parenting Place - Toolbox Division

Towards additional fee subsidies for low-income participants, course handbooks and volunteer expenses for the Toolbox parenting groups in the Manurewa local board area.

$4,746

Local Board Discretionary Community Fund

WaterSafe Auckland Inc.

Towards swim school costs, local advertising, and messaging tools for the Whanau Nui Swim Programme at the Manurewa Aquatic Centre (Nga Mahi a Rehia from 1 December 2014 to 1 February 2015.  

$2,237

Local Board Discretionary Community Fund

What Hope Community Trust

Towards costs to provide four youth filmmaking experience workshops for groups of up to 10 youth over 6 weeks as an after school programme.

$5,108

Local Board Discretionary Community Fund

YMCA of Auckland Inc

Towards funding to support cost of the Diploma in Child Protection and the Kindy Rocks training.

$3,501

Local Board Discretionary Community Fund

Zion Ministries Trust

Towards an upgrade of the Breakfast Club’s commercial website.

$3,450

Social Investment

Fund

Auckland Regional Migrant Services Charitable Trust

Towards salary costs for a part-time Pasifika Activities Coordinator for ARMS Manukau CBD areas.

$14,184

Social Investment

Fund

Foundation for Youth Development

Towards funding for the 2015 delivery of the Career Navigator programme at Manurewa High School. 

$5,000

Social Investment

Fund

Kohiwi Road Playcentre

Towards funding to support paying for Licensing and Administration support for a 12 month period. 

$5,000

Social Investment

Fund

Roman Catholic Diocese of Auckland Ecclesiatical Goods Trust T/A Catholic Social Services

Towards staff costs (salaries and training for 3 months) to provide a community based programme to stop violence to vulnerable family members and their children.

$10,000

Social Investment

Fund

Weymouth Playcentre

Towards payment for Licensing and Administration support for a 12 month period. 

$3,000

Social Investment

Fund

What Hope Community Trust

Towards camping ground fees, food and fuel costs for girls and boys Youth Leadership camps.

$2,013

Total Amount Requested

$142,773

 

 

 

Discussion

6.         The 6 March 2014 meeting of the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee agreed to the continuation of the interim community funding approach for the 2014/2015 financial year:

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee endorse existing funding arrangements and grants schemes being rolled over for the 2014 /2015 financial year.” (REG/2014/36)

 

7.         The funds for the legacy community funding and local board discretionary community funding schemes within the southern local board areas cover the following funds:

·          Local Board Discretionary Community Fund

·          Social Investment

·          School Holiday Programme Fund

·          School Swimming Pool Fund

·          Community Crime Prevention Fund

·          Marae Facilities Fund

 

8.         Twenty-six applications were received in this round to be considered under the following funds:

· Local Board Discretionary Community Grants Fund

· Social Investment Fund

9.         When considering the applications to the Local Board Discretionary Community Grants Fund, the Manurewa Local Board should be guided by their Local Board Plan priorities.  These are not eligibility criteria; rather they are guidelines to support the local board when considering the merits of each application. 

10.       The Manurewa Local Board held a workshop on 23 September 2014 to consider each application and how each project aligned with the Manurewa Local Board Plan priorities and the south “Community Funding Policy for Grants, Donations and Sponsorships” that currently apply.

11.       Financial Summary – Summary of Manurewa Local Board’s available balance for the 2014/2015 financial year:

 

2014/15

Annual

Budget

 

Type of Fund

Grants paid

Balance

$40,168

 

Local Board Discretionary Community Fund

 

$40,168

$54,703

 

Social Investment Fund

 

$54,703

$11,803

 

School Holiday Programme Fund

 

$11,803

$3,134

 

School Swimming Pool Fund

 

$3,134

$8,752

 

Rates Assistance Fund

 

$8,752

$21,373

 

Community Crime Prevention Fund

 

$21,373

$31,890

 

Marae Facilities Fund

 

$31,890

$171,823

TOTAL

 

$171,823

Consideration

Local Board Views

12.       A copy of the current legacy community funding and local board discretionary community funding schemes and funding guidelines within the southern local board areas current were circulated to all board members for the workshop held on 23 September 2014.

13.       Local board feedback on these applications was sought at a workshop with the Manurewa Local Board on 23 September 2014.

Maori Impact Statement

14.       Community funding is a general programme of interest and accessible to a wide range of groups, including Maori.  Maori are therefore likely to benefit alongside other groups in the community.  The provision of community funding to support community development initiatives provides opportunities for all Aucklanders to undertake projects, programmes and activities that benefit Maori.

General

15.       The allocation of grants to community groups is within the adopted annual plan and budgets.

16.       The decisions sought by this report do not trigger the Auckland Council Significance Policy.

Implementation Issues

17.       Following the Manurewa Local Board allocating funding for Round One, Community Development Arts and Culture will notify the applicants of the local board decision.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Authors

Jan Perkins - Community Funding Co-ordinator South

Authorisers

Kevin Marriott – Acting Manager Community Development, Arts and Culture

Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager

 


Manurewa Local Board

09 October 2014

 

 

Landowner and lease approval for the Totara Park Equestrian Centre covered arena

 

File No.: CP2014/21131

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To seek lease and landowner approvals for the new canopy and arena being constructed by the Totara Park Equestrian Centre at Totara Park, Manurewa.

Executive summary

2.       The Totara Park Equestrian Centre Trust (the Trust) is part-way through construction of a canopy over their new arena at 251 Redoubt Road, Manurewa.  The canopy will provide shelter from wind and rain for riders allowing for increased all weather utilisation of the arena. 

3.       The new arena is on land managed under a grazing licence granted to the Trust in 2010.  The licence requires landowner approval for any construction to be given prior to works proceeding.  The canopy covering the arena should be formalised by an agreement to lease for the period of the build and a subsequent community lease for additional premises signed with the Trust.  The Trust have a current community lease for adjoining land and the lease for additional premises can be managed under a similar term and conditions. Attachment A shows the indicative lease area and underlying zoning. 

4.       A barn-shaped canopy design shown in Attachment B received funding from the local board, support from Parks Department staff, and a resource consent (proposal # 39302).  However this design was later changed in response to local environmental conditions. 

5.       The new triangular-shaped design under construction (shown in Attachment C) has a similar footprint but is three metres higher and more visually dominant than the consented structure.  It is also less in keeping with the rural character of the park land.  It could be seen to set a precedent for larger buildings on park land, although it is noted that the District Plan and Unitary Plan provisions for the adjacent area which is zoned active outdoor recreation/organised sport zones, allow buildings to reach a maximum 15m in height.   In this case, the arena was constructed mostly on passive/informal zone that restricts the height to 8m. 

6.       An application for building consent of the new design was lodged in December 2013.  This was accompanied by an email from the Parks Department dated October 2013 authorising the works, although it appears no plans were signed.  During the building consent process it became apparent that the plans were different to those given resource consent.  A certificate under section 37 of the Building Act was issued on 6 January 2014 requiring resource consent for the new design to be granted before any building work could proceed.  A revised certificate was issued on 15 January restricting building work on the fabric gable wall and requiring the applicant to seek a variation of the resource consent.  An application for this variation was received by the council on 16 January 2014.

7.       It is recognised that the communication between the council and the Trust over the re-designed building was not clear and steps have been taken to ensure that this situation will not be repeated. 

8.       In addition to the consent variation, the Trust has submitted a mitigation plan which involves planting and a bund to help screen the structure and break up its visual dominance.  It is noted that the planting will take some time to become effective.  If approval is given for this structure, it is recommended that the mitigation plan be further refined in association with Parks Department staff.


9.       Preliminary advice from the Trust’s consultants indicates that they could alter the upper framework to reduce the height to 13.3m (being 1.8m above the currently resource consented height).  Attachment D shows a plan of that proposal which is roughly estimated to cost $255,000.  This option is not recommended as it is not considered an appropriate expense for a small improvement. 

10.     The consultants also advise that a full re-design and re-build would be needed (possibly with inferior building materials) to achieve the consented height.  They suggest that a full re-build may cost in the region of the original estimate for the canopy being around $600,000 but are seeking further information from the manufacturer.  This will be tabled at the meeting.

11.     The Trust and its member organisations are experiencing significant recreational and financial impacts associated with the delays to the completion of the structure.  

12.     The council is supportive of the equestrian activity and of the Trust. While recognising that the re-designed canopy is not entirely appropriate, it is recommended that the new design be approved because of the lack of clarity in communication and around process resulting in the canopy being partially constructed, and the ensuing costs to remediate.

 

Recommendations

That the Manurewa Local Board:

a)      gives landowner approval for a 15 metre high triangular canopy over the Totara Park Equestrian Centre arena (shown on Global Fabric Structures Drawing Number 13089-501)  to be constructed subject to the following conditions;

i.      that all appropriate regulatory consents are obtained; and

ii.     that a mitigation plan is agreed and implemented to the satisfaction of the Manager Local and Sports Parks – South

b)      notes that the consented 11.5m high rounded barn-shaped canopy (resource consent proposal #39302) is the preferred design, but that due to extenuating circumstances related to communication and process issues and the cost of altering the structure, the 15 metre high canopy with mitigation is acceptable

c)      resolves to surrender the grazing licence from the Totara Park Equestrian Centre Trust over the portion of land at Totara Park, 251 Redoubt Road, Manurewa, where the arena is located as outlined in the site plan (Attachment A), and grant an agreement to lease to the Trust for one year commencing 9 October 2014 with a one-year right of renewal to allow for the consents, funding and building processes to be completed.

d)      resolves that upon the issue of a building certificate of compliance, a community lease for additional premises be granted to the Totara Park Equestrian Centre Trust under the Local Government Act, subject to the following terms and conditions:

i.    term – a term from the date of compliance to the final expiry of 31 July 2020 in line with the Totara Park Equestrian Centre Trust current lease over the adjoining premises;

ii.    rent – $1.00 per annum if demanded;

iii.   all other terms and conditions to be in compliance with the Local Government Act 2002 and the Auckland Council Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012 and in line with the Totara Park Equestrian Centre Trust current lease over the adjoining premises.

e)      notes –  a landowner approval is conditional.  It allows an applicant to meet conditions such as seeking and obtaining resource and building consents and is not a regulatory consent in itself. The landowner approval lapses if any of its conditions are not satisfied. If there are any amendments to the proposal, a new assessment and landowner approval will need to be undertaken by Parks, Sport and Recreation prior to any works commencing.

Comments

13.     The Totara Park Equestrian Centre Trust (the Trust) is seeking approval from the council as landowner to complete the construction of a canopy over their new arena on Totara Park at 251 Redoubt Road, Manurewa (being Part Clendons Grant, Certificate of title 69A/144).  Attachment A shows the indicative location of the arena on the park and the underlying zoning.  The canopy structure will allow all-weather use of the arena area thereby extending its use.  The primary users include members of the Totara Park Pony Club, the Adult Riding Club and Riding for the Disabled.  

14.     The Trust has been working with the local board and council parks and regulatory staff to obtain funding and approvals for the structure.  Resource consent (proposal # 39302) was granted in October 2011 for a rounded barn-shaped, fabric-covered structure with dimensions of 60m by 40m by 11.4m high.  Attachment B provides an image of the consented structure.

15.     Following advice from the manufacturer of the structure, the shape of the building was changed (see Attachment C).  The new design is 60m by 41m x 15m high at the peak, and was a response to local environmental conditions.  The original steel frame design was assessed to have a reduced lifespan given the salt content of the air, so aluminium was recommended.   The manufacturer also assessed that the high winds would be better addressed by the new design which would achieve the 40m clear span over the arena with the less strong aluminium framing.  

16.     In response to a request for landowner approval relating to the building consent application, the Parks Department confirmed in October 2013 that the building works over the arena as per their facility partnership grant was authorised.  It appears that no plans were signed at the time and there is therefore no clarity over which design was authorised. 

17.     A building consent application was lodged in December 2013.  During the building consent process it became apparent that the plans were different to those given resource consent.  A certificate under section 37 of the Building Act was issued on 6 January 2014 requiring resource consent for the new design to be granted before any building work proceeded.  A revised certificate was issued on 15 January restricting building work on the fabric gable wall and requiring the change of resource consent conditions.   An application for this variation was received by the council on 16 January 2014.

18.     It is recognised that there have been communication issues between the council and the Trust over the re-designed building and steps have been taken to ensure that this situation does not occur again.  This includes ensuring applicants are aware that any design changes need to be communicated clearly to the Parks Department and resource consenting staff before building works proceed. 

19.     Landowner approval for the canopy was never formally given by the local board.  It is noted that the timing of the proposal coincided with the changeover to the new Auckland Council and there may have been a lack of clarity on the process in place for approvals at this time.  However, it is noted that the Manurewa Local Board approved funding in May 2013 of $150,000 towards the construction of the canopy.  Parks staff were involved in discussions for the resource consent and noted that the activity fits well with the Totara Park Reserve Management Plan; that the lease for the area would need to be approved and that the proposal for the curved barn-shaped structure, while large, was an appropriate design in the rural environment.

20.     The Trust has obtained funding to the value of $610,000 to cover the projected cost of the structure.  Preliminary advice from the Trust’s consultants indicates that they could alter the upper framework to reduce the height to 13.3m (being 1.8m above the currently resource consented height).  Attachment D shows a plan of that proposal which is roughly estimated to cost $255,000.  


 

21.     The consultants also advise that a full re-design and re-build would be needed (possibly with inferior building materials) to achieve the consented height.  They suggest that a full re-build may cost in the region of the original estimate for the canopy being around $600,000 but are seeking further information from the manufacturer.  This will be tabled at the meeting.

Assessment

22.     In assessing whether the proposal for the revised design is appropriate, the council as landowner should consider the following issues:

·    That the use is in keeping with the purposes for which park land is held

·    That the effects of the structure on the park and other park users is appropriate

·    Whether the activity may set a precedent that could give rise to similar activities which in combination may result in adverse cumulative effects on parks in the future

These issues are assessed in the table below. 

That the use is in keeping with the purposes for which park land is held

 

The land is not held under the Reserves Act but is managed as recreational public open space.

The proposed use is recreational and aligns with the current management and the Totara Park Management Plan 2001 (Draft) objective 2.1.6 ‘Encourage use of the Pony Club facilities’.  This objective states that “… Greater use of the facilities will enable the upgrading of services and accommodate further groups.  The idea for comprehensive management of the Equestrian Centre opens up possibilities for inclusion of other riding groups to use the facilities….”

That the effects of the structure on the park and other park users is appropriate

 

A significant effect of the activity is its impact on the visual amenity and character of the park landscape.  The new arena and canopy is located within an expansive area of rural farmland within the park and is on a lower contour than the existing club buildings. 

It is considered that the original proposal for a curved barn-shaped structure fits well with the rural character of the park.  The 11.4m height and scale of the building, while large, is considered not overly dominant due to the line of mature pine trees that screen views of the canopy from west and southwestern locations within the park, and the light green exterior colour which helps to blend the structure with the surrounding environs.

The triangular shape of the new design, while it could be perceived as presenting a more iconic shape for this premier park, is less in keeping with the rural character of the park and environs.  The additional 3m height is created by a peaked, tapering design and, while not extending across the full width of the building’s footprint, it adds to the dominance of the building especially when viewed from the sides. 

While the building is partially screened by the existing pines and the topography from some angles, and the colour of the exterior fabric is green to help blend it with the landscape, additional mitigation would assist in reducing its visual impact. 

 

The Trust have proposed including a partly clear end gable wall, painting the aluminium frame legs green, planting some 60 trees to assist in screening the structure, and creating a grassed mound on the northern side of the arena.  It is considered that, with further work, mitigation measures will go some way to addressing the dominance of the building to an appropriate level in time. 

The proposed alteration shown in Attachment D represents only a minor reduction in height for relatively large cost.  This is not recommended as it is not considered an appropriate expense for a small improvement.

Whether the activity may set a precedent that could give rise to similar activities which in combination may result in adverse cumulative effects on parks in the future?

 

There is some concern that approval for such a large structure on the park may set a precedent for other large buildings to be proposed in the future on this park and other council parks.  However this is considered to be a rather unique case in that design changes were not clearly communicated to the Parks Department and resource consenting staff before works began.  Steps will be taken to reduce the likelihood that this will happen again.  It is important that the context of an approval of a new design (if given) is clearly stated so that it is not used as a future precedent. 

 

Leasing matters

23.     The arena has been built in an area which is licenced to the Trust under a grazing licence.  The licence requires the Trust to obtain written consent for any constructions, including submission of detailed plans, for approval by the council as landowner.  The licence also gives the council absolute discretion to give or withhold approval without obligation to give reasons.

24.     It is recommended that the portion of land the arena is built on is surrendered from the Totara Park Equestrian Centre Trust grazing licence, and an agreement to lease is granted to the Trust for one year commencing 9 October 2014 with a one-year right of renewal to enable the Trust to apply for consents and funding, and complete the building process.  Public notification is not considered necessary as upgrading the equestrian use is contemplated in the Totara Park Management Plan 2001 (Draft).

25.     It is noted that the Totara Park Reserve Management Plan (2001) is in draft form, subject to final classification of the reserve.  While the management plan process was complete, the final step of classification was never actioned so the majority of the land in Totara Park (including the site of the arena) is not held or classified under the Reserves Act.  It would be prudent in the future to consider the Reserves Act status and protection of the park.

26.     It is also recommended that upon the issue of a building certificate of compliance at the conclusion of the building process, a community lease for additional premises be granted to the Totara Park Equestrian Centre Trust.  The term would be from the date of compliance for the length of time required for a final expiry of the lease of 31 July 2020 which keeps it in line with the Totara Park Equestrian Centre Trust current lease over the adjoining premises.

27.     All other terms and conditions would be in compliance with the Local Government Act 2002 and the Auckland Council Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012 and in line with the Totara Park Equestrian Centre Trust current lease over the adjoining premises.

 

Other relevant matters

28.     The delays resulting from the halt on the project due to the changed design have affected the use of the arena by club members.  The clubs report reduced attendance and membership.  The Riding for the Disabled also note that reduction in quality riding opportunities impacts on member’s physical condition, independence and the behaviour of autistic child members. 

29.     The Trust, clubs and their members are also sustaining costs relating to lost revenue from events, reduced membership fees and additional costs associated with travel and events held elsewhere as a result of the arena being unavailable.  Additionally the Trust advise that ongoing costs directly related to the delay total approximately $36,000 to date.

Conclusion

30.     The council is supportive of the equestrian use of the site and of the Trust and, while recognising that the re-designed canopy is not completely appropriate, may decide in the wider interest of those users to give approval for the new design.  If approved, it is recommended that landowner approval for the canopy covering the arena be formalised by the board and an agreement to lease signed with the Trust. 

Consideration

Local board views and implications

31.     The former Manukau City Council provided funding for the completion of the equestrian arena.  That funding was made up of contributions from the following legacy community boards; Botany $40,000; Manurewa $93,000; Papatoetoe $10,000 and $141,000 from the Policy and Activities Committee.

32.     In May 2013, the Manurewa Local Board approved funding of $150,000 towards the canopy on the basis that the full amount required to fund the project was secured in advance of construction.

33.     A workshop was held with the Manurewa Local Board on 21 August 2014 to discuss the proposal for the higher structure and the lease.  Trust members and a representative gave a presentation to the board at that workshop detailing the circumstances of the changed design.  The board requested further information from the applicant including costs and options to reduce the building’s height to the granted resource consent design. These have been partially provided and are outlined in the report.

Māori impact statement

34.     There are no known or recorded areas of cultural or archaeological interest on the reserve and no known sites of significance or value to Mana Whenua indicated in the proposed unitary plan.  It is considered that no part of the reserve or the request for landowner approval triggers any Treaty of Waitangi settlement issues or matters in relation to customary right outcomes.

Implementation

35.     If the local board supports the 15m high canopy proposal, further work should be done on the mitigation proposal to reduce the visual dominance and improve the screening of the building.  The Parks Department can work with the applicant on this.  Proposals for mitigation will take into account the re-alignment currently proposed by Auckland Transport of Redoubt and Mill Roads. 

36.     The applicant will need to gain resource consent for the new structure.  Their application for resource consent is currently on hold until the local board decision has been made.  A determination has not yet been made as to whether the application would need to be notified

 

 


 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Indicative lease area

33

bView

Original rounded canopy

35

cView

Redesigned triangular canopy

37

dView

Option to reduce height to 13.3m

39

     

Signatories

Authors

Tania Utley - Park and Recreation Advisor

Christine Benson - Advisor Community Lease

Authorisers

Ian Maxwell - Manager Parks, Sports & Recreation

Fiona Johnston – Manager Community Facilities

Kevin Marriott – Acting Manager Community Development Arts and Culture

Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager

 


Manurewa Local Board

09 October 2014

 

 


Manurewa Local Board

09 October 2014

 

 



Manurewa Local Board

09 October 2014

 

 


Manurewa Local Board

09 October 2014

 

 


Manurewa Local Board

09 October 2014

 

 


Manurewa Local Board

09 October 2014

 

 

Approval request for facility building renewal work schedule for 2014-15

 

File No.: CP2014/21309

 

  

 

 

Purpose

1.       To seek approval for the Manurewa Aquatic Centre, Te Matariki Clendon Community Centre facility building renewal capital work schedule for the 2014/15 financial year.

Executive summary

2.       To continue the delivery of aquatic and recreational services and ensure the integrity of your assets, an ongoing capital works schedule is required.  This capital work schedule seeks to address future degradation of the building infrastructure, maintain or improve current service levels, capitalise on sustainability opportunities, and address health and safety concerns.  The work schedule includes deferred works which will not require sign off.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Manurewa Local Board:

a)      Approves the 2015 aquatic and recreation facility building renewal capital work schedule.

b)      Manurewa Local Board approves Auckland Council Officers have delegated authority to manage the projects within the funding budget indicated in the list.

 

 

Comments

3.       The Auckland Councils Long Term Plan for this Board has a budget allocated for aquatic and recreational facilities building renewals.  This budget is allocated across 2 facilities – Manurewa Aquatic Centre, Te Matariki Clendon Community Centre.  The purpose of the proposed capital work schedule is to ensure the future integrity of the buildings and surrounding infrastructure, maintain and improve the current level of service and efficiencies, and address any immediate or potential safety compliance issues.

4.       The Aquatic and leisure facilities represent an asset group with significant risk.  The conditions within the facilities (i.e. chlorinated pool halls and areas of continual high impact use) if not maintained effectively will result in the asset deteriorating at a rapid rate, reduction in the level of service that is able to be offered.

5.       The specific projects below have been complied on information and advice from the Auckland Council Properties Department, the respective facility managers and an energy report compiled to improve the operational efficiencies of the Manurewa Aquatic Centre and the Te Matariki Clendon Community Centre


 

6.       The full list of projects are detailed below:

Consideration

Local board views and implications

7.       The capital work schedule will have been discussed with the Manurewa Local Board

Māori impact statement

8.       There are no particular impacts on Maori which are different from general users of the aquatic and recreation facilitates

Implementation

9.       Once approval for the schedule of work is received, project initiation forms will be completed from which the properties department will source a contractor to complete the work. 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Authors

Jane  Franich - Contract Relationship Advisor

Authorisers

Ian Maxwell - Manager Parks, Sports & Recreation

Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager

 


Manurewa Local Board

09 October 2014

 

 

Draft Community Grants Policy

 

File No.: CP2014/21704

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To seek local board feedback on the draft Community Grants Policy (Attachment A) and provide an overview of public feedback on the policy for members’ consideration. The report also briefly outlines the key components of the draft policy, proposes a transitional approach to establishing a multi-board grants programme, and discusses the budgetary implications of the policy.

Executive summary

2.       On 3 July 2014 the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee (the Committee) endorsed a new draft Community Grants Policy (CGP) for local board engagement and public consultation.

3.       The draft CGP has been developed to guide the allocation of local, multi-board and regional grants to groups and organisations delivering projects, activities and services that benefit Aucklanders. It covers grants for community development, arts and culture, events, sport and recreation, environment and heritage.

4.       The draft CGP proposes a new community grants programme aligned to Auckland Council’s governance structure, with:

a)      a local component (21 local grants programmes and a ‘multi-board’ grants programme, governed by local boards and aligned with local board plans), and

b)      a regional component (six regional grants programmes aligned to strategic directions in the Auckland Plan, with governing body decision-making).

5.       Community grants are a critical tool to implement Auckland’s vision as set out in the Auckland Plan, local board plans and the council’s core regional strategies, policies and plans. The draft CGP provides a regional framework for grant-making by Auckland Council, while ensuring flexibility for local boards to shape their own grants programme to respond to the specific needs and priorities of their communities. To reflect this, and give effect to local boards’ decision-making role in relation to local grants, staff propose that each local board be supported to develop an individual schedule to the CGP that sets out the specific outcomes, priorities and structure of their local grants programme.

6.       The draft CGP proposes that local boards be supported to form a range of new, outcome-driven multi-board clusters. However to achieve a smooth transition from the interim funding arrangements to the new grants programme, staff propose that the existing joint funding committees and subcommittees form the basis of four multi-board clusters for the 2015-2016 financial year. Although this would mean that the current ‘membership’ of these clusters would continue for the first year, this is the only aspect that would remain the same.

7.       Once adopted, the CGP will replace an interim community funding programme that has operated since amalgamation, consisting of more than 50 local and legacy ‘city-wide’ grants schemes and a small number of regional grants schemes. The community grants budgets inherited from the legacy councils are currently over-subscribed, especially at the regional level. To fully implement the CGP and deliver on the transformational shifts, staff propose additional investment of $2 million p.a. be considered through the Long-term Plan process 2015-2025. This will increase the amount of funding for regional grants to a more viable level, without reducing the existing funding envelope for local and multi-board grants.

8.       Staff attended local board workshops to discuss the draft policy during July and August 2014, to support the provision of formal local board feedback on the CGP during September and October. Public feedback on the CGP was invited between 14 July and 11 August, and a summary of this input is provided as Attachments B and C.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Manurewa Local Board:

a)      endorse the Community Grants Policy as a regional framework for the Auckland Council community grants programme, noting that the local board will be supported to develop an individual schedule to the policy that sets out the specific outcomes, priorities and structure of their local grants programme.

b)      provide feedback on any policy provisions of specific interest or concern to the local board, for consideration during the review and finalisation of the Community Grants Policy.

c)      indicate whether they support the proposal to participate in an interim ‘multi-board cluster’ with Franklin Local Board, Howick Local Board, Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board, Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board, Papakura Local Board and Manurewa Local Board to consider jointly supporting projects and activities of mutual benefit, noting that if this is agreed:

i)        staff will work with participating local boards to agree funding priorities and terms of reference for the cluster;

ii)       participating local boards will continue to hold their funds separately within the cluster, and can choose whether or not to allocate funds towards individual grant applications on a case-by-case basis;

iii)      additional multi-board clusters can still be explored, and will be supported wherever feasible;

iv)      the cluster is a transitional arrangement and would exist for the duration of the 2015-2016 financial year only, unless otherwise agreed by the participating local boards.

Comments

Background

9.       A discussion paper outlining the key elements, issues and options for a new Community Grants Policy (CGP) was work-shopped with local boards during March and April 2014. Workshops were also held to test draft approaches with the governing body and key stakeholders in May. A summary of the feedback received is provided as Attachment D.

10.     Feedback on the discussion paper informed the preparation of a draft CGP, which was reported to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee (the Committee) on 3 July 2014. The Committee endorsed the draft CGP for local board engagement and public consultation.

11.     Staff attended local board workshops to discuss the draft policy during July and August 2014, to support the provision of formal local board feedback on the CGP during September and October.

Summary of draft Community Grants Policy approach

12.     The draft Community Grants Policy proposes a framework for a new Auckland Council community grants programme with two main components: a local grants programme (incorporating multi-board grants) and a regional grants programme.

Local grants programme

13.     Local grants are a key tool local boards can use to implement the vision set out in their local board plans, and provide a direct, tangible way of supporting local community aspirations and responding to local needs and opportunities.

14.     At the local level the CGP is not intended to be prescriptive, but rather to provide a framework and guidelines that will assist local boards to deliver best practice in grant-making. This approach responds directly to feedback received from local boards during consultation on the draft Community Funding Policy in May 2012.

15.     The draft CGP proposes that each local board is supported to operate their own local grants programme under the broader umbrella of the CGP, and can award grants to groups and organisations, projects, services, events and activities that benefit residents in their local board area. Boards will be supported to develop specific funding priorities for their grants programme, drawing on the priorities set out in their local board plans.

16.     Two grant schemes are proposed to operate through the local grants programme:

a)      Fast Response Local Grants (up to $1,000)

Applicants for Fast Response Local Grants will complete simplified application and accountability processes. Funding rounds are proposed to be held more regularly, and timeframes for decision-making and payment will be kept as short as possible to ensure responsiveness to the community.

b)      Local Grants (over $1,000)

Local Grants are for larger amounts and are proposed to be distributed only once or twice per year, to enable the local board to consider how best to allocate their limited grants budget to deliver the local outcomes they are seeking. Applicants for Local Grants will complete application and accountability processes proportionate to the size of the grant they are seeking. Grants can be ‘one-off’ awards, or a commitment to fund over multiple years (up to a full political term).

Local board grants programme schedule

17.     A regional briefing for local board chairs and portfolio holders was held on 30 June 2014 to provide an overview of the proposed policy and discuss next steps ahead of reporting to the Committee.

18.     At the briefing, questions were raised about the policy’s recognition of local boards’ decision-making allocation in this area. Although the policy does provide sufficient flexibility for local boards to exercise this decision-making, it was felt this authority needed to be made more explicit. Following further discussion, it was agreed that this could be achieved by working with local boards to shape the structure and intent of their individual local grants programmes. Once the local board has agreed and adopted their programme, this can become a schedule to the policy. This approach was endorsed by local board chairs at the Chairs Forum on 28 July.

19.     Each individual local board grants programme schedule could include:

a)      Outcomes sought through the local grants programme (driven by local board plans) Any specific local funding priorities

b)      The types of funding opportunities available through the local grants programme

c)      Any specific eligibility criteria or exclusions that are additional to the baseline provisions of the CGP

d)      Any other factors the local board consider to be significant to their decision-making.

20.     Staff will work with local boards between February and April 2015 to develop and adopt their local grants programme schedules, and an implementation plan will be prepared for each local board to sit alongside the schedule (outlining key operational aspects such as the number and timing of funding rounds).

21.     Local boards will be able to review and update their schedules over time as strategic priorities and budgets change.


Proposed multi-board grants programme

22.     The draft CGP proposes that local boards be supported to form a range of new, outcome-driven multi-board clusters. These clusters will invite applications from, and award grants to organisations, services, projects, events and activities that benefit residents across their combined areas. Local boards could participate in more than one cluster.

23.     Multi-board clusters may be:

a)      Groups of local boards with contiguous boundaries, for example southern local boards wanting to support events in the Southern Initiative area

b)      Local boards that share a common characteristic or interest, for example high populations of older people, or bordering the Hauraki Gulf

c)      Local boards that want to address a common issue, for example by supporting employment programmes targeting marginalised young people.

24.     Staff will engage with local boards to scope and establish appropriate clusters, which may be in response to a need or opportunity identified by their communities, or to deliver strategic outcomes they have mutually identified in their local board plans. Once local boards have instigated (or agreed to participate in) a multi-board cluster, council staff will work with the participating boards to understand the outcomes sought, and design a grants programme to deliver these.

25.     Applicants seeking support from a multi-board cluster will make one combined application to all participating local boards in the cluster, will receive a single decision notification and grant award, and will submit one accountability report when their funded activities have been completed.

Implementation of the multi-board grants programme

26.     To achieve a smooth transition from the interim funding arrangements to the new grants programme, staff propose that the existing joint funding committees and subcommittees form the basis of four multi-board clusters for the 2015-2016 financial year.

27.     Although this would mean that the current ‘membership’ of these clusters would continue for the first year, this is the only aspect that would remain the same. Participating local boards would agree new funding priorities and terms of reference with the other local boards in that cluster, have discretion over the amount of their local funding to set aside for considering multi-board applications, and support applications on a case-by-case basis.

28.     This phased approach would enable a multi-board grants programme to launch in 2015 alongside the new local grants programmes with minimum additional preparation, given that the joint funding committees and subcommittees have some existing structure in place that could be used as a guide (e.g. delegated local board representatives, approximate schedule of funding rounds, and an existing pool of applicants). Staff could work with these existing multi-board clusters to develop appropriate funding priorities for the transitional year. This approach would be a good test for the model and enable refinements to the process to be agreed with local boards, while minimising any initial impact on community organisations.

29.     The current geographical clusters of local boards (i.e. the joint funding committees aligned to the former city and district council areas in the Auckland region) are:

a)      Northern cluster: Devonport-Takapuna, Kaipatiki, Upper Harbour (Northern Metro Subcommittee) Hibiscus and Bays, Rodney (Former RDC Subcommittee)

b)      Southern cluster: Franklin, Howick, Mangere-Otahuhu, Manurewa, Otara-Papatoetoe, Papakura (note that suitable arrangements would need to be developed with the southern local boards, as they have not been operating as a cluster)

c)      Western cluster: Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

d)      Central cluster: Albert-Eden, Great Barrier (optional), Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Orakei, Puketapapa, Waiheke, Waitemata

30.     In addition, if boards wish to establish and resource other clusters, this could also be supported where feasible.

31.     If this approach is agreed, the transitional arrangements would be reviewed prior to the financial year commencing 1 July 2016. At this time, the clusters could either continue, or additional and/or alternative clusters could be established.

Regional grants programme

32.     It is proposed that the governing body of Auckland Council, through its various committees, will award grants to regionally significant organisations, services, events and activities that benefit residents across Auckland. At the regional level the CGP proposes six activity-focused grants programmes aligned to strategic directions outlined in the Auckland Plan.

33.     The proposed regional grants programmes are:

a)      Regional Arts and Culture Grants Programme

b)      Regional Community Development Grants Programme

c)      Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grants Programme

d)      Regional Events Grants Programme

e)      Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme

f)       Regional Sport and Recreation Grants Programme

34.     Each of the proposed regional grants programmes is conceived and will be promoted as a key mechanism to implement the relevant regional strategy, policy or plan (e.g. the Regional Arts and Culture grants programme will support the Arts and Culture Strategic Action Plan). These regional strategies enable – or will enable – the council to determine where it will target its resources in the medium to long term.

35.     The draft CGP proposes that most of the regional grants programmes provide for two distinct grant types: single-year project grants, for standalone initiatives, and multi-year strategic relationship grants. Project grants of varying size will be awarded through a contestable process at least once per year, while the strategic relationship grants will enable the council to enter multi-year funding relationships with a small number of organisations operating at the regional level. The majority of organisations receiving strategic relationship grants will have an existing relationship with Auckland Council and be able to demonstrate a clear track record of achievement at this level.

36.     To be considered eligible for regional grants, applicants must be able to show that their service, project or activity:

a)      Primarily addresses regionally determined priorities, and it would therefore be unreasonable to expect local boards to meet the cost, and is:

b)      Regional in terms of scale and/or significance, and/or is

c)      Regional in terms of impact and/or reach.

37.     The regional grants programmes are described in schedules to the Draft Community Grants Policy, as it is anticipated these schedules may be reviewed and updated over time as strategic priorities change.

Feedback from public consultation

38.     Public consultation on the CGP was undertaken from 14 July – 17 August 2014 and included:

a)      provision of accessible and easy-read versions of the policy summary document

b)      distribution of information packs and fliers at all Auckland Council service centres, community centres, local board offices and libraries

c)      provision of information via ‘Shape Auckland’ and a dedicated webpage on the Auckland Council website

d)      advertisement in ‘Our Auckland’

e)      advertisement through community and ethnic newspapers

f)       promotion via Council’s social media channels (e.g. Facebook)

g)      provision of a dedicated community assistance email account to allow people to make enquiries and submit feedback

h)      distribution of online survey to the following audiences:

·        those who provided feedback during previous consultations

·        all community grant applicants since amalgamation

·        community networks via Council’s advisory teams (CDAC, PSR, IE)

·        other stakeholder networks as appropriate

i)        provision of hard copy consultation material and submission forms by request

j)        five public workshops (Rodney, north, central, west and south)

k)      local board public workshops as requested (Orakei and Maungakiekie-Tamaki)

l)        two Mataawaka hui (west and south)

m)     presentations at southern and northern mana whenua hui and a regional environmental sector hui.

39.     At the regional local board briefing on 30 June, some members expressed interest in seeing feedback from their communities prior to providing their own feedback on the policy. To enable this staff agreed to extend formal reporting to local boards so that a summary of public input could be provided.  This is now attached for the local board’s consideration (Attachments B and C).

Financial implications of the CGP

40.     The CGP will be a critical tool to implement Auckland’s vision as set out in the Auckland Plan, local board plans and core regional strategies, policies and plans, and it is important that there is sufficient funding to effectively resource the new programme for this purpose.

41.     The legacy grants budgets inherited at amalgamation (or created subsequently) total c. $8.3 million p.a., or around $6 per head of population, with the majority supporting groups and activities that are either local or multi-board (via the legacy ‘city-wide’ funds). These funds are already oversubscribed – on average the value of requests is three times the available budget, and in some cases considerably more.

42.     Of the total community grants budget, c. $2.4 million is currently targeting regional groups and activities. Current baseline funding for each of the regional grants programmes is as follows:

a)      Regional Arts and Culture grants programme (c. $650,000)

b)      Regional Community Development grants programme (No regional budget: all current grant schemes for this activity are administered by local boards, with some regional groups receiving interim allocations via the Annual Plan)

c)      Regional Environment and Natural Heritage grants programme (up to $545,000)

d)      Regional Events grants programme ($400,000)

e)      Regional Historic Heritage grants programme (up to $345,000)

f)       Regional Sport and Recreation grants programme (c. $500,000)

43.     The existing grants programmes at this level are not able to meet current demand, and in some cases include funding tagged to specific recipients, or funding for regional outcomes that is being provided through local grants schemes. While contestability will be introduced for all funding schemes, there is little ‘headroom’ to support new applicants or address emerging priorities. For example, there is an expectation that a number of major events dropped from ATEED’s portfolio will now need to be funded through the Regional Events Fund from 2015/16, at an additional cost of $170,000 against the existing budget of $400,000.

44.     Many regional organisations have been waiting for implementation of the new CGP to access regional funding, and in some cases their need has become so urgent that the governing body has allocated emergency funding through the annual plan as an interim measure.

45.     Additional investment in the regional grants programme of $2 million p.a. is proposed as an option for governing body consideration through the LTP process 2015-2025. Staff consider a minimum of between $600,000 and $800,000 is required for each regional grants programme if the CGP is to support meaningful progress against the council’s stated priorities in these activity areas and deliver on the transformational shifts. The level of investment requested will support an average fund size of $750,000 (the exact distribution of budget between the six programmes would be proposed alongside the final policy).

Consideration

Local board views and implications

46.     The design of the new grants programme proposed in the CGP has been strongly influenced by local board feedback received during consultation on the first draft Community Funding Policy in May 2012, and during more recent engagement.

47.     A discussion paper on the new CGP was prepared in February 2014 and discussed in specially convened local board cluster workshops in March 2014, which were attended by representatives of all local boards. The paper outlined the basic elements of the proposed grants programme and sought feedback on specific policy issues. A summary of the feedback received during the cluster workshops and how this has been reflected in the draft CGP is provided as Attachment D.

48.     A regional briefing for local board chairs and portfolio holders was held on 30 June to provide a further overview of the proposed policy and to discuss next steps.  At the briefing, questions were raised about the policy’s recognition of local boards’ decision-making allocation in this area. Staff met with local board chairs on 28 July and agreed a process to address this concern (see ‘Local board grants programme schedule’ paras 16-20).

49.     Staff attended workshops with local boards during July and August 2014 to discuss the draft policy and support the provision of formal local board feedback requested via this report.

Māori impact statement

50.     Community grants have the potential to make a significant impact on Māori through supporting the outcomes in the Māori Plan. Under the proposed principles for the CGP, all grants programmes should respond to Auckland Council’s commitment to improving Māori wellbeing, as outlined in the Auckland Plan, local board plans and regional strategies, policies and plans, by providing grants to organisations delivering Māori outcomes locally and regionally.

51.     There is already some dedicated funding for Māori outcomes at the regional level, currently focused on papakainga and marae development across Auckland. Te Waka Angamua will be working with mana whenua and mataawaka to explore how best to target this and/or other funding allocated for Māori outcomes in future, e.g. determining eligibility criteria and the most appropriate forums for priority-setting and decision-making.

52.     During workshops in March/April 2014, staff discussed options with local boards for creating dedicated Māori funding schemes at the local level, or embedding Māori outcomes as a ‘standing priority’ across all proposed grants programmes at the local and regional level. Local boards expressed interest in dedicated Māori funding schemes at the local level if regional funding was made available to them for this purpose, but otherwise felt it was more appropriate for any targeted spending to be at each local board’s discretion, driven by local board plan priorities. The CGP’s intent to align grant-making to strategic priorities should ensure funding is allocated to groups and projects delivering Māori outcomes.

53.     The current interim funding programme includes one grants scheme dedicated to Māori outcomes (the Marae Development Fund in the former Manukau City area), and this particular scheme, along with all others operating through the interim programme, will cease to operate once a new CGP is adopted. Regional marae development funding may provide some capacity to meet this need going forward, and Te Waka Angamua will release details of the application and decision-making process for that funding for the next financial year.

54.     However local boards also have full discretion to provide grants for any purpose that benefits their local communities, and this is likely to include supporting marae especially where grants have been provided for this purpose in the past. The draft CGP provides flexibility for decision-makers to award grants to community groups that are not formally constituted charitable organisations, where appropriate, and staff understand this should increase access to funding for some Māori organisations, such as marae, who may not previously have been eligible.

Implementation

Budget alignment

55.     Existing funding arrangements and grants schemes were rolled over for the 2014/2015 financial year. If adopted, implementation of the CGP will begin from 1 July 2015 to align with the new LTP 2015-2025 and implementation of the Local Board Funding Policy (LBFP). This will enable the finalised budget structures to be implemented alongside the policy.

56.     Existing grants budgets categorised as ‘local’ will form part of the overall locally driven initiatives (LDI) budget allocated to local boards through the LBFP formula. Local boards will then set aside a budget to support their local grants programme from their LDI funding envelope through the Local Board Agreement process.

57.     Staff will propose an overall budget structure for the new grants programme when the final policy is tabled with the committee in November 2014, outlining the treatment of any inherited (and new) community grants budgets and funding arrangements that will support the CGP going forward. This should enable staff to take into account the outcome of LTP deliberations in the second half of 2014 and present budget structure options accordingly.

Operationalisation of the CGP

58.     The draft CGP has been developed with substantial input from the relevant operational departments to ensure that it is able to be delivered.

59.     The proposed implementation timeframe should provide operational teams with adequate time to design supporting systems and business processes, and to produce public-facing collateral that outlines the structure and requirements of the new grants programmes in detail. This will include:

a)      Working with all decision-makers to schedule an annual calendar of funding rounds for each level of the programme

b)      Working with local boards to assist them in developing their local board grants programme schedules

c)      Producing new promotional materials for the council website, marketing and promotion through media channels and to support public information sessions

d)      Designing new online application forms and guidelines for prospective applicants

e)      Ensuring support will be available for prospective applicants requiring assistance or capacity building to access the grants programmes, working with specialist colleagues where appropriate

f)       Developing business processes and templates to enable consistent assessment and reporting to elected members, and to support their decision-making

g)      Updating funding agreements, accountability forms and other legal documentation to ensure they are fit-for-purpose, and developing processes to deal with any grant recipients in breach of their agreements

h)      Ensuring payments processes and associated financial controls are robust, efficient and fit-for-purpose.

60.     If the CGP is adopted on schedule towards the end of 2014, grant applicants / recipients will also have more than six months to prepare for the changeover to the new policy and manage any implications. Staff will work with previously funded organisations to support them to access the new grants programmes during subsequent years, and provide advice to elected members if there is a need to consider transitional arrangements in individual cases.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Draft Community Grants Policy

53

bView

Summary of feedback from public consultation

101

cView

Summary of public feedback from the Manurewa Local Board area

107

dView

Key feedback provided during political engagement

111

     

Signatories

Authors

Rebekah Lauren - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager

 


Manurewa Local Board

09 October 2014

 

 

















































Manurewa Local Board

09 October 2014

 

 







Manurewa Local Board

09 October 2014

 

 




Manurewa Local Board

09 October 2014

 

 





Manurewa Local Board

09 October 2014

 

 

Auckland Transport Update – October 2014

 

File No.: CP2014/22731

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       The purpose of the report is to respond to local board requests on transport-related matters and to provide information to Elected Members about Auckland Transport (AT) activities in the local board area.

Executive Summary

2.       This report covers matters of specific application and interest to the Manurewa Local Board and its community; matters of general interest relating to AT activities or the transport sector; and AT media releases for the information of the Board and community.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Manurewa Local Board:

a)      receives the report Auckland Transport Update – October 2014.

b)      requests that Auckland Transport  provide a Rough Order of Cost for the following projects:

i)        Station Upgrades (Te Mahia, Manurewa & Homai) 

ii)       Arts and Plants pedestrian and cycle link

iii)      Rail Station - Great South Road connectivity,

iv)      Town Centre Signage

v)      Great South Road – Pedestrian friendly environment

c)      will undertake any community engagement of the above concepts that is necessary to ensure that sufficient community support exists for these projects.

Discussion

 

Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF):

 

Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF):

 

3.    The Manurewa Local Board is allocated $593,314 per annum from the Local Board Transport Capital Fund. These funds can be used annually or rolled together to use the full three years of funding i.e. $1,779,942 for larger projects.

4.    During the 2012/13 financial year only $34,178 was spent leaving $559,136 of the annual budget unspent. This unspent money has been authorised by the Governing Body to be rolled over on a one-time-only basis, giving the Manurewa Local Board a total budget of $2,339,078 available in this electoral term to be spent on transport projects.

5.    In 2012/13 the Board allocated $534,000 to seven projects, and in 2013/14 another $48,000 was allocated to one more project.  The estimated final cost of these eight projects that will be spent in the current electoral term is $322,000, the major reason for the reduction in cost being the reduced scope subsequently decided by the Board for the Wiri Industrial area footpaths.

6.    The balance that still needs to be allocated to new projects in order to fully spend the available budget is therefore $2,017,358.

 

7.       The Board has instructed Auckland Transport to provide a Rough Order of Cost for projects under the following themes under the Local Board Capital Fund:

 

The ‘Arts & Plants’ pedestrian and cycle link to Nathan Homestead and Auckland Botanic Gardens:

 

8.       The Manurewa Local Board is investigating a pedestrian and cycle link to Nathan Homestead and Auckland Botanical Gardens.

 

The Rail Station/Great South Road connectivity:

 

9.       This project will incorporate a range of practical opportunities to better link the Great South Road and the Train Station.

 

Signage:

 

10.     The Board wishes to investigate further signage in and around the town Centre and train station to ensure better visibility of areas of interest and the train station to the community and visitors to Manurewa.

 

Great South Road:

 

11.     The Board is investigating a range of options for making Great South Road, Manurewa more pedestrian friendly.

 

Table 2: Manurewa Local Board project update:

 

ID#

Project Description

Progress/Current Status

164

New Footpaths in Manurewa - arterial roads in Wiri

 

Works will not commence until the intersection upgrade at Wiri Station/Ash/Langly is completed. This is expected to be completed by the end of 2014.

 

The footpaths upgrade will be scheduled once this work is complete.

 

176

Speed advisory driver feedback signage in the following locations:

·    Weymouth Road, Manurewa

·    Alfriston Road, Manurewa

·    Mahia Road, Manurewa

·    Hill Road, Manurewa

·    Charles Prevost Drive

Speed advisory feedback signage has been installed in all sites minus Charles Prevost Drive.

 

AT faced resistance from the residents when it consulted on the previous location (outside 63 Charles Prevost Dr). AT has now selected a new location (outside 18 Charles Prevost Dr) and commenced a new round of consultation.

 

Once consultation is closed, the signs will be installed.

 

 


Consultation documents on proposed improvements:

 

12.     Consultation documents for the following proposals have been provided to the Manurewa Local Board for its feedback.  As the Board’s transport portfolio holders provide feedback on the Board’s behalf, the material below is included for general information purposes only.

 

Route 361 – New Bus Stops and Shelters:

 

13.     Auckland Transport (AT) has undertaken a comprehensive review of the arrangement, spacing and facilities of the bus stops along the proposed Bus Route 361 which will make up part of the proposed New Southern Bus Network. Route 361 travels from Manurewa to Otara via Manukau. This review covered the section of the route from Manurewa to approximately half way along Browns Road.

 

Route 365 – New Bus Stops and Shelters:

14.     Auckland Transport consulted on proposed new bus stops and shelters outside 80 and 81 Hyperion Drive, Randwick Park.

15.     The proposal is to install a new bus stop and shelter outside 80 and 81 Hyperion Drive. The new bus stop will include a bus stop sign, road markings to indicate the location of the bus stop, and new no stopping yellow lines at both ends of the bus stop.

 

Route 366 – New Stops and Shelters:

16.     Auckland Transport is undertaking a review of the proposed Bus Route 366 which will also make up part of the proposed New Southern Bus Network. This consultation covered changes to bus stops between Manukau and Manurewa.

 

Manurewa town Centre - Proposed bus stop changes:

17.     Auckland Transport provided the Board the opportunity to comment on proposed bus stop changes in Manurewa Town Center.

 

Bus stop proposal on Hill Road, The Gardens:

18.     Residents of Elmwood Lifestyle Care and Village requested an eastbound bus stops and better crossing facilities outside the village.  The residents were involved in the design of the proposal.

 

No Stopping at All Times markings (NSAAT)– Russell Road:

19.     Auckland Transport sought feedback on the instillation of NSATT markings outside a daycare on Russell Road. A number of incidents have been reported hand this request was instigated by the NZ Police.  

 

Pedestrian Safety Improvements - Weymouth Road

 

20.     Auckland Transport has received requests from local residents to provide pedestrian facilities on Weymouth Road, particularly near the intersection with Rowandale Avenue. 

 

21.     The installation of a pedestrian refuge island on Weymouth Road, at the intersection with Rowandale Avenue, was proposed to provide crossing facilities and thus improve safety for pedestrians. 




General Information Items:

 

Changes to Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) eligibility criteria

 

22.     Auckland Council’s Infrastructure Committee has agreed to changes proposed by Auckland Council and Auckland Transport relating to the eligibility of projects funded under the LBTCF.  Up until now, the eligibility of projects has been guided by a March 2013 decision of the former Strategy and Finance Committee which specifically precluded Auckland Transport from using the LBTCF to undertake works outside the road corridor.  A number of local boards felt that this rule created unnecessary rigidity in the use of the LBTCF, and earlier this year the Budget Committee re-examined the issue and referred it to the Infrastructure Committee for decision.  On 3 September, the Infrastructure Committee resolved to allow works funded by the LBTCF to be undertaken on Council- or CCO-controlled land outside the road corridor, providing the body controlling the land was also in agreement with the proposal.

 

23.     This is expected to have greatest application on land controlled by Council Parks, where in particular walking and cycling infrastructure that connects with the Auckland Cycle Network or Local Board Plans will now be able to be funded.  For every project that is undertaken outside the road corridor, a specific agreement with the agency controlling the land will be required, covering the ownership of the asset (this will usually be transferred to the agency controlling the land by Auckland Transport) and the budget from which ongoing maintenance costs will be sourced (usually this will be covered within the budget of the agency controlling the land).

 

24.     The changes are effective immediately.  Some local board projects have been advanced in anticipation of the changes being made, and these should be able to move forward quickly now that the decision has been formalised.

 

Chip Seal

 

25.     Auckland Transport is about to embark on its annual road resealing programme.  Wherever possible chipseal will be used as it provides a cost effective, and good durable road surface, which is well suited to Auckland’s flexible road pavements. 

 

26.     Resealing the road surface waterproofs the surface and improves the road skid resistance to ensure that the roads stay in good condition.  Regular maintenance of the roads means that they do not need to be totally reconstructed.  Generally the road surface will last between 10 to 15 years. 

 

27.     In general a typical reseal would follow this timeline:

 

28.     Some weeks prior to reseal;

·    Fix any road failures in the street – Localised road pavement repairs

 

29.     A few days prior to reseal;

·    Letter drop informing residents of the road reseal

 

30.     Day of reseal;

·    Set up traffic management

·    Sweep road for debris

·    Chip seal applied

·    Roll chip into road surface


 

31.     Within a few days of reseal;

·    Sweep excess chip off the road

·    Reinstatement of road marking

 

32.     A week or so after reseal;

·    Road surface checked

·    Further sweeping to pick up any excess loose chip

·    Remove traffic management

 

33.     3 – 4 weeks after reseal

·    Additional sweeping if required, to remove any remaining loose chip.

 

34.     The Contractor responds to any Call Centre service requests relating to the chip sealing during the course of the work.

 

Electrification update

 

35.     The last part of the electrification of the Auckland metro rail network is now complete.

36.     All of the urban rail network has now been permanently energised with the final section between Newmarket and Swanson being switched on.

37.     The whole network should now be treated as being live with 25,000 volts at all times.

 

Proposed Signage Bylaw

 

38.     Auckland Council and Auckland Transport are seeking feedback on a draft bylaw that will help manage the display of publicly visible signs.

39.     The proposed Signage Bylaw will manage the display, placement and size of signs visible from the road and other public places throughout the Auckland region.  It will provide for a consistent standard of signage across the region and ensure pedestrian safety and visual amenity of local areas is maintained.  The new bylaw will replace the 23 different sets of rules inherited from previous councils that related to signs.

40.     The new bylaw is intended to continue to:

·        provide for the safety of vehicular and pedestrian traffic on roads and public places by limiting obstruction and distraction caused by signage

·        protect the public from harm or damage caused by the poor maintenance or abandonment of signage

·        assist in enhancing, maintaining, and promoting the visual amenity of Auckland’s cultural character, and its built and natural environments

·        assist in enabling the economic benefits to Auckland that are provided through signage

·        assist in protecting roads and other public assets from damage or misuse.

 

41.     The bylaw proposes to cover the following types of signage:

·        portable signs (sandwich boards)

·        free standing signs, posters and banners

·        veranda signage and window signage

·        signs advertising commercial sexual services

 

42.     The proposed bylaw will not apply to specific signs covered by the Unitary Plan such as heritage signs, billboards or signage that is part of a comprehensive development of a site.  Election signs are also covered separately under Auckland Transport’s Election Signage Bylaw 2013.

43.     Submissions on the proposed Signage Bylaw opened on 3 September and close at 4pm on 3 October 2014.

Media Releases

 

Travel Myths debunked in winning campaign

 

44.     Auckland Transport’s ‘Travel Myths’ campaign has taken out a major prize at the TVNZ New Zealand Marketing Awards winning the Public Sector category.

45.     Auckland Transport wanted to promote reliable high frequency bus services in the central corridors of Mount Eden/Sandringham.

46.     Pre-campaign research had shown a young, professional demographic in the area and the campaign was tailored to appeal to this market.

47.     ‘Travel Myths’ used pop-art inspired imagery in the style of Roy Lichtenstein and a dose of self-deprecating humour to debunk some popular misconceptions about public transport.

48.     The campaign appeared on bus backs, at bus shelters, on street posters, online and through direct marketing.  The campaign was developed by Port Group.

49.     Life-size caricatures of Rupert and Janet, who were the faces of the campaign, also featured as part of this year’s Auckland Comedy Festival.

50.     A post-evaluation report found a 20% rise in the perception that Auckland Transport was friendly, 28% thought the campaign was effective and 32% judged it to be innovative.

51.     In the six months following the campaign passenger trips in the central corridor rose by 49,000.

52.     Another Auckland Transport campaign ‘Driver Distraction’ was a finalist in the awards.  This campaign focussed on the dangers of drivers being distracted by others in the vehicle.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Author

Felicity Merrington – Elected Member Relationship Manager (South), Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon, Elected Member Relationship Team Manager

Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager

 


Manurewa Local Board

09 October 2014

 

 

Integrated bylaws review and implementation programme (IBRI) update – September 2014

 

File No.: CP2014/22869

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       This report provides an update on the Integrated Bylaw Review and Implementation programme, noting its progress towards delivering a set of bylaws that are appropriate for Auckland by October 2015.

Executive Summary

2.       The Integrated Bylaw Review and Implementation (IBRI) programme is reviewing the set of legacy bylaws and supporting the adoption and implementation of new bylaws that are appropriate for Auckland, by October 2015.

3.       An investment proposal for funding for the 2014/2015 year was endorsed by the Budget Committee in May 2014. This ensures that the programme has adequate funding for its activities this year, including delivering several bylaws that are planned to come into force alongside the July 2015 start of the next long-term plan period.

4.       Progress has been made on the review and implementation stages for several topics. The final Navigation Safety Bylaw and Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw have now been adopted by the governing body and will come into force in the next few months. The Auckland Transport Board has also adopted changes to their Election Signs Bylaw that are now in force.

5.       Seven bylaw proposals were, or are, open for formal public consultation from August to October. These are the Trading and Events in Public Places Bylaw, the Alcohol Control Bylaw, the Animal Management Bylaw (covering animals other than dogs), an amendment to the Health and Hygiene Bylaw, the Signage Bylaw, the Stormwater Bylaw and the Outdoor Fire Safety Bylaw. Consultation around these topics will ensure that a coherent view is presented to the public across these topics and in the context of other work.

6.       The Alcohol Control Bylaw proposal includes recommended delegations to local boards to allow a timely review of the current alcohol bans in each local board area.

7.       The 2014 programme for review of local dog access rules is well underway with the local boards that are proposing changes this year. Reports on the submissions have been prepared to support final decisions by summer.

8.       The new Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaws and the Health and Hygiene Bylaw have now come into force and the changes that allow the council to operate these new bylaws have been successfully delivered. Media coverage for these has generally been positive. In particular the prohibition on use of sunbeds by those under 18 years old has received positive coverage (reflecting the council’s leadership on this issue).

9.       Detailed planning to support the coming in to force of the Navigation Safety Bylaw and the Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw, and other upcoming bylaws, is underway.

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

 

Recommendation/s

That the Manurewa Local Board:

a)      note the progress of the Integrated Bylaw Review and Implementation programme towards its completion of the delivery of new bylaws by October 2015.

 

Comments

Background to the Integrated bylaw review and implementation programme

11.     Auckland Council inherited a set of legacy bylaws from the former councils, covering approximately 30 topics. These bylaws expire at the end of October 2015.

12.     The Integrated Bylaw Review and Implementation programme has been established to review these bylaws and prepare a new bylaw for each topic where appropriate, and to make and communicate the necessary changes so that the council can operate the new bylaws and achieve the outcomes sought from each bylaw. The programme will also work with affected parties where a legacy bylaw is not replaced by a new bylaw.

13.     Both local boards and the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee receive regular updates on the programme. The previous update was provided to local boards in April 2014. This report provides an update on the various topics included in the programme, and attachment A provides an overview of the timeline through to October 2015.

Funding for bylaw review and implementation

14.     A funding proposal for the IBRI programme was approved by the Budget Committee at its meeting of 8 May 2014 (refer resolution BUD/2014/24). This means that the programme will have sufficient resources to deliver its objectives over the 2014/2015 year. The majority of the bylaw topics included within the programme will be completed by the end of this financial year, with several bylaws expected to come into force alongside the start of the new financial year on 1 July 2015. It is expected that there will also be some programme activities through the first part of the 2015/2016 year.

Update on review stage for bylaw topics

15.     Table one and table two below show the current status of the review topics and provide further comments for particular topics.

16.     This includes bylaws that may be folded into or managed under other topics (Arkles Bay set netting, Orakei Basin), the ongoing local boards’ review of dog access rules, regional film fees, and the review that must take place within five years of any bylaw’s adoption.

17.     Local boards have recently provided input to the bylaw reviews for construction and transport for Auckland Council land (such as parks). Further engagement is underway or being planned for the next topics in the review including alcohol controls review, environmental protection and regional film fees.

 

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

Hazardous substances

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

Navigation safety (including lifejackets)

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See below

Cemeteries and crematoria

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See below

Election signs (amendment)

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See below

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Work programme

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Outdoor / rural fire safety

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trading and events in public places

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See below

Stormwater management

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Signage

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See below

Alcohol licensing fees

A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alcohol control

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See below

Animal management

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See below

Health & hygiene amendment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See below

Air quality

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Boarding houses and hostels

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commercial sex industry

A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Issues covered in unitary plan and other bylaws

Construction and development

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Onsite wastewater

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Orakei Basin

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recreational and cultural facilities

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Transport (Parks / AC controlled land)

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Water supply and wastewater (reticulation)

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wharfs & marinas

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Environmental protection

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other work

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Review - local dog access rules

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See below

Freedom camping

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arkles Bay set netting

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regional film fees

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See below

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

 

Navigation safety (including lifejackets)

On track

G

Public submissions closed on 17 March and public hearings and deliberations were completed. The Hearings Panel report on the final form of the bylaw was considered and adopted by the governing body at its meeting on 31 July 2014.

 

The panel requested that a campaign be developed to communicate the changes introduced in the new bylaw and to support the bylaw’s objectives around safety on the water, particularly in relation to smaller boats and the wearing of lifejackets. Planning for this campaign is now underway to support the commencement of the new bylaw.

 

Cemeteries and crematoria

On track

G

Public submissions closed in June and the public hearings and deliberations were completed. The Hearings Panel report on the final form of the bylaw was considered and adopted by the governing body at its meeting on 31 July 2014. The final bylaw and code of practice included a number of changes arising from public consultation, including clarifying procedures around burial and plots and for scattering of ashes.

 

Election signs (amendment)

On track

G

The Auckland Transport board proposed a series of amendment to the Election Signs Bylaw to reflect issues that arose in the 2013 local body elections. These changes included limits on the times when signs can be displayed on private sites, allowing candidates to appear on both individual and team signs on a single site, and requiring contact information on signs to be readable. Submissions closed on 3 June.

 

Final changes were adopted by the board at its meeting of 24 June, and came into force on 18 July (just before the two month period that runs up to the general election on 20 September).

 

Trading and events in public place

On track

G

Both Auckland Council and Auckland Transport have endorsed their proposed Trading and Events in Public Places bylaws. These apply to streets and footpaths and other public places. Public submissions were open from 4 August to 4 September, with hearings and deliberations to follow. It is expected any new bylaws could come into force for July 2015. This would allow any fee changes to also be put in place with the new long-term plan that will start then.

 

The bylaws cover a range of issues including street performances, mobile shops, outdoor dining and displays, markets and stalls and charity collections.

 


 


Signage

On track

G

A proposed Signage Bylaw was reported to the August meetings of the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee, the governing body and the Auckland Transport board. Public consultation is open from 3 September to 3 October 2014.

 

The bylaw covers a range of types of signs including portable, free standing, wall-mounted, veranda and window signage. It also addresses requirements for posters and for certain types of signs including signs in public open spaces, signage advertising commercial sexual services, real estate signage and event signage.

 

Any new bylaw could be in place for July 2015 and will work alongside Unitary Plan requirements that apply to specific types of signs.

 

Alcohol control

On track

G

The Alcohol Control Bylaw will allow the council to put alcohol bans (previously call liquor bans) in place. These bans prohibit the consumption or possession of alcohol in specified public places, at particular times. Alcohol bans can work alongside other regulatory and non-regulatory tools to help minimise the harm that can be associated with alcohol.

 

A proposed bylaw was adopted by the governing body on 31 July and was open for public consultation from 15 August to 15 September. The proposal includes delegations allowing local boards to review, make, amend and revoke alcohol bans for local public places. The governing body would make these decisions for public places that are of regional significance.

 

The bylaw includes criteria to help evaluate any request for an alcohol ban, based on the requirements of the enabling legislation. It has also been designed to support a range of approaches to help communities manage problems associated with alcohol use.

 

The current proposal does not include a review of the existing alcohol bans or the making of new alcohol bans. Decisions on the existing alcohol bans will need to be made by local boards and the governing body after the new bylaw is adopted and before October 2015. Local boards are now receiving further information on how they can carry out their role for this review.

 

Animal management

On track

G

A proposed Animal Management Bylaw was adopted by the governing body on 31 July and was open for public consultation from 15 August to 15 September. The bylaw provides Aucklanders with the opportunity to own different types of animals for companionship, while minimising possible impact on their neighbours. Under the proposed bylaw, people that keep animals need to ensure the animals do not cause a nuisance, risk to public health and safety, or damage council land.

 

Specific provisions are included for urban properties relating to the keeping of bees and chickens or other stock (such as a rooster, goat, pig or sheep). There are also specific provisions related to horse riding in public places.

 

Issues relating to animal welfare, wildlife predation and dog management are addressed through national legislation and do not form part of this proposal.

 


 

Health & hygiene amendment

On track

G

The Health and Hygiene Bylaw 2013 was adopted by the council in 2013 and came into force on 1 July 2014. The bylaw and code, as adopted, requires pharmacists to obtain a licence under the bylaw if they offer commercial ear-piercing services.

 

The council has now received further information from industry representatives that shows public health is adequately protected through existing central government regulation and industry-based standards. Accordingly, the council is proposing an amendment to the bylaw that will exempt pharmacists from the requirement to obtain this licence under the bylaw when they provide commercial ear-piercing services. Public consultation was open from 15 August to 15 September.

 

Local dog access review

On track

G

The 2014 local board dog access review includes some areas within the following local boards: Kaipatiki, Orakei, Maungakiekie-Tamaki, Puketapapa, and Hibiscus and Bays.

 

This is the first year of the new approach to reviewing dog access rules and means the council can consider requests for changes to dog access rules on an annual basis. This approach is more responsive to residents and the environment and enables robust consideration on specific public places to provide for public safety and comfort, the needs of dogs and their owners, and to ensure the practicality of dog access rules.

 

The council is required to advise registered dog owners about these proposed changes and this has been achieved by including relevant material within the annual dog registration package. This is the first year that this approach has been possible and it has reduced costs and ensured that dog owners receive a single combined communication from the council. This targeted advice has been supported by other communication including public notices, local newspaper advertising and initiatives planned by these local boards.

 

Submissions on the proposed changes closed on 23 July 2014. Panels established by the relevant local boards considered the submissions, held hearings and reported to their respective local boards who have adopted the recommendations and finalised the review process.

 

Further access review changes are planned for the next two years. Work is now underway for local boards that are involved in the 2015 review programme. The local boards that are receiving a report in September to confirm commencement of the review and define its scope are Rodney, Upper Harbour, Devonport-Takapuna, Waitakere Ranges, Waiheke Island, Albert-Eden, Puketapapa, and Waitemata.

 

Regional film fees

On track

G

There are around 500 permit applications for filming activity each year, including many on local parks. The Auckland Film Protocol expresses the council’s intention to welcome filming, support this activity and maximise the financial and other benefits it brings to Auckland. The protocol also includes measures to ensure filming’s impacts on communities are well managed.

 

When the Film Protocol was adopted in 2013 several local boards asked that further work be carried out to understand how local communities can get more benefit from filming. The regional film fees project responds to part of that request. It will review how fees for filming can be set and managed, and how council’s direct revenue associated with filming permits can be used to meet the costs of facilitating filming and to improve the public spaces (including parks and streetscapes) that are used by film-makers.

 

Further information is being provided to local boards through September and October.

 

Update on implementation stage for new bylaws

18.     Table three and table four below show the current status of implementation projects and further comments for particular implementation projects.

 

Table 3: 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

A

 

 

 

 

See below

Animals (Stage 1)

G

 

 

 

 

Completed

Dog access review 2014

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

 

 

 

 

Navigation safety – see below

Public safety & nuisance

G

 

 

 

 

 

Revoked and lapsing bylaws

G

 

 

 

 

General admin; Offensive trades; Others

Signage

G

 

 

 

 

 

Stormwater

G

 

 

 

 

 

Street trading

G

 

 

 

 

 

Waste management

G

 

 

 

 

Solid waste bylaw

Animals (stage 2)

G

 

 

 

 

 

Alcohol controls

G

 

 

 

 

 

Air quality

G

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proposed future

 

 

 

 

 

 

Construction

B

 

 

 

 

 

Transport (AC land)

B

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4: Additional comments for particular implementation projects

 

Alcohol licensing fees

On hold

A

As part of reforming laws relating to the sale and supply of alcohol, central government updated licensing fees and also allowed each council to set its own fees for the licensing services it must provide. Auckland Council considered a report on the costs involved in this in August 2013, and endorsed adopting a bylaw to set its own alcohol licensing fee amounts, to take affect from 1 July 2014 (refer governing body meeting of 22 August 2013, item 13, GB/2013/83).

 

A further report has now been considered by the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee (7 August, item 11). The report provided an update on this matter, noting that revenue collected to date effectively covers relevant operating costs. The committee endorsed the council continuing to use the default licensing fees set by central government and that a further update should be provided early in 2015 (refer REG/2014/101).

 

Health protection

On track

G

The new Health and Hygiene Bylaw and code of practice are in force from 1 July 2014 and this project has now completed its closure phase after managing commencement successfully. The council’s leadership on prohibiting the use of sun-beds for people under 18 years of age was highlighted positively in the media.

 

Marine (including Navigation safety)

On Track

G

The new Navigation Safety Bylaw will come into force for the 2014/2015 summer. The bylaw includes key changes around the wearing of lifejackets on vessels under six metres in length. An education and information campaign is currently being prepared to support this and other changes that the bylaw introduces. This will include updating the signs at key boat ramps across Auckland and working with other water safety organisations to deliver these safety messages to the community.

 

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

19.     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, but does not raise any issues specific to local boards apart from those already noted above.

20.     No proposals for local bylaws have been received through the above period.

Maori impact statement

21.     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

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

Implementation

23.     The programme includes implementation and delivery for each bylaw, as noted above. This includes working with internal and external stakeholders as relevant to each topic.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Bylaw programme timeline 2014/2015

129

Signatories

Authors

Helgard Wagener - Team leader, Policies and Bylaws

Authorisers

Warren Maclennan - Manager North West Planning

Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager

 


Manurewa Local Board

09 October 2014

 

 


Manurewa Local Board

09 October 2014

 

 

Financial Policies Issues for Long-term Plan 2015-2025

 

File No.: CP2014/21630

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       This report advises local boards on financial policy issues that may be considered in the development of the Long-term Plan 2015-2025. It aims to support discussion of these issues at local board workshops in September 2014.

Executive summary

2.       Development of the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 is the council’s opportunity to consider if it wishes to consult on making changes to its financial policies.  A briefing setting out some of the matters that may be considered in the long-term plan process was provided to a workshop of the governing body on 5 August and to a local boards’ workshop on 18 August.

3.       The workshop identified a range of financial policy issues as possible matters for consideration in developing the draft long-term plan. These included the:

·        rating policy

·        standardisation of the remaining legacy fees and charges

·        development contributions.

4.       The key issues identified in regard to the rating policy were:

·        options for level of UAGC

·        proportion of rates paid by businesses including options for the long term differential strategy

·        proportion of rates paid by rural sector including options for farms and rural townships

·        affordability including consideration of additional support for superannuitants

·        options for further transition

·        standardising legacy rates remission and postponement policies (community, sporting and heritage remission and postponement policies).

5.       The remaining legacy fees and charges that have yet to be standardised are:

·        social housing rentals

·        street trading license fees and rentals

·        163 environmental health and licensing fees

·        some cemetery fees.

6.       The Long-term Plan 2015-2025 presents the council with an opportunity to consider if it wishes to amend its development contributions policy to reflect the changes made to development contributions in the Local Government (Amendment Act) Act 2014 alongside the changes the legislation requires.  Issues the council may wish to consider include refining its

·        funding areas

·        assessment of residential demand.

7.       The timetable for the development of financial policies for the draft Long-term Plan 2015-2025 is:

·        Budget committee workshop (including modelling of options) – 20 October (morning)

·        local boards workshop – 20 October (afternoon)

·        combined Budget committee and local boards workshop - 24 October

·        Mayor’s rating policy proposal 30 October

·        Budget committee workshop on financial policies – 31 October

·        Budget committee final decisions for draft Long-term plan (including financial policies) – 5 November

·        Budget committee workshop and meeting on rates transition – 17 November


 

Recommendation/s

That the Manurewa Local Board:

a)      determine if it wishes to make any recommendations for change to existing financial policies as part of development of the draft Long-term Plan 2015-2025.

 

Comments

8.       This decisions sought in this report are not significant.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

9.       The purpose of this report is to facilitate the development and communication of local board views on the matters considered herein.

Māori impact statement

10.     The recommendations in this report have no impact on Maori.

Implementation

11.     There are no implementation issues associated with the recommendations included in this report.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Presentation to local boards on 18 August 2014 entitled "Financial Policies, Long-term Plan 2015-2025."

133

     

Signatories

Authors

Andrew Duncan - Manager Financial Policy

Authorisers

Matthew Walker - Manager Financial Plan Policy and Budgeting

Andrew McKenzie - Chief Finance Officer

Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager

 


Manurewa Local Board

09 October 2014

 

 
















Manurewa Local Board

09 October 2014

 

 

Long-term Plan 2015-2025 feedback on mayoral proposal

File No.: CP2014/22952

 

  

Purpose

1.       To seek feedback from local boards on the mayoral proposal for the Long-term Plan (LTP) 2015-2025, as announced on 28 August 2014.

Executive summary

2.       On 28 August 2014, the Mayor announced a proposal for the LTP 2015-2025, outlining high level funding envelopes and key priorities. 

3.       Feedback is sought from local boards on the mayoral proposal, including departmental responses, to help inform draft budget and consultation decisions being made by the Budget Committee on 5 and 6 November 2014.

Recommendation/s

That the Manurewa Local Board:

a)      delegate authority to the Manurewa Local Board Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson to provide feedback at such meetings as appropriate including the local board’s discussion with the Budget Committee.

Comments

Background

4.       In March 2014, the Mayor provided direction setting for the LTP 2015-2025.

5.       Between March and August, Auckland Council conducted a thorough assessment of its full work programme, prior to the Mayor announcing a proposal for the LTP 2015-2025 on 28 August 2014.  The mayoral proposal outlined high level funding envelopes and key priorities. 

6.       In response, the organisation considered the mayoral proposal at a more detailed project and local level, identifying what could be achieved within funding envelopes and options or trade-offs that may need to be considered.

7.       Local boards have been engaged throughout the LTP 2015-2025 process, including detailed briefings from departments between 23 September and 5 October to discuss responses to the mayoral proposal.

8.       Feedback is sought from local boards on the mayoral proposal, including departmental responses, to help inform draft budget and consultation decisions being made by the Budget Committee on 5 and 6 November 2014

9.       Local boards also have the opportunity to discuss feedback with the Governing Body on 17, 22 and 24 October 2014.

10.     Following Budget Committee decisions in early November, local boards will hold workshops to develop local consultation material and supporting information, for agreement in business meetings between 1 and 10 December 2014.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Authors

Kate Marsh - Financial Planning Manager - Local Boards

Authorisers

Matthew Walker - Manager Financial Plan Policy and Budgeting

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager

 


Manurewa Local Board

09 October 2014

 

 

Significance and Engagement Policy

 

File No.: CP2014/23008

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this memo is to provide background information on the draft Significance and Engagement Policy to support local boards in providing formal feedback.

Executive summary

2.       There have been changes to the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA2002). Council is now required to adopt a Significance and Engagement policy by 1 December 2014. Council already has a Significance Policy but the council must expand it to include engagement.

3.       A draft Significance and Engagement Policy was adopted by the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee on 4 September for public consultation from 22 September to 19 October 2014. 

4.       The legislation requires the policy to consider community preferences about engagement on decisions relating to specific issues. Auckland Council carries out hundreds of consultations each year from small neighbourhood issues up to large regional issues. A core function of local boards is to understand, engage with and represent their local communities. The development of the Significance and Engagement Policy is not intended to constrain or restrict the role of local boards in this regard.

5.       An overview of the kinds of methods that could be used depending on the significance of the issue has been compiled to provide guidance.

6.       The policy will be supported by updated guidelines, case studies and templates providing more detail on engagement principles and good practice.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Manurewa Local Board:

a)      delegates the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson to formalise feedback on the draft Auckland Council Significance and Engagement Policy, following their workshop on 16 October.

 

Background

7.       As part of the LTP 2012-2022 process, Auckland Council adopted a Significance Policy to provide a mechanism for establishing which decisions are significant with reference to thresholds and general criteria. This was a requirement under the LGA2002 and the policy requires all council reports to state the degree of significance. A significant decision triggers an automatic requirement to consult.

8.       The Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Act 2014 amended the LGA 2002, so that all councils are now required to adopt a Significance and Engagement Policy by 1 December 2014.

9.       The legislative change requires the council to expand the current Significance Policy to include engagement. The current Significance Policy has been used to provide the basis of the new Significance and Engagement Policy.

10.     The draft Significance and Engagement Policy was adopted by the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee on 4 September for public consultation from 22 September to 19 October.

 

 

11.     Since the committee meeting, there have been some minor changes to clarify what constitutes a significant decision. The order of the significance section has changed as a result of this, while the criteria that related to engagement are now in section 6.1 under engagement methods.

Consultation on the draft policy

12.     Consultation on the draft policy will not follow a Special Consultative Procedure. Consultation will be targeted at interest groups and will seek out feedback from communities who are often not involved in council’s consultation processes.

13.     Consultation will largely be focused online through ShapeAuckland. A sign language submissions service has also been set up through Deaf Radio.

14.     A variety of stakeholder organisations have been contacted to help organise community workshops on the draft policy. This includes youth groups, ethnic groups, grey power, age concern, community organisations and networks.

15.     In addition, the council will use Our Auckland, the People’s Panel and social media as a way of further encouraging feedback on the draft policy. Local boards are encouraged to help encourage participation through their stakeholder newsletters and social media.

Role of local boards

16.     A core function of local boards is to understand, engage with and represent their local communities. They do this through a number of formal and informal mechanisms in relation to their local board plans and local board agreements and also to inform local board input into regional plans and policies. The development of the Significance and Engagement Policy is not intended to constrain or restrict this role.

17.     While adoption of the Significance and Engagement Policy is a Governing Body decision, local boards have a role providing input to its development. The purpose of this report is to seek local board input on the attached draft policy.

Policy approach to engagement

18.     The LGA2002 sets out principles for consultation that all councils must follow.

19.     Feedback received from the community and stakeholders on Auckland Council consultation and engagement processes has highlighted a number of other important principles to consider when engaging with the community. These have been incorporated into the policy as a way of recognising the needs of Auckland’s diverse communities and the value that is placed on their involvement in decision-making processes.

20.     The legislation requires the policy to set out how the council will respond to community preferences about engagement on decisions relating to specific issues, assets and other matters. Auckland Council carries out hundreds of consultations each year from small neighbourhood issues up to large regional issues. A list of how the council will engage on each issue would be extensive and would not allow flexibility depending on the timing, community affected and likely level of interest on the issue. It would also limit the council’s ability to consider and refine approaches for engagement in response to community feedback.

21.     An overview of the kinds of methods that could be used depending on the significance of the issue has been compiled to provide guidance. These have been categorised as small and simple, medium or large and complex. The level of significance will be determined using the criteria in section 3 of the policy.  The criteria used to assess whether a decision is significant are also useful when considering which engagement methods should be used for a particular decision (if any).  (For the avoidance of doubt, the use of the criteria to assess the level of engagement does not replace the council’s assessment of whether or not a decision is “significant”).

 

Significance

22.     A decision is significant if:

a.    The thresholds related to an activity or group of activities are exceeded; or

b.    The decision relates to strategic assets

23.     A decision will also be significant where the council, having applied the criteria, decides that it is significant. Where a decision is determined to be significant, it will automatically trigger a requirement to consult.

Strategic Assets

24.     Strategic assets are defined as assets or group of assets required for the local authority to maintain its capacity to achieve or promote any outcome that council determines is important for the present or future wellbeing of the community. The council considers its strategic assets as whole single assets because it is the asset class as a whole that delivers the service. The list of strategic assets should cover only those assets that are significant for an entity the size of the Auckland Council. The strategic assets are listed in the Significance and Engagement Policy which includes land or buildings owned by the council that are required to maintain the local authority’s capacity to provide affordable housing and equity securities held by council in a port company or airport company.

25.     The definition of networks included in the list of strategic assets has been updated by including the North Harbour Stadium, Bruce Mason Theatre and Q Theatre which Auckland Council acquired since the adoption of the Significance Policy in 2012. In addition, substantive shares in Watercare have been combined with shares in substantive CCOs as Watercare became a substantive CCO in 2012.

26.     The legislation provides that a decision to transfer the ownership or control of a strategic asset to or from the local authority may only be made if they are explicitly provided for in the council’s LTP and, from 2015, also included in the consultation document used to consult on the LTP.

27.     Decisions on assets not included in the list are subject to the normal provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 regarding decision making and consultation.  This ensures that interested or affected parties will have their views considered appropriately in decision making. The council would retain discretion to consult (including using the special consultative procedure) for these decisions if it wished.

28.     Strategic assets, as defined by this policy that are owned and or managed by a substantive CCO are identified in the CCO Accountability Policy.

Thresholds

29.     As a general guide, the creation of a new group of activity, the cessation of a group of activity, or a 33 per cent increase or 20 per cent decrease in the nature of a group of activity, would be considered significant.

General Criteria

30.     The council has also identified a list of criteria to consider when deciding whether or not a matter is significant.

Timeline

31.     The high level timeline for the development of the policy is as follows:

 


 

Milestone

Description / steps

Timing

Developing the draft policy

Drafting the policy

Testing the policy internally, with key stakeholders and advisory panels

Gaining feedback on draft policy with local board members, local board chairs, IMSB

Regional Strategy & Policy for adoption prior to consultation

July – August

 

 

 

 

 

5 September

Consulting on the draft policy

Communications and engagement on the draft

Local board workshops

Local board reports / formal feedback process

Advisory panel workshops

Stakeholder discussions

Public engagement

 

September-October

Revising the draft policy

Analysing and reviewing feedback

Updating draft policy

 

October onwards

Adopting the policy

Budget Committee

Regional Strategy and Policy

Governing body for adoption

5 November

6 November

27 November

32.     This policy is expected to be adopted by 1 December 2014 and must be incorporated into the Long-term Plan (in summary form). The policy can be amended at any time.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

33.     This report is seeking the views of local boards on the draft policy.

34.     Local boards’ statutory role of identifying and communicating the views of the community on regional strategies, policies, plans and bylaws of the council has been taken into account during the development of the draft policy.

35.     Engagement with local boards to date has included:

·    an initial discussion at the Local Board Chairs Forum meeting on 28 April 2014;

·    a workshop for all local board members to discuss aspects of the draft policy on
22 August; 

·    workshops are being held with individual boards during September and October where requested.

Māori impact statement

36.     Auckland Council recognize that Māori are a critical / important audience that need to be engaged in a meaningful way. The Treaty of Waitangi Audit 2012 and the Auckland Council Guide on Engaging with Māori were reviewed during the development of the draft policy. The draft policy has been presented for discussion to the Independent Māori Statutory Board. The results of a recent research study on Māori engagement with Auckland Council will be considered prior to finalizing the draft policy and to identify improvements with the engagement guidelines.

37.     Discussions on the draft policy and guidelines will also take place at a Mana Whenua forum during the consultation period.

General

38.     This report does not involve decisions that will trigger the council’s current Significance Policy.

 

 

Implementation

39.     Auckland Council does not currently have an adopted engagement policy. It does however have:

·        a consultation and engagement guidebook

·        a guide on Engagement with Māori

·        a staff training programme in community engagement through the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2)

·        an internal network which is used to share case studies

·        an annual awards event to celebrate good practice.

40.     Further work is taking place to improve the guidance that is available, in particular with respect to engaging with Auckland’s culturally and demographically diverse communities.

41.     It is expected that updated guidance, case studies and templates will be prepared alongside the development of the draft policy so that these are available for the purposes of engagement on the draft Long-term Plan and other processes as soon as practicable. This will include legal advice on the consultation document and other changes to requirements as a result of the LGA 2002 amendments.

42.     Local boards will be encouraged to input into the development of the updated guidance, case studies and templates through the engagement advisors.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Draft Significance and Engagement Policy

157

     

Signatories

Authors

Carol Hayward - Team Leader Consultation and Engagement

Authorisers

Karl Ferguson - Communication & Engagement Director

Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager

 


Manurewa Local Board

09 October 2014

 

 

 

 

Title: Auckland Council logo

Title: Consultation in library - Description: The image shows a member of the public receiving guidance on how to access online information about a plan and being shown supporting materials and maps.Text Box: Significance and Engagement Policy
Consultation Draft - September 2014


Manurewa Local Board

09 October 2014

 

 

 


Manurewa Local Board

09 October 2014

 

 

1.          Table of Contents

1       Context 4

2       Decision making. 5

3       Significance. 7

4       Approach to engagement 9

5       Applying the policy. 11

6       Schedule 1: Methods of engagement 13

 


1        Context

1.1      Introduction

For Auckland Council, engagement is a genuine dialogue between decision-makers, communities and stakeholders for the purpose of making better decisions, policies or programmes of action.

Public input into decisions, policies or programmes of action is an essential part of ensuring they reflect the aspirations of residents, iwi, community groups and businesses - everyone who is invested in Auckland's future being one of prosperity, equality and wellbeing.

This policy aims to enable a flexible approach to engagement that recognises and supports the needs of Auckland’s diverse communities to get involved in council and civic life, and demonstrates a commitment to building ongoing relationships and greater understanding of community views and preferences.

 

1.2      Policy purpose and overview

The purpose of this policy is to enable Auckland Council  and its communities to identify the degree of significance attached to particular issues, proposals, assets, decisions, and activities; and

·     to provide clarity about how and when communities can expect to be engaged in decisions about different  issues, assets, or other matters; and

·     to inform the council from the beginning of a decision-making process about—

the extent of any public engagement that is expected before a particular decision is made; and

the form or type of engagement required.

2        Decision making

One of the key roles of local government is to enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities. At Auckland Council, decision-making for regional decisions is undertaken by the Governing Body and for local decisions by local boards. Local Boards also have a key role in identifying and communicating the views of local communities on regional strategies, policies, plans and bylaws.

While community and stakeholder engagement improves decision-making, it is not the sole input into a decision. As shown in the diagram below, there are a wide range of information sources and perspectives that will inform a council decision. The information sources and perspectives are harnessed and collated which helps make the decision ‘sustainable’ (i.e. unlikely to require re-visiting due to it being well-informed and well-considered). Decisions are based on a wide range of information sources and perspectives and it may differ from the prevailing public opinion.

Title: Decision making process - Description: Sustainable decision-making inputs: technical input and advice; financial costs, benefits and considerations; Auckland Plan and Local Board Plan outcomes;  Council strategy and policy; Government policy; other considerations; public / stakeholder opinions, concerns, ideas, needs, values, motivations and goals.

Inputs into public / stakeholder opinions: community and stakeholder engagement, for example stakeholder meetings and workshops, reference and advisory groups; consultation, for example feedback forms, Special Consultative Procedure; opinion research, for example representative surveys, focus groups.

 

 

 

 

2.1      The Mayor and Governing Body

The Mayor has a responsibility for ensuring there is effective engagement between Auckland Council and the people of Auckland, including those too young to vote. The Mayor has established a number of advisory panels to: provide strategic advice to council on issues of importance to their communities (youth, ethnic people, pacific people, seniors, disability, rural); and to advise on effective engagement by council with those communities.

The Governing Body, comprising the Mayor and councillors, focuses on region-wide strategic decisions and must ensure that consultation and engagement requirements are met when making those decisions.

2.2      Local boards

Local boards make decisions on local matters, provide local leadership and support strong local communities.

With regard to community engagement and consultation, local boards are responsible for:

·     making decisions about non-regulatory local matters, including negotiating the standards of services delivered locally;

·     making decisions about regulatory local matters delegated to it by the governing body;

·     identifying and communicating the views of local people on regional strategies, policies, plans and bylaws to the governing body;

·     providing local leadership and developing relationships with the community, community organisations and special interest groups in the local area.

 

2.3      Independent Māori Statutory Board

The Independent Māori Statutory Board has appointed mana whenua and matāwaka (Māori communities with no tribal affiliation in Auckland) representatives.

The board assists Auckland Council to make decisions, perform functions, and exercise powers by:

·     promoting cultural, economic, environmental, and social issues of significance for mana whenua groups; and matāwaka of Tamaki Makaurau; and

·     ensuring that the council acts in accordance with statutory provisions referring to the Treaty of Waitangi.


 

3        Significance

A decision is significant if:

a.   the thresholds related to an activity or groups of activities stated below are exceeded; or

b.   the decision relates to the strategic assets listed below.

A decision will also be significant where the council, having applied the criteria listed below, decides that it is significant. Where a decision is determined to be significant it will automatically trigger a requirement to consult.

 

3.1      Thresholds

As a general guide, the creation of a new group of activity, the cessation of a group of activity, or a 33 per cent increase or 20 per cent decrease in the nature of a group of activity, would be considered significant.

 

3.2      Strategic assets

The council’s strategic assets are those vital for the delivery of its services to the community. The council considers its strategic assets as whole single assets (a network) because it is the asset class as a whole that delivers the service. A network is deemed to include those components which are integral to the functioning of the network as a whole. There are also a few iconic assets which have strategic significance for the Auckland region. In addition the LGA 2002 provides that shares in a port company and an airport company and assets required to provide affordable housing are strategic assets.

The council’s strategic assets are set out below.

1.   Public transport network, including Britomart

2.   Roading network

3.   Stormwater network

4.   Water and wastewater network

5.   Parks network

6.   Network of swimming pools

7.   Network of community centres and halls

8.   Community library network

9.   Cemeteries, heritage scheduled buildings and structures

10. Freehold interest in waterfront land held by the Ports of Auckland and the Auckland Waterfront Development Agency

11. Shares in substantive CCOs

12. Auckland Central Library and the historical library collection

13. Civic Theatre, Aotea Centre, Zoo, Viaduct Events Centre, North Harbour Stadium, Bruce Mason Theatre, Q Theatre, Auckland Art Gallery (including the art collection owned by Regional Facilities Auckland), Mt Smart Stadium and the council's contractual rights and interests in Auckland City Arena (known as Vector Arena)

14. Social housing network including housing for the elderly

15. Shares in Auckland International Airport Limited (AIAL)

16. Shares in Ports of Auckland.

Strategic assets, as defined by this policy, that are owned and or managed by a substantive CCO, are identified in the CCO accountability policy. CCOs must comply with the CCO accountability policy when making decisions in relation to strategic assets under their control.

 

3.3      General Criteria

The following general criteria will be applied to determine the degree of significance of a decision.

1.   The number of residents and ratepayers affected and the degree to which they are affected by the decision or proposal

2.   The likely impact/consequences of the decision or proposal from the perspective of those parties

3.   Whether this type of decision has a history of generating wide public interest within the local board area (for a local board decision) or the Auckland region or New Zealand generally (for a governing body decision)

4.   The impact of the decision on the governing body’s or local boards’ ability to deliver on the current and future social, economic, environmental or cultural well-being of the local board area or Auckland region and any statutory responsibility

5.   The impact of the decision on intended service levels for a group of council activities, including a decision to commence or cease any such group of activity

6.   The degree to which the decision or proposal is reversible.

4        Approach to engagement

The extent to which the council will engage with communities and stakeholders about an issue or decision to be made will match how significant the issue or decision is. Engagement may be required at various stages of the decision-making process and may take different forms depending on the stage. Both significance and the form of engagement will be assessed on a case-by-case basis, relative to the criteria listed above. A guide to engagement methods is attached for further information.

 

4.1      Engagement principles

The following provides an overview of how council will meet the Local Government Act (LGA) principles.

 

Conduct its business in an open, transparent, and democratically accountable manner; and give effect to its identified priorities and outcomes in an efficient and effective manner

To meet this principle, the council will:

·     conduct community and stakeholder engagement in a genuine effort to listen to, and consider with an open mind, community and stakeholder input;

·     when presenting options for community and stakeholder feedback, ensure the options are realistic and deliverable;

·     ensure that questions are objective (ie: not leading), allowing people to express their views freely;

·     allow enough time and provide adequate resources to ensure participants have been provided fair opportunity to understand the matter and contribute their views

·     allow time to allow for issues that might arise during an engagement process;

·     value contributions made and time given;

·     give timely feedback on the results of the public’s input and decisions made;

·     value, respect and give weight to local knowledge.

 

 

 

 

A local authority should make itself aware of, and should have regard to, the views of all of its communities

To meet this principle, the council will:

·     build ongoing relationships with communities through a range of approaches such as through advisory panels, the People’s Panel and other reference groups and fora;

·     provide community members and stakeholders with a reasonable opportunity to present their views, and to participate in a way that suits them;

·     provide ways for the community to raise issues directly with the council so that it is a two-way relationship;

·     identify opportunities to work in partnership with community organisations and leaders to encourage greater community ownership and participation;

·     ensure good information sharing of community views and preferences within council.

 

When making a decision, a local authority should take account of the diversity of the community, and the community's interests; and the interests of future as well as current communities; and the likely impact of any decision on them.

To meet this principle, the council will:

·     identify ways of reaching out to affected communities and stakeholders, including those who are typically heard from least often;

·     provide more than one way for people to participate;

·     when required, invest in community capacity building to enable participation;

·     use plain language and avoid jargon and acronyms.

 

A local authority should provide opportunities for Māori to contribute to its decision-making processes

To meet this principle the Council will actively consider through engagement:

·     the recognition and protection of Māori rights and interests within Tamaki Makaurau;

·     how to address and contribute to the needs and aspirations of Māori.

Supporting Māori community infrastructure that enables:

·     early engagement with Māori in the development of appropriate plans and policies;

·     Māori to guide how they want to engage with Auckland Council.

Support Māori to fully engage with the council, for example through but not limited to capability and capacity building.


 

5        Applying the policy

5.1      Supporting information

·     Consultation and Engagement Guidebook - this provides more detailed guidance on engagement principles and good practice.

·     Guide on Engaging with Māori.

·     Quality Policy Advice guidelines

·     Templates and other related guidance such as the Accessible Communications and Information Guide.

 

5.2      Managing conflicts of interest

Auckland Council has processes in place for both elected representatives and staff on how to manage conflicts of interest, including within the community engagement and decision-making process.

 

5.3      Policy exclusions

This policy will not apply and engagement will not be required where:

·     in the opinion of the council, failure to make a decision urgently would result in unreasonable or significant damage to property, or risk to people’s health and safety, or the loss of a substantial opportunity to achieve the council’s strategic objectives. Other policy and legislative requirements will still apply.

·     Any physical alterations to strategic assets that are required to:

prevent an immediate hazardous situation arising

repair an asset to ensure public health and safety due to damage from an emergency or unforeseen situation

 

5.4      Other legislation

The Resource Management Act 1991 sets out processes for public involvement in certain decisions, for example for resource consents and when preparing and changing district plans. Not all of these decisions are required to be publicly notified but when they are, the council will follow the principles outlined above in determining the level and type of consultation required.

There are a number of other policies or bylaws that are also required under other legislation (e.g. Gambling Act) or enabled (e.g. Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act, Psychoactive Substances Act, Health Act).  Some of these are specific about the requirements and processes for engagement, but others refer back to the principles outlined above. 

 

 

5.5      Policy development, term and review

This policy is expected to be adopted by 1 December 2014 and will be incorporated into the Long-term Plan (in summary form). The policy will be reviewed every three years as part of the Long-term Plan process but can be amended at any time.


 

6        Schedule 1: Methods of engagement

Auckland Council uses a wide range of tools and techniques to engage with the community and stakeholders. The council uses the International Association of Public Participation spectrum as a framework for engagement which identifies the following levels:

·     Inform - to provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives, opportunities and/or solutions.

·     Consult - to obtain public feedback on analysis, alternatives and/or decisions.

·     Involve - to work directly with the public throughout the process to ensure that public concerns and aspirations are consistently understood and considered.

·     Collaborate - to partner with the public in each aspect of the decision including the development of alternatives and the identification of the preferred solution.

·     Empower - to place final decision making in the hands of the public.

During the development of a plan or policy, there might be a number of different stages of engagement with the community using a different level of participation at the different stages. This will vary depending on the decision but for complex issues, a targeted group of community and stakeholders might be ‘involved’ to aid the development of a draft document followed by wider ‘consultation’ on the draft document.

Joint Management Agreements, Memorandum of Understanding or other similar high level agreements will be considered when engaging ‘collaboratively’ with Māori.

Title: Timelines for consultation projects - Description: Simple process: step 1 developing draft plan or policy, step 2 draft of the plan released for engagement, step3 analysis of feedback and decision making.

Complex process: step 1 identify issues for development of a draft plan or policy, step 2 targeted engagement with key stakeholders to help develop the draft, step 3 draft of the plan released for engagement, step 4 analysis of feedback, step 5 hearings, step 6 decision-making.

6.1      Engagement methods

The following provides a guide to the different approaches to engagement that might be used. Other approaches may also be considered depending on the topic and population affected.

Where the decision or proposal is in relation to air, land or water, the council will take into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with those places.

The council will refer to the general criteria in section 3.3 to determine the level of engagement required. In addition, the council will consider who is affected by the decision, for example, the level of diversity in terms of geographic, cultural or other key demographics.

Prior to determining an appropriate approach, the council will consider how much is already known about the community views and preferences on the issue.

 

 

Significance

Description

Example approach

Small and simple

Eg redevelopment of libraries or community halls, park improvements

The audience is very localised or relatively small in number or very targeted. They are easy to access and the issue or decision is relatively straight forward and is not of high general public interest. For example, redevelopment of libraries or community halls, park improvements.

Localised promotion, for example through display boards and local media. Targeted engagement with the relevant audience where appropriate. Promotion through e-newsletters and social media. Information online and through local libraries and service centres. Surveys and open days may also be appropriate. 

Medium

Eg action plans, local area plans

The audience is fairly broad or diverse: some segments are not easy to access. The issue is not straightforward and there may be mixed views from the community. For example, action plans and local area plans.

Targeted engagement with the relevant audience, online engagement which may include a survey and social media. Information available through libraries and service centres. Promotion through e-newsletters, the local media or through the council’s newsletter, Our Auckland.

Large or complex

Eg Auckland Plan, Long-term Plan

The audience is large and diverse and the issue is of wide importance to the region or complex. Significant financial investment will be required. This is high profile, over-arching, touches every part of council / community. For example, Auckland Plan, Long-term Plan.

Large scale publicity and promotion. There could be an informal engagement / discussion phase plus a formal phase of consultation. There is likely to need to be consideration of different cultural styles and needs for engagement. Likely to include a range of events and a focus on online activities. Promotion through the council’s newsletter, Our Auckland and through e-newsletters.

 

6.2      Special consultative procedure (SCP) 

Part 6 of the Local Government Act 2002 specifies the use of the SCP for some plans and processes including:

·     Long-term Plan

·     Local Board Plans

·     Annual Plan

·     Bylaws of significant interest

 

The SCP can also be used where the governing body (for a regional decision) or local board (for a local board decision) deems the issue to be significant. Under the SCP, Auckland Council is required to:

·     develop a statement of proposal and make this publicly available (and make the summary of full proposal as widely available as reasonably practicable);

·     describe how people can have their say;

·     ensure people are given an opportunity to present their views to the council; and

·     given access to a record of the decisions.

The engagement methods listed above under ‘Large or complex’ will be considered when preparing for a SCP but large or complex issues will not automatically follow a SCP.

 

6.3      Consultation (Section 82)

Auckland Council is required to carry out consultation in accordance with or giving effect to Section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002 on certain matters (regardless of whether they are considered significant as part of this policy).

For all other issues requiring a decision, the council will determine the appropriate level of engagement on a case by case basis.

 

6.4      Informal engagement

Auckland Council may seek to develop ongoing relationships with the community on general matters, rather than purely on issues that require a decision. This will also allow the community to raise matters that are not currently under consultation. This could include having a presence at markets, events and in public spaces for the purposes of hearing community views and preferences.


 

 


Manurewa Local Board

09 October 2014

 

 

Title: University engagement event - Description: The photo shows a roadshow event at a university where there are information displays, documents and other materials for review and discussion.


Manurewa Local Board

09 October 2014

 

 

 

September 2014

Title: Auckland Council logo


Manurewa Local Board

09 October 2014

 

 

Adoption of the Manurewa Local Board Plan 2014

 

File No.: CP2014/22111

 

  

 

 

Purpose

1.       To adopt the Manurewa Local Board Plan 2014.

Executive summary

2.       Each local board is required to adopt a local board plan by 31 October 2014.

3.       The draft Manurewa Local Board Plan was developed following informal community engagement. This was followed by formal consultation using the special consultative procedure (SCP) from 7 July to 6 August 2014.

4.       The Manurewa Local Board considered the submissions from the SCP at its deliberations during its business meeting on 11 September. There was general support for the outcomes, projects and initiatives. The board made some recommendations for a number of small changes to include points raised in the submissions.

5.       The Manurewa Local Board Plan is attached to this agenda.

 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Manurewa Local Board:

a)      adopt the Manurewa Local Board Plan

b)      delegate authority to the Manurewa Local Board chairperson to approve any minor wording changes that may be necessary following adoption.

 

 

Comments

Background

6.       The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 requires each local board to develop a local board plan every three years. The first local board plan was adopted in 2011. This second local board plan must be adopted by 31 October 2014.

7.       Local board plans are strategic plans for the following three years and beyond. The plans reflect the priorities and preferences of the community. They guide how the local board:

·    makes decisions on local activities and projects

·    provides input into regional strategies and policies

·    works with other agencies that play a key role in the area, including central government agencies and council-controlled organisations.

8.       The plans inform the development of the council’s 10-year Long-term Plan. The plans also form the basis for development of the annual local board agreement for each of the following three financial years.

9.       The local board is required to use the SCP to consult on the draft local board plan. The SCP was held from 7 July to 6 August 2014. There were 105 submissions on the draft local board plan. Seventeen submitters were heard at the hearings on 2 September.

10.     The Manurewa Local Board considered all submissions from the SCP at its deliberations during its business meeting on 11 September. There was general support from submitters for the outcomes, projects and initiatives in the plan and overwhelming support for projects to improve the Manurewa town centre. The local board made some recommendations for a number of small changes to include points raised in the submissions.

Consideration

11.     The local board plan has been developed by considering a range of strategic issues, as well as the Auckland Plan and other regional strategies and policies.  Advice from subject matters experts, community views and public submissions has also been important in developing the plan.

12.     The local board deliberated on the SCP at its business meeting on 11 September 2014.

13.     The plan is attached to this agenda.

Local board views and implications

14.     The local board’s views have driven the development of the plan attached to this report.

Māori impact statement

15.     The local board plan contributes to improving wellbeing in Māori communities, as well as the community in general.

16.     The local board has signaled in the plan their intention to work more closely with mana whenua and mātāwaka in the Manurewa area. The plan describes some of the opportunities for projects that respond to Māori aspirations, including seeking input to policy and strategy development.

17.     Māori have also been involved in the development of this plan. The Manurewa Local Board joined with other local boards from the south Auckland area to meet representatives from 10 local iwi for discussions to help inform the development of local board plans. The local board intends to hold further discussions as projects and initiatives are designed and delivered.

Implementation

18.     The long-term plan and the annual plans draw the local board plans together and prioritise the council projects into what is affordable and will best meet the strategic direction and needs of Auckland’s communities. The projects and initiatives contained in each local board plan need to be included in the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 and annual plans if they are to be implemented. This requires discussion and agreement with the governing body though the local board agreement process.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Manurewa Local Board Plan 2014 content

181

     

Signatories

Authors

John Adams - Senior Local Board Advisor

Authorisers

Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager

 


Manurewa Local Board

09 October 2014

 

 







































Manurewa Local Board

09 October 2014

 

 

Local board feedback on the draft Arts and Culture Strategic Action Plan (ACSAP)

 

File No.: CP2014/22604

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To endorse the Arts and Culture Strategic Action Plan’s proposed goals and action areas.

Executive summary

2.       The Arts and Culture Strategic Action Plan (ACSAP) is a core strategy to deliver on the Auckland Plan vision to be the world’s most liveable city.  It sets out a strategic direction for the next 10 years that will guide the planning and delivery of arts and culture activities in Auckland to meet the aspiration in the Auckland Plan to “integrate arts and culture in our everyday lives”.

3.       Public consultation on the draft ACSAP was held 23 June to 24 July 2014.

4.       A total of 440 submissions were received from key (external) stakeholders and the general public – 50 from arts and culture organisations, 109 from children and young people and the remainder from the general public.

5.       Feedback from local boards was generally positive. The draft ACSAP aligned well with the arts and culture aspirations in many of the local board plans.

6.       There was strong endorsement from key stakeholders and the general public of the draft ACSAP’s goals and action areas.

7.       However, feedback from local boards and key stakeholders indicated that considerable further work is required on the implementation section of the plan. 

8.       As a result of this feedback, the ACSAP has been split into two parts:

·    The ‘strategic section’ of the plan, which outlines the goals and action areas; and

·    An ‘implementation section’, which will provide detail on the specific actions to be delivered and by whom, timeframes and measures.

9.       The strategic section (goals and action areas) will be reported to the Arts, Culture and Events Committee for adoption in October 2014.

10.     The implementation section requires further work and engagement with local boards and key stakeholders. This will be reported to the Arts, Culture and Events Committee for adoption in March 2015.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Manurewa Local Board:

a)      endorse the Arts and Culture Strategic Action Plan’s proposed goals and actions and recommend that the Arts, Culture and Events Committee adopt them.

b)      note that further work on the implementation section will be undertaken with local boards from November 2014 to February 2015.

Comments

Local board feedback

11.     To date, engagement with local boards has included portfolio holder briefings, workshops and meetings with local board members. Written and verbal feedback has been received (see attachment A).

12.     Local boards are generally positive about the draft ACSAP, its alignment with draft local board plans and its ability to support local board’s diverse arts and culture aspirations.

13.     Key themes emerged from local board feedback:

·   Community feedback on the draft plan needs to be reflected in the final ACSAP

·   Greater recognition of the importance of arts and culture in placemaking and urban design

·   Greater clarity on council’s role and what council will specifically deliver and support

·   Improve the affordability of hiring creative spaces

·   Improve Aucklanders’ access to and participation in arts and culture

·   More public art outside the city centre

·   Regional institutions to deliver arts and culture in rural areas

·   Greater use of digital tools, such as an arts and culture calendar, on-line tools to connect artists with funders, on-line access to and apps about the history of significant sites etc.

·   Recognise the importance of ‘local’ i.e. arts and culture by local communities, for local communities, in local communities.

14.     The areas of strong alignment between local board, key stakeholder and general public feedback include: the importance of arts and culture in placemaking; celebrating multiculturalism; and addressing affordability and accessibility issues for audiences and participants.

Public feedback

15.     Public consultation on the draft ACSAP took place from 23 June to 24 July. It was publicised through various channels. Local boards also promoted the consultation to their communities.

16.     A total of 440 submissions were received. Of these: 50 were from arts and culture organisations; 109 were received from children and young people; and the remainder were from the general public. (See attachment B for the feedback summary and submission numbers by local board area)

17.     A specific consultation with children and young people was undertaken during the school holidays, accounting for the high number of responses from these groups. Staff worked with Uxbridge Creative Centre, The Auckland Performing Arts Centre, Auckland Central Library, Auckland Art Gallery and schools to run visioning and imagining exercises and collect feedback via a specifically designed worksheet.

18.     Key themes from the public consultation were:

·    The importance of public art and arts and culture in placemaking

·    Sustainable funding of arts and culture

·    Affordability and accessibility to arts and culture for audiences and participants 

·     Honouring Māori culture and recognising the contribution of multiculturalism to Auckland’s identity

·     A strong desire from many individuals and organisations to partner with council to implement the ACSAP.

19.     Submitters strongly endorsed the six goals and 16 action areas in the draft ACSAP.

Adopting the ACSAP through a two-stage process

20.     Whilst there was general support for the goals and action areas, there was also strong feedback on how the detailed actions of the ACSAP will be implemented. Additionally, external stakeholders expressed a desire to be involved in delivery.

21.     The mayor’s proposal for the Long-term Plan 2015-25 requires refinement to the detailed actions and look closely at implementation.

22.     As a result of these issues, the ACSAP has been split into two parts:

·    The ‘strategic’ part of the plan, outlining the goals and actions areas. Staff seek local board endorsement of the proposed goals and action areas (below), and local board recommendation that the Arts, Culture and Events Committee adopt the goals and action areas at the October committee meeting. Prior to further consultation on implementation, it is important that the ACSAP goals and action areas are adopted to guide this discussion.

·    The ‘implementation’ part of the plan, with details on specific actions, lead organisations, timeframes and measures. This requires further work and engagement and will be reported to the Arts, Culture and Events Committee in March 2015. Feedback from the consultation will be used to refine and inform this work.

ACSAP strategic section: proposed goals and action areas

23.     Early information and feedback from local boards and key stakeholders was used to develop the goals and action areas in the draft ACSAP. They have been confirmed through the consultation process, which also identified priority goals and action areas (see bold points in the table below).

24.     The proposed, final ACSAP goals and action areas are:

Goals

Action areas

All Aucklanders can access and participate in arts and culture

Place Aucklanders at the centre of arts and culture planning and delivery

Better communicate what’s on offer

Remove barriers to access and participants

Auckland values and invests in arts and culture

Grow and deliver strategic investment in arts and culture

Evaluate and promote the economic, social, cultural and environmental value of investment in Auckland’s art and culture

A network of vibrant arts and culture organisations and facilities meets Auckland’s diverse needs

Foster arts and culture organisations and facilities that build and promote Auckland’s unique identity

Support arts and culture organisations and facilities to engage with Auckland’s diverse population in innovative and inclusive ways

Arts and culture organisations work together as a complementary regional system

Provide a regional spread of vibrant diverse and affordable creative spaces

Arts and culture are intrinsic to Auckland’s place making

Tell our stories by encouraging unique and distinctive public art that reflects and responds to our place

Make it easier to plan, create and deliver innovative art and design in public places

Engage more artists and Aucklanders in art in public places

Auckland celebrates a unique cultural identity

Celebrate Māori and their culture as a point of difference

Champion Auckland’s unique arts and culture

Auckland has a robust and flourishing creative economy

Foster a robust network of creative industries

Champion innovation to attract talent

 


Next steps

25.     Further engagement with local boards, key stakeholders, mana whenua and mataawaka on implementation will take place between October 2014 and February 2015. The implementation section will be reported to the Arts, Culture and Events Committee in March 2015 for adoption, and the ACSAP in its entirety will be finalised.

Consideration

Māori impact statement

26.     The Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB) is represented on the ACSAP steering group to provide guidance on content and process. The IMSB’s Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau was a guiding document underpinning the development of the draft ACSAP.

27.     Māori aspirations and outcomes were clearly identified and addressed in the draft ACSAP with Māori actions woven through all the action areas; this will not change. The ACSAP acknowledges and celebrates Māori culture as Auckland’s point of difference, and mana whenua as Treaty partners in a multicultural Auckland.

28.     One of the key arts and culture actions in the Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau was that council support a signature Māori event – this is included in the ACSAP. The mayor’s proposal on the Long-term Plan 2015-25 states his expectation that Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development (ATEED) will deliver a significant Māori event (and ATEED refocus its current resources to achieve this).

29.     Further engagement with mana whenua and mataawaka is planned as part of developing the implementation section of the ACSAP.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Local Board Feedback

223

bView

Consultation Summary

227

cView

Draft Arts and Culture Action Plan (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Signatories

Authors

Rebecca Kruse - Strategy Analyst

Maree Mills - Principal Strategy Analyst

Authorisers

Grant Barnes - Manager - Auckland Strategy and Research

Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager

 


Manurewa Local Board

09 October 2014

 

 

 

Local Board Feedback Summary

Engagement undertaken in 2013-14

Theme/Issue

Placemaking

·    Recognises importance of arts and culture in place making

·    Would like more community involvement and input

·    Nurturing/building a distinct area identity through arts and culture

·    Incentivise developers to incorporate arts and culture into new developments

·    Involve creative people in the planning process - designers, architects working with planners

·    Heritage and place recognised e.g. Writer’s walk, sculpture trail

·    Incorporation of Maori and European history in the environment

·    Public art/cultural design integrated in capital project design/urban design

·    Local artists to be involved with chance to win commissions for council buildings

Funding

·    More clarity on funding streams

·    Governing Body financial commitment

·    Who is going to fund what

·    Business sponsorship for arts and culture events

·    Council investment in art should equate to investment in sport

·    Funding issues are a key for supporting local theatres/galleries/museums and groups. Uneven investment in facilities throughout the region

Council role in ACSAP

·    More clarity on council’s role – arts and culture community want to understand what council can deliver and support

·    Plan focus should be on how the council can support the organisations

·    Foster partnerships

·    Advocacy

·    Local boards role in guardianship

·    Role of CCOs in arts and culture


 

Capacity Building

·    Streamline council processes – ‘go to person’

·    Provide better climate for building creative relationships

·    More capacity needed to assist local boards to go beyond business as usual and develop what assets they already have – guidance/advice to help see the huge potential for arts and culture in our community and translate into our local board plans.

·    The key question for this Plan should be “How do we create an organisation (council) that fosters/allows creativity to flourish?”

Education and pathway into employment

·    Need to highlight the value of (creative) education

·    Profile creative students and activities in the community (more recitals)

·    Growing skills, creativity, entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship

·    Local boards have a part to play

Events

·    Clarity of process around growing local events to regional

·    Events portal to promote all events

·    A stocktake of what is currently happening to ensure that one event is not ‘cannibalising’ the audience of other events – establish the correct balance between city centre and local

·    Importance of local cultural events

·    Promotion of events – linking local and regional events/festivals into each other, good local promotion of events

Diversity

·    Highlight Asian community

·    Need to highlight more than ethnic diversity

·    Inclusiveness of all communities


 

Facilities

·    Organisations to work together not in competition

·    Funded to meet  diverse need – how to achieve equity, consistency and sustainability

·    CFNP as a tool to enable review of community arts and culture facilities

·    Grow maker spaces

·    Don’t just focus on city centre

·    Development of arts and culture precincts

·    Local art facilities – many saw a lack in their area

·    Need for smaller theatre spaces and performance venues in smaller centres. 

Maori

·    Development of Maori cultural centre for the arts – great development initiative for our youth

·    Marae as a youth hub providing arts opportunities for youth

Barriers

·    Coast of transportation and parking

·    Entry and ticket prices

·    Distance to regional facilities

·    Buses(public transport) stop operating after the event

·    Compliance costs, rules and regulations

Other

·    More local public art outside city centre

·    Regional institutions to deliver arts and culture out to rural areas – increase exposure

·    More art displays in the parks – digital, physical, more art-based activities to encourage people into regional parks

·    Include acknowledgement of economic significance

·    Good use of case studies in summary document

 


Manurewa Local Board

09 October 2014

 

 

ARTS & CULTURE STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN 2014

Submissions Report

 

The draft ACSAP was publicised via various channels including:

·    Targeted stakeholders  (e.g. advisory panels, IMSB, CCOs, key arts and culture organisations)

·    Through 146 venues (e.g. CDAC facilities, RFA, marae, community centres, libraries, local board offices, service centres, commercial galleries, performing arts venues, tertiary institutions, art schools, private museums and philanthropic organisations) and at events (e.g. Kapa Haka Super 12s, Art Educators Conference AUT and Net Hui).

·    Presentations to Creative Coalition, Lunchtime Learning, Artist Alliance, Pacific Arts Cluster and Digital Live

·    Published through various media channels (e.g. Our Auckland, digital banners, NZ Herald advert, press release to media commentators, council website and Facebook and Twitter accounts)

Submission Type

Submitter Group

The graph below shows the format the submissions were received in.

182 submissions have been received via the online form, 108 via the hard copy form, 109 from the Youth worksheet, and a further 39 via email non form submissions.

The graph below outlines what ‘group’ submitters belong to.

275 submissions have been from individuals, 51 from some form of group or organisation, and 109 from the Youth worksheet.

Feedback regarding the ACSAP Vision

Submitters were asked to rank how important the vision is to them.  The graph shows the importance of the visions to submitters. 

Feedback regarding the Goals

The graph outlines what importance submitters placed on each goal.  The table below outlines the labels used in the graph below.

 

 

Graph label

Goal

Access and participation

All Aucklanders can access and participate in Arts and Culture

Value and invest

Auckland values and invests in Arts and Culture

Organisations and facilities

A network of vibrant Arts and Culture organisations and facilities meets Auckland’s diverse needs

Design and development

Arts and Culture are intrinsic to how we design and develop Auckland

Cultural identity

Auckland celebrates a unique cultural identity

Creative economy

Auckland has a robust and flourishing creative economy

 

Feedback regarding the Actions

The graphs below show the priority given by submitters to action areas.

 

All Aucklanders can access and participate in Arts and Culture

Auckland values and invests in Arts and Culture

 

A network of vibrant Arts and Culture organisations and facilities meets Auckland’s diverse needs

 

 

Arts and Culture are intrinsic to how we design and develop Auckland

 

 

Auckland celebrates a unique cultural identity

 

 

Auckland has a robust and flourishing creative economy

 

 

Submission by Local Board Area

The table below indicates the total numbers of submissions received by the local board area.

 

Local Board

Individual submissions

Children and young people worksheet

Organisation submissions

Total submissions

Albert-Eden Local Board

45

4

4

53

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

14

0

5

19

Franklin Local Board

4

0

0

4

Great Barrier Local Board

0

0

0

0

Henderson-Massey Local Board

9

15

1

25

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

6

2

3

11

Howick Local Board

12

34

2

48

Kaipatiki Local Board

16

5

2

23

Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board

5

0

0

5

Manurewa Local Board

4

1

1

6

Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board

15

4

0

19

Orakei Local Board

17

0

1

18

Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board

7

0

0

7

Papakura Local Board

9

0

0

9

Puketapapa Local Board

8

0

0

8

Rodney Local Board

7

1

1

9

Upper Harbour Local Board

3

1

0

4

Waiheke Local Board

1

2

2

5

Waitakere Ranges Local Board

10

0

0

10

Waitemata Local Board

43

19

18

80

Whau Local Board

16

3

0

19

Regional

1

0

3

4

Not Supplied

2

0

1

3

Outside Auckland

21

19

11

51

 

 


Manurewa Local Board

09 October 2014

 

 

Stormwater Priorities Consultation Submission

 

File No.: CP2014/22933

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To note Manurewa Local Board’s Submission to the ‘Manukau Harbour Stormwater Network Discharge Consent- Stormwater Priorities Consultation. 

Executive summary

2.       At its meeting on 11 September 2014, Manurewa Local Board resolved (Resolution number MR 2014/180):

That the Manurewa Local Board:

a)   receive the report entitled “Manukau Harbour Stormwater Network Discharge Consent - Stormwater Priorities Consultation”.

b)   Delegate authority to the Chairperson and Member Danella McCormick t formulate the board’s feedback to the stormwater unit, in consultation with mana whenua, on the Manukau Harbour Stormwater Network Discharge Consent by the 30th September, 2014.

c)   Request further updates on the outcomes of the Manukau Harbour Stormwater consultation process.

3.       On 23 September, the board held a workshop with Consultants from the Stormwater Unit and mana whenau to assist in the preparation of its feedback.

4.       On the 30th September, the attached Submission was provided to Stormwater Unit.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Manurewa Local Board:

a)      note its attached Submission to the ‘Manukau Harbour Stormwater Network Discharge Consent- Stormwater Priorities Consultation

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Stormwater Priorities Consultation Submission

233

     

Signatories

Authors

David Hopkins - Local Board Advisor

Authorisers

Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager

 


Manurewa Local Board

09 October 2014

 

 

Stormwater Priorities Consultation Submission

Purpose

This submission provides feedback from Manurewa Local Board about what is important in managing the stormwater flows into Manukau Harbour. The Stormwater Unit will use this and other feedback to prioritise and plan their work. The Stormwater Unit will also use this feedback to inform their application for resource consent to discharge stormwater into the steams and harbours around Auckland.

Executive Summary

Stormwater infrastructure is core Council infrastructure.

The submission highlights the board’s views on key issues of concern about the management of stormwater. These issues include:

·    managing growth, both infill and greenfield

·    managing stormwater assets

·    managing flooding

·    enhancing urban streams

·    addressing contamination of the Manukau Harbour

·    stormwater recharge of ground water

·    stormwater effects on the sewerage system.

The submission also outlines the principle of a ‘treatment train’ approach to the management of stormwater. Treating stormwater at source results in minimum additional load on the stormwater network and the receiving environments.

The board is concerned that budgets be adequate to provide and maintain high standards of service. Current issues including increasing population growth, increasing numbers of unusual weather events and need for environmental protection mean that stormwater budgets need to increase.

Introduction

Managing stormwater is core council business.

The Manurewa Local Board welcomes this opportunity to provide principle-based feedback and to contribute to setting the priorities for this core council work.

Rainfall and the water running off as stormwater is an invaluable resource supporting our beautiful environment. The Stormwater Unit and its predecessors have made major contributions to the safe and positive management of the urban environments of Auckland.

Effective management of stormwater has been highlighted by mana whenua and other local people as a top priority in environmental protection for Manurewa.

Education and public awareness are important components in the programme for stormwater management.

Proper Management of stormwater - treatment train approach

The board favours the principle of a ‘treatment train’ approach to the management of stormwater.

A ‘treatment train’ approach requires any new development to apply the following stormwater treatment principles:

·    Collect the stormwater from the roof in a tank

·    Any overflow to a soakage pit

·    Soakage pit overflow to a vegetative swale

·    Swale overflow to the stormwater network

Advantages:

This treatment train approach has multiple advantages including:

·    long term lower cost,

·    lower stress on the stormwater system,

·    better ground recharge

·    better removal of contaminants so as to

·    preserve water quality.

Removing contamination:

Rain water arrives in a clean state but gets contaminated with chemicals, residual particles and dirt when it runs off roofs, roads and other hard surfaces. Stormwater then needs to be treated to remove the contamination. Treatment is most effective at the source of the contamination. A treatment train approach means the rainwater passes through a number of stages in sequence each of which allows for treatment in a different way. This treatment train approach should be used to manage stormwater and to improve the quality of water discharging to the Harbour. 

Integrated approach

Members want Council to:

·    take an integrated approach to water management to include capture and re-use stormwater, and that overflows be discharged to further treatment in ground or swales.

·    adapt and implement international best practice for stormwater treatment, i.e.:  use of rain tanks, diverters, wetlands and vegetated (e.g.:  oioi and piripiri plants) swale systems.

·    consider the long-term bigger picture of the impacts on the environment and prioritise this in the budget.

·    stop using chemical sprays and mowing near streams so as to prevent further contamination of streams by spray residues or grass clippings.

·    prioritise natural solutions with local community involvement in maintaining the vegetation so mowing and spraying is no longer a cost to the budget.

Setting priorities

Auckland Council Stormwater Unit is seeking guidance on priorities from local boards, community members, mana whenua and other stakeholders for management of the public stormwater network. Stormwater Unit will incorporate this feedback to help clarify what are ‘Best Practicable Options’ given that there is more work to do than resources available at present.

This consultation is also part of an application under the Resource Management Act (1991) to obtain resource consent to discharge stormwater into the Natural Environment including the Manukau Harbour and the streams which flow into the harbour.

Principles

Stormwater management must protect:

1.    the public both in normal times and in times of flood and

2.    the environment from damage though improper or polluted discharges of water.

What are the criteria being used for this consultation?

A Managing growth

Increase in growth in the built environment and the effect that this has on already undersized stormwater pipes is of concern.  There is also conflict between increasing run off from buildings housing future populations and the protecting of the receiving environment. Intensification and in-fill housing needs to be carefully planned. 

All developers should be required to provide for comprehensive onsite receiving of stormwater by way of rainwater tank or similar for every new building as part of a stormwater ‘treatment train’ approach which provides systems that discharge only highest quality stormwater.

Greenfields:

Development of structures in ‘greenfields’ areas is a time of investment, perhaps the greatest investment in that area since the initial clearing trees and settlement. Especially at these times of major growth, the cumulative effects of developments need to be determined and understood as part of resource consent. No growth that damages the waterways and the ‘receiving environment’ should be permitted.

Any remnants of native vegetation need to be absolutely protected along streams both on public and private land.

Infill

Infill housing also impacts on the stormwater system and groundwater recharge. For intensification or infill growth, a similar ‘treatment train’ approach should be required with important new rules to reduce or eliminate impacts on environment. 

B Managing Our assets

Asset management has to be a high priority because:

·    poor asset management leads to higher cost effects elsewhere

·    assets are getting older

·    populations are increasing

·    extreme weather events are increasing in frequency and magnitude

·    awareness of impacts of stormwater is rising and

·    sewerage contaminating the stormwater system is now unacceptable.

Best practice management of stormwater has changed since many of the assets were installed. A ‘treatment train’ approach is now preferred where previously a system based around cesspits and pipes was thought adequate.  Modernising the management of stormwater raises complex issues where urbanisation has already happened and the pit and pipe method has been installed.

The stormwater system needs to be regularly monitored and maintained.

Cesspits:

Maintenance and proper cleaning of cesspits should occur regularly. These measures cost money but they make a huge difference to the water quality being discharged.

Unusual weather events:

Many of the stormwater assets were built when climate change was not well understood. Unusual weather events including heavy rains are becoming more frequent. Assets now need to be managed for more complex environments. Climate change is impacting on the frequency of ‘one in 100 year’ events which use to have just a 1 % chance of happening in any given year. Several such events are now happening each year and assets need to cope with this.

Streams as assets:

Streams are also assets and part of the stormwater system. Streams through parks should have riparian planting rather than grass mown or sprayed up to the edge of the stream. Streams emerging from or entering pipes and culverts should have physical filters to catch rubbish and these should be checked and cleared regularly.

C Managing Flooding

Background:

Flood modelling and stormwater systems design needs to take account of the increases in extreme weather events in both frequency and magnitude.  Flooding within low lying parts of Manurewa is becoming more frequent, and effects on existing communities from flooding need to be managed.

Flood paths:

Flood minimisation requires overland flow paths are kept clear. Where building already exists, Council has a responsibility to owners and residents (who may be tenants) to notify them of potential risks. Council has made freely available its flood path maps through the computer programme ‘GIS’. This is an excellent first step but not enough in itself to adequately fulfil Council’s responsibility to inform residents of risk.

It is urgent for Council and the Stormwater Unit to prioritise no further safety risks to human health and wellbeing through building on flood plains.

Critical infrastructure

Critical infrastructure needs to be protected from what is currently described as 1 in 200 hundred year events as a higher standard than the present one in 100 years standard. Council’s Stormwater Unit has a planning, coordinating and educational role.

Such Critical Infrastructure includes:

·    Middlemore Hospital and SuperClinic

·    Mangere Sewerage Treatment plant

·    Auckland Airport

·    Wiri Oil Terminal and

·    major electrical substations.

D Managing urban streams

Urban streams are important to the wellbeing of the community by providing recreational and environmental services. In Manurewa the major streams are Puhinui, Papakura and Waimahia and there are many smaller streams.

The board’s Environment Portfolio has received disturbing reports from the Pollution Response team of sewerage pollution entering the Puhinui Stream from a large stormwater culvert near Cavendish Drive.

The board sees a priority for stormwater management is to prevent any further degradation to the streams. Stormwater exiting built up areas and infrastructure like cesspits and pipes needs to be free of contaminants as it is discharged into these streams.

The Unitary plan seeks to further protect urban streams. Channelling streams into stormwater pipes will be a non-complying activity under the Unitary Plan.

Management of urban streams can involve many units within Council and within the community. It requires coordination and public education.

Stream health is determined by surveys of macro invertebrate health- numbers and kinds of creatures in the streams. Environmental Services and others are involved in this work. Overall in Manurewa, stream water quality is reported as poor. Improving stormwater management can make big contribution to improving stream health and consequently harbour health.

Safety around streams for children must also be considered. Parents have primary responsibility for managing risks of children around water. Council has responsibility for design and can promote education safety campaigns.

E Contamination of the Manukau Harbour

All around the Harbour people are asking for a change in how it is managed. Local Boards have collaborated to create a combined ‘Manukau Harbour Forum’ to provide stronger advocacy for the guardianship and protection of the harbour. The boards agree that there is a wider responsibility to ensure no further contamination, better protection of the environment including marine ecology, and promotion of recreational amenity. Holistic management is required and the Stormwater Unit needs to see this as a high priority.

For example there is an urgent need to remedy the sedimentation and contamination entering the harbour. Sediment is identified as a contaminant of concern for the boards. No further development should be permitted which adds additional sediment and contaminants to stormwater and flood discharges.

In Manurewa there is concern that Council needs to give a higher priority to finding where contamination of the harbour is coming from and to implement solutions. For example, Weymouth beach has been closed to swimming for a number of years. Eventually Environmental Services commissioned measurement of the water quality to identify the type of contamination. Results point to contamination coming from a stormwater culvert with a catchment area of about 250 houses.  Solutions need to be identified far more quickly so that this beach and others like it are not a health hazard arising in a context of Council inaction.

Monitoring of water discharged into the harbour needs to be regular and frequent. Action then needs to be taken urgently to remedy issues identified.

F Managing Stormwater discharges to ground water

Recharge of groundwater is vital to long term health of streams and the environment we all live in.

Intensification of land use increases the impervious areas and increases the amount of run off. There is a risk with intensification that not enough water can soak into the ground and instead a great extra load is added to the stormwater network.

To counteract this, properties should be required to deal with stormwater runoff on site through a treatment train approach before releasing any water to the stormwater network. Any use of semi permeable rather than hard surfaces should be encouraged where practicable.

Concrete bases to streams should be progressively removed to encourage stream health. Supplemented by appropriate planting, stream speed will slow to provide for healthier environments for fish, eels and other aquatic life.  Ground water recharge will be enhanced.

G Stormwater effects on the sewerage system.

It is a high priority to address any cross connection between the two networks. An ongoing close working relationship between Watercare and Stormwater unit is necessary.

Evidence from the cross contamination at Weymouth Beach suggests that neither Stormwater nor Watercare yet has adequate systems or resources to identify problems, let alone to fix them!

This must be rectified.

Council Role

Watercare has a separate discharge consent

Watercare has a separate consent for its discharge at Mangere. There is community concern about Watercare discharge and a belief that Watercare is responsible for much of the contamination of Manukau Harbour. There is also community concern about whether there is adequate scrutiny of Watercare by Auckland Council.

Rectifying long term under investment in stormwater management

Contamination from the stormwater system has polluted the harbour to the state where it is not safe to harvest traditional sea foods or even use some areas for swimming and active recreation. There is evidence of long term contamination of the water at Weymouth Beach which apparently enters the beach area through the stormwater system. This contamination was not detected by stormwater monitoring processes. There is also widespread evidence of sedimentation of Manukau Harbour. Sediments transported in part through the stormwater system show that more needs to be done.

Long Term Plan

The board regards proper management of stormwater as a priority in advancing the wellbeing of the people of Manurewa and for enhancing the environment upon which they depend. The board has concerns that Councils in the past have not invested sufficiently to maintain adequate levels of service in stormwater management. On the basis of the principles and reasons outlined in this submission, the Board advocates for maintaining and indeed increasing the investment in the management of stormwater in the forthcoming Long Term Plan.

There is general concern by members that any Stormwater Unit budget cuts would lead to greater effects on the receiving environment.  Less money for research into appropriate approaches, increases concern that the same approach of using cesspits and pipes to managing stormwater would be continued.

Budgets need to be maintained to ensure opportunities for innovative approaches to managing stormwater throughout this period of growth and transformation.

Residents around the Manukau Harbour regard enhancing the state of the harbour as a vital component to the aspiration towards World’s most liveable city.

Consideration

Mana Whenua

Mana whenua have highlighted the importance of the streams and harbour to the board in Local Board Plan hearings and in other consultations. Mana whenau leaders have said they regard the streams and waters as like ‘the blood in our veins’ and as important to our wellbeing. The Manukau Harbour was ’the foodbowl’ with each hapu around the harbour having specialty food depending on what was available in its area. The harbour is regarded as central to diet, lifestyle and culture.

The ‘receiving environment’ for discharge is social as well as environmental.

The board has listened to this feedback and seeks to work in partnership with mana whenua to enhance water quality and social wellbeing. Proper management of stormwater will remove contaminants and contribute significantly to environmental and community wellbeing.

Community consultation

The board has engaged in several consultations with community groups and individuals. The different perspectives and priorities gathered at these consultations have been used to inform the board’s feedback. Submitters highlighted the importance of proper management of stormwater to the people and environment of Manurewa.

Board supports this consent application

The board supports the Stormwater Unit in applying for resource consent to discharge stormwater to the receiving environment of the streams and waters of Manukau Harbour and beyond. Whilst the board understands the Stormwater Unit’s need to prioritise, members stated that all issues are interconnected and therefore of equal importance.

Duration of consent

Consent to discharge will specify the number of years. Stormwater unit is proposing to ask for consent to manage the discharge for the next 35 years which is the maximum period allowable.

Given concerns already identified with managing stormwater, the board considers a consent for ten years is appropriate. This is a balance between the urgent need to see evidence of stormwater management practices improving and the substantial cost of undertaking the consent application.

Monitoring

The board recommends formal monitoring of the consent every five years. The consent would include conditions relating to monitoring, but these have not yet been developed.  Evidence brought to the board indicates a need for much more frequent monitoring of the stormwater discharges to the Manukau Harbour. This monitoring needs to include measuring whether there is sedimentation or contamination of the harbour.

Rectification

Beyond monitoring, the board believes that stormwater management includes developing and implementing a plan to start urgently rectifying and remediating areas which are health hazards to the community.

30 September 2014

 


Manurewa Local Board

09 October 2014

 

 

Reports Requested - Pending - Issues

 

File No.: CP2014/21649

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       Providing an update on reports requested and issues raised at previous meetings.

Executive Summary

2.       Nil.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Manurewa Local Board:

a)      receive the report entitled “reports requested – pending – issues” by the Democracy Advisor.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Reports requested pending October 2014

243

bView

Watercare's response to concerns raised about the monitoring of the Mangere Wastewater Treatment Plant

245

    

Signatories

Authors

Lee Manaia - Local Board Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Rex Hewitt - Relationship Manager

 


Manurewa Local Board

09 October 2014

 

 



Manurewa Local Board

09 October 2014