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

 

Date:                      

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Thursday, 30 October 2014

6.00pm

Lynfield Meeting Room
Fickling Convention Centre
546 Mt Albert Road
Three Kings

 

Puketāpapa Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Julie Fairey

 

Deputy Chairperson

Harry Doig

 

Members

David Holm

 

 

Ella Kumar

 

 

Nigel Turnbull

 

 

Michael Wood

 

 

(Quorum 3 members)

 

 

 

Brenda  Railey

Democracy Advisor

 

22 October 2014

 

Contact Telephone: 021 820 781

Email: brenda.railey@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

30 October 2014

 

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                        PAGE

1          Welcome                                                                                                                         5

2          Apologies                                                                                                                        5

3          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   5

4          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               5

5          Leave of Absence                                                                                                          5

6          Acknowledgements                                                                                                       5

7          Petitions                                                                                                                          5

8          Deputations                                                                                                                    5

9          Public Forum                                                                                                                  5

10        Extraordinary Business                                                                                                5

11        Notices of Motion                                                                                                          6

12        Puketāpapa Youth Caucus and Youth Advisory Panel Update                               7

13        Albert-Eden-Roskill Governing Body Members Update                                           9

14        Chairperson's Report October 2014                                                                         11

15        Board Member Reports for October 2014                                                                23

16        Proposed Reserve Land Exchange with Fletcher Residential Ltd in PA372        39

17        Financial Policies Issues for Long-term Plan 2015-2025                                        49

18        Council Controlled Organisation Review, Progress Report to Local Boards     67

19        Puketapapa Local Board Small Local Improvement Projects (SLIPs) Programme 2014-2015                                                                                                                               75

20        Significance and Engagement Policy                                                                        85

21        Local Dog Access Review                                                                                        109

22        Auckland Transport Report, October 2014                                                            133

23        Draft Community Facilities Network Plan                                                              143

24        Installation of sculptures at Monte Cecilia Park                                                    221

25        Local board feedback on the draft Arts and Culture Strategic Action Plan (ACSAP) 227

26        Integrated Bylaws Review and Implementation Programme (IBRI) Update – September 2014                                                                                                                             241

27        Record of Puketāpapa Local Board Workshop Proceedings                              251

28        Resolutions Pending Action Schedule, October 2014                                          259  

29        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

 

 


1          Welcome

 

 

2          Apologies

 

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

 

3          Declaration of Interest

 

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

 

4          Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday 25 September and Thursday, 9 October 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.

 

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

 

9          Public Forum

 

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

 

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.

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

30 October 2014

 

 

Puketāpapa Youth Caucus and Youth Advisory Panel Update

 

File No.: CP2014/24108

 

  

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report is for the Puketāpapa Youth Caucus and Youth Advisory Panel representatives to provide a verbal update to the Board.

 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Puketapapa Local Board:

a)         Thank the Youth Caucus and Youth Advisory Panel representatives for their update.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Signatories

Authors

Brenda  Railey - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

30 October 2014

 

 

Albert-Eden-Roskill Governing Body Members Update

 

File No.: CP2014/24110

 

  

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report is for the Albert-Eden-Roskill Governing Body Members to provide a verbal update to the Board.

 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Puketapapa Local Board:

a)         thank Governing Body Members for their update.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

 

Signatories

Authors

Brenda  Railey - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

30 October 2014

 

 

Chairperson's Report October 2014

 

File No.: CP2014/24118

 

  

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report is to inform the Puketāpapa Local Board on the Chairperson’s portfolio activities.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)      receive the Chair’s Report for October 2014.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

JM Fairey - Chair's report, 16 September to 19 October 2014.

13

    

Signatories

Authors

Brenda  Railey - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

30 October 2014

 

 











Puketāpapa Local Board

30 October 2014

 

 

Board Member Reports for October 2014

 

File No.: CP2014/24113

 

  

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report is to inform the Puketāpapa Local Board on Board Members portfolio activities.

Executive Summary

2.       Attaching Board Member reports for the month of October 2014, providing the Puketāpapa Local Board members a chance to update each other on their portfolio work.

It is anticipated that other Board members will speak to their reports at the meeting, if required.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)      receive written reports from Member HAJ Doig and DA Holm.

b)      receive any other reports for October 2014.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Harry Doig Report, 15 September to 17 October 2014

25

bView

David Holm Report, 18 September to 19 October 2014

37

    

Signatories

Authors

Brenda  Railey - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

30 October 2014

 

 













Puketāpapa Local Board

30 October 2014

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

30 October 2014

 

 

Proposed Reserve Land Exchange with Fletcher Residential Ltd in PA372

 

File No.: CP2014/24693

 

  

Purpose

1.       This report seeks an endorsement from the Puketapapa Local Board on the land exchange proposal as presented by Fletcher Residential Ltd (Fletcher) as part of the private plan change request PA372, to be incorporated into a report to the November meeting of the Auckland Development Committee (ADC).

Executive summary

2.       The Puketapapa Local Board endorsed the Three Kings Precinct Plan on 28 August 2014.

3.       This plan is intended to guide development of Three Kings. The proposed implementation plan lists 20 projects that includes the intent to ‘work with adjoining landowners to facilitate future land configuration to enable implementation’ of the plan.

4.       The Three Kings town centre is owned by Antipodean Properties Ltd and is surrounded on the eastern and northern side by Crown owned reserve land.  Fletcher owns the 15ha quarry that lies to the north of the Crown land.  The reserve area that lies to the west of the quarry is part owned by the Crown, and part owned by Auckland Council.  Council is the administering body of the Three Kings Reserve.

5.       Fletcher has lodged two private plan change requests, PA372 and PA373, which were notified on 13 October 2014.

6.       PA372 relates to a comprehensive development plan for the quarry area, the western reserve land and the reserve land between the quarry and the town centre.  This proposal is predicated on an exchange of reserve land under s.15 of the Reserves Act 1977.

7.       PA373 is a stand-alone development proposal that only relates to the land in Fletcher ownership and does not depend upon an exchange of reserve land.

8.       S.15 (1) of the Reserves Act 1977 provides for the exchange of parts of a reserve for any other land to be held for the purposes of that reserve. 

9.       The land lies within the area subject to the provisions of the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act 2014, under which mana whenua have a right of first refusal (RFR) on the sale of surplus Crown owned land.  Under s.135 of the Act, Crown is able to dispose of RFR land in accordance with s.15 of the Reserves Act and the land would cease to be RFR land after the exchange.

10.     The reserve land subject to the exchange proposal is located in a strategic linking position between the Town Centre and the quarry and is currently used for car parking, a track to the western playing field and a machinery and vehicle depot.  Apart from the western playing field and a walking track to Te Tatua a Riukiuta, the balance of the land is overgrown and un-utilised, and parts are enclosed by very steep slopes.

11.     The proposed land exchange is being assessed by council staff against other options for the land and the potential of an exchange offers a number of advantages over other options.

12.     The juxtaposition of the reserve and quarry land offers an opportunity to achieve an improved reserves purpose outcome under the Reserves Act at a much lower cost to Council, and it also offers the opportunity to create an integrated residential and mixed use development plan for the Three Kings precinct and its community.

13.     ACPL, following consultation with council staff, recommend that Council and Fletcher Residential Ltd progress discussions and seek to agree a detailed land exchange agreement that can form the basis of public consultation under the Reserves Act.

14.     Any agreement would be subject to prior confirmation by the Crown (DoC) that it and mana whenua are comfortable that the reserve land exchange would fall within the provisions of s.135 of the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act 2014.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)      endorse further work by Council as the administering body of the Three King Reserve to seek to agree a detailed land exchange agreement between Auckland Council, Crown and Fletcher Residential Ltd for public consultation under s.15 of the Reserves Act.

Comments

 

Background

15.     The future use of the Three Kings Quarry has for some time been recognised as a potential site for mixed use development and the site’s relationship to the Three Kings town centre, to Te Tatua a Riukiuta, and to the surrounding residential areas have been one of the fundamental considerations of the Three Kings Precinct Plan, which was endorsed by the Puketapapa Local Board on 28 August 2014.

16.     In February 2014, Fletcher publicly released a master plan for redevelopment of the quarry that included adjoining reserve land to enable better integration with the town centre, surrounding residential and open space areas.

17.     In August 2014 the Local Board adopted the Three Kings Plan to guide development of Three Kings.

Ownership of Land

18.     There are two parcels of reserve land identified by PA372.  The reserve land adjacent to the southern boundary of the quarry totals 3.85ha and is derived from the Crown, but held in trust, and administered on its behalf, by Auckland Council. The other reserve, adjacent to the western boundary, is partially derived from the Crown (1.58ha), with the balance being Auckland Council land (1.47ha).  Attachment 1 illustrates the current land ownership.

Proposed Land Exchange Areas

19.     Attachment 2 and 3 illustrate the parcels of land that PA372 proposes for exchange.  The southern and western reserves total 6.9ha, though less than 30% of that land provides accessible active or passive open space, most of it being on the western reserve.

20.     The land in the southern reserve area includes a park maintenance depot, the car park adjacent to Grahame Breed Drive and a parking area adjoining the northern boundary of Antipodean Properties Ltd ownership.

21.     Following the proposed exchange, the amount of high quality active recreational space will increase to provide two side by side sand carpeted playing fields.  Accessible areas of passive and/or connecting open space land will also increase significantly.  In total, 5.18ha of land will be deemed reserve, with a further 2ha vested as road.  The proposed stormwater system of rain gardens and swales will provide some additional open space amenity and will cover 1.38ha, but this infrastructure will not form part of the exchange of reserve land.

22.     The indicative land exchange plan broadly identifies the exchange areas but a more detailed plan will need to be agreed as part of the negotiations around an exchange agreement. The work will address outstanding issues relating to playing field operations, open space management and design principles, the depot facility and the car parking provision around Grahame Breed Drive. Agreement as to the specification and timing of works, the land being remediated to be fit for purpose, surveying, professional fees and costs and funding of other works will also be addressed in any agreement.

Next Steps

23.     ACPL and council officers will prepare a report and recommendation on the exchange proposal to the Auckland Development Committee on 13 November.

24.     The report will set out the land exchange process under s.15 of the Reserves Act 1977

25.     The report will address any views or requests of the Puketapapa Local Board on the proposal.

26.     Council will engage with the Crown (DOC) in relation to its obligations under the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act 2014 Act, in order to obtain confirmation that DOC has discussed the exchange of Crown land under s135 of the Act, and that there are no outstanding issues as to whether the RFR applies.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

27.     The Puketepapa Local Board has held two recent workshops with council officers and ACPL on the exchange proposal.  The workshops discussed the exchange plan in the context of the Three Kings Plan, and the legal aspects of the exchange process.  The Board will continue to be updated on the progress of the work on establishing a detailed agreement around the proposed exchange, and will be provided with a timeline on the exchange process once prepared.

Māori impact statement

28.     Mana Whenua who have interests in the Puketapapa area are Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua, Ngāti Whātua, Ngāti Whatua o Kaipara, Ngāti Whātua Orākei, Te Kawerau ā Maki, Ngāti Tai ki Tāmaki, Ngāti Tamaoho, Te Akitai Waiohua, Ngāti Te Ata, , Ngāti Whanaunga, Ngāti Maru and Ngāti Tamaterā.

29.     Te Tātua-a-Riukiuta / Big King Reserve has transferred to Mana Whenua (the Tūpuna Taonga o Tāmaki Makaurau Trust), to be administered by the Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority under the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act 2014. Hapū / Iwi will have a strong interest in any proposals that have an impact on Big King Reserve, Te Tātua-a-Riukiuta and Crown land and other open space in the immediate vicinity.

30.     The Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act provides for a mana whenua Right of First Refusal in relation to the disposal of surplus Crown land; s135 of the Act states that Crown ‘may’ dispose of RFR land in accordance with s.15 of the Reserve Act.  Council staff will engage with DOC to ensure that the requisite Crown-mana whenua discussions have occurred to reach comfort in relation to the s135 RFR exception.

31.     Council will also commence formal consultation with mana whenua soon, and it is understood that a number of iwi will be making submissions on PA372 and PA373 during the submission period that closes on 11 November 2014.

Implementation

32.     Implementation of any development would follow the plan change and reserve revocation and land exchange processes. Any development would also need specific statutory planning approval.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Land Ownership around Three Kings Quarry Map

43

bView

Draft Exchange Plan Map

45

cView

Draft Land Exchange Overlay Map

47

   

Signatories

Authors

Nigel Hewitson - Team Leader Disposals

Carol Stewart - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

David Rankin - Chief Executive Officer, AC Property

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

30 October 2014

 

 



Puketāpapa Local Board

30 October 2014

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

30 October 2014

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

30 October 2014

 

 

Financial Policies Issues for Long-term Plan 2015-2025

 

File No.: CP2014/21561

 

  

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 Puketāpapa 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."

51

     

Signatories

Authors

Andrew Duncan - Manager Financial Policy

Authorisers

Matthew Walker - Manager Financial Plan Policy and Budgeting

Andrew McKenzie - Chief Finance Officer

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

30 October 2014

 

 

















Puketāpapa Local Board

30 October 2014

 

 

Council Controlled Organisation Review, Progress Report to Local Boards

 

File No.: CP2014/23099

 

  

Purpose

1.       To inform local boards about key aspects of the current review of council controlled organisations (CCOs) and seek local board feedback, in particular on matters of interest to local boards.

Executive summary

2.       This report informs local boards on a number of matters relating to the CCO review. These include:

·    the key steps undertaken in the CCO review so far

·    CCO configuration options that have been considered but are not being progressed

·    CCO configuration options that are still under consideration

·    other aspects of the CCO review of interest to local boards including the Accountability Framework workstream; and the Communication, Collaboration and Consultation workstream

·    next steps in the CCO review.

3.       This report seeks feedback from local boards, in particular about an option to increase activities in support of the council’s transformational shift of radically improving the quality of urban living. The council is considering a new vehicle that could act as a single outward facing voice in the development of the Auckland region, with greater economies of scale, enhanced commerciality and the ability to partner with others.  The report seeks feedback on the concept, including comment on the considerations the council should take into account, from a local perspective, when developing the concept.

4.       The report notes that local boards have already provided feedback on the following matters which are being considered as part of the CCO review.

·    Whether local economic development activities are delivered by Auckland Council or ATEED.

·    The roles and interface between local boards and Auckland Transport in relation to place-making functions.

5.       In relation to local economic development, the report seeks local board views on ATEED being responsible for local economic development, if a mechanism can be established to hold ATEED accountable to local boards for delivery. The report also notes that the CCO review will not consider the level of funding for local economic development activities, as this is an LTP issue. Current proposals are for LTP funding for local economic development to be provided in the council’s spatial priority areas only.

6.       In relation to local boards, Auckland Transport, and place-making responsibilities, any specific proposals would require further consultation with local boards.

7.       In relation to the Accountability Framework workstream, the report notes that improved alignment between the statement of intent process and the LTP/Annual Planning process should provide the Budget Committee with greater visibility of the extent to which proposed CCO work programmes deliver on local board priorities.

8.       The Accountability Framework workstream also proposes that council requirements of CCOs, in relation to local board engagement, reporting, and consideration of local board priorities will be included in a new Governance Manual that all CCOs are required to comply with.

9.       The report also notes that the Communication, Collaboration and Consultation workstream is still being scoped and may require local board engagement at some stage.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)      consider the information provided in this report and provide feedback, in particular, on matters of interest to local boards as indicated in the report.

Comments

Phase One – Terms of Reference and Current State Assessment

10.     The governing body adopted its terms of reference for the CCO review on 27 February 2014. The terms of reference sought to ensure that CCO governance structures were aligned with the council’s strategies and provided an efficient and effective model of service delivery. They also sought to:

·    ensure sufficient political oversight and public accountability of CCOs

·    provide clarity about roles and responsibilities

·    eliminate duplication

·    better integrate services and functions and provide a positive interface between the Auckland Council group organisations and Aucklanders.

11.     Major structural change for Auckland Transport was identified as being out of scope because Auckland Transport is a statutory entity governed by specific legislative provisions.

12.     The review is due to be completed by June 2015. Any proposals for structural change will be consulted on through the draft Long Term Plan (LTP).

13.     The terms of reference and CCO review workstreams were informed by two current state assessment reports, one prepared from a council perspective and one from a CCO perspective. Local board input to the current state assessment acknowledged significant improvements in interactions between CCOs and local boards over the three year period, although most local boards were still looking for further improvement in certain areas.

Phase Two – Assessment of Services

14.     The first step in phase two of the review was to test the rationale for delivering services through a CCO. Councillors discussed that there were both benefits and challenges from delivering services through arms’ length entities such as CCOs.

15.     Benefits include commercial focus, efficiency, flexibility in decision-making, and ability to attract specialist skills. Challenges include that the council is ultimately accountable for ratepayer funding, and achieving integration of CCO activities with other council services or policies. It was also acknowledged that where there is high political, public, iwi, or stakeholder interest in CCO decision-making, this can be challenging for the council.

16.     At its meeting of 26 June 2014, the governing body received analysis of the services currently being provided by CCOs, against a set of criteria that sought to test the suitability of those services for delivery through a CCO. Overall the analysis suggested that the services currently being delivered through CCOs were well suited to this mode of delivery. Where challenges were identified it was clear that councillors believe these can be properly managed through a CCO model.

Phase Two – CCO delivery and configuration

17.     The second step in phase two of the review was to identify whether any changes to the grouping of activities was likely to deliver better outcomes than the current CCO configuration.

18.     Councillors have discussed configuration options at a series of workshops in August and September. The options were informed by one or more of the following drivers for change:

·    Opportunities to address issues raised in the current state assessment, particularly removing duplication in skills and clarifying responsibilities

·    Opportunities to increase effectiveness and drive results

·    Opportunities to improve strategic alignment to Auckland Plan goals

·    Opportunities to increase efficiency/reduce costs

·    Evidence from international best practice or other desktop research.

19.     In relation to the last bullet point a number of pieces of desktop research were undertaken. These included reviews of national/international delivery models and a report by Synergine Group on the linkages between water, wastewater and stormwater.

20.     The Governing Body has not made any decisions on configuration options; however, workshop discussions have indicated that there was insufficient rationale to progress some options. 

Options not being progressed

21.     Three waters – The Synergine Group report found that there would be some benefits from the integrated management of three waters, such as enhanced catchment management planning. It also found significant linkages between stormwater and other activities of the council group, including land use planning and transport. 

22.     For this reason, the options of delivering three waters in-house or within a three waters CCO were both considered.

23.     In-house delivery of three waters could help better align water and wastewater network planning with council strategy; however, these benefits can be achieved in other ways including through greater collaboration. This option would have some significant disadvantages including very high cost of change and likely reduced commercial focus in relation to water and wastewater delivery.

24.     Delivery of three waters within a three waters CCO could have benefits in terms of operational efficiencies and greater commercial focus. However, some of the benefits can be achieved in other ways and there are some major drawbacks. For example, this option could require complex agreements between Auckland Council and Watercare as many stormwater assets are ‘soft infrastructure’ such as overland flow paths. This would have implications for local boards as many of the overland flow paths are in local parks.  Another reason that the option was not progressed was that stormwater planning also needs to be highly integrated with land use planning.

25.     Regional facilities, tourism and major events. This option would involve transferring ATEED’s responsibility for tourism and major events to RFA.  The main drivers for this option were perceived increase in efficiency and effectiveness as both RFA and ATEED have a focus on tourism and major events including conferences. However, RFA’s main objectives are to maximise utilisation of their assets, while ATEED’s focus is on delivering benefit for the Auckland Region. This option has not been progressed as there was a concern that the resulting CCO would have conflicting objectives.

26.     Larger Commercial CCO. Consideration was given to other council investments or business interests that could be transferred to ACIL; however, no significant opportunities were identified.

27.     Of the options not being progressed, the option involving transferring stormwater to a three waters CCO is likely to be of most interest to local boards for reasons outlined in paragraph 24.

Options still under consideration

28.     Enhanced status quo. This option will apply to all CCOs which do not undergo significant structural change. Enhanced status quo will involve reviewing the purpose and high-level objectives of each CCO as set out in the orders of council under which they were established. This does not apply to Watercare or Auckland Transport, which have specific legislative provisions defining their powers and responsibilities. The timeframe for this review will be between February and June 2015.

29.     Enhanced status quo will also involve considering a number of one off issues in relation to each CCO. The following are likely to be of most interest to local boards.

·    Whether local economic development activities are delivered by Auckland Council or ATEED.

·    The roles and interface between local boards and Auckland Transport in relation to place-making functions.

30.     A lot of feedback has already been provided by local boards on these matters and will be taken into account as options are developed.

31.     A key difficulty with ATEED delivering local economic development activities on behalf of local boards is that local boards have decision-making responsibility for this, yet they do not have a direct governance relationship with ATEED.  This report seeks local board views on ATEED being responsible for local economic development, if a mechanism can be established to hold ATEED accountable to local boards for delivery.

32.     Note that the CCO review will not address the level of funding for local economic development activities, as this is an LTP decision. Current budget proposals are for the funding for local economic development activities to be provided in the council’s spatial priority areas only.

33.     In relation to local boards, Auckland Transport and place-making, the current state assessment from local boards contained a lot of feedback which will be considered. Any specific proposals would need to come back to local boards for further feedback.

34.     Under enhanced status quo there are a number of matters to clarify in relation to Waterfront Auckland. These include the role of Waterfront Auckland in its “area of influence”, and whether the Cloud, Shed 10, and the Viaduct Events Centre, are managed by Waterfront Auckland or RFA. These matters may be of interest to some local boards. The timing for addressing these matters has not yet been determined, but further consultation with interested local boards may be required at a later date. 

35.     Urban Regeneration CCO: Serious consideration is being given to how the council can increase its level of activity to support its transformational shift of radically improving the quality of urban living. This means moving to quality compact urban form that is well connected, appropriately serviced, provides employment opportunities, and provides housing affordability and choice. These are key elements but there are many other considerations including safety, sustainability, and quality urban design.

36.     While the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) is an enabler, it will not be sufficient on its own to provide the scale or quality of development required.

37.     The council already has a range of vehicles for helping deliver on these objectives. These include:

·    Waterfront Auckland, which is responsible for regeneration of Wynyard Quarter

·    City Transformations which undertakes master planning and town centre upgrades

·    ACPL which has a role in facilitating housing and commercial development in specific locations including Ormiston Town Centre, Yard 37 at Hobsonville, Papatoetoe town centre, Avondale town centre, and Wilsher Village in Henderson

·    Tamaki Redevelopment Company, which is jointly owned with central government and council

·    Housing Project Office which is charged with implementation of the Housing Action Plan and integrated consenting in Special Housing Areas (SHAs).

38.     The council is considering a new vehicle that could act as a single outward facing voice in the development of the Auckland region, with greater economies of scale, enhanced commerciality and the ability to partner with others.  This is likely to be a staged process with the first steps undertaken as part of the CCO review. Options are still being refined but could include expanding the role of ACPL, bringing together the skills and expertise from Waterfront Auckland and ACPL, or another option which could emerge out of work still being undertaken.

39.     The concept of a new vehicle to assist in the delivery of quality urban living goals is likely to be of interest to local boards. Local boards’ role in community engagement and local place-making is central to shaping on-going change.

40.     In the initial stages it is likely that any increase in redevelopment/regeneration activity would simply reflect reprioritisation of LTP budgets in areas which have been identified as spatial priorities. However, it is anticipated that the vehicle would generate and/or leverage new sources of funding over time.

41.     This report seeks comments from local boards on the concept of an enhanced delivery vehicle for urban regeneration including comment on the considerations that the Governing Body should take into account from a local perspective, when developing the concept further.

42.     Holding Company. ACIL currently owns council shares in Ports of Auckland Limited, Auckland Film Studios, and Auckland International Airport. It also manages the diversified financial assets portfolio (DFAP) on behalf of the council. An option still being considered is to transfer responsibility for the DFAP to the council. ACIL would then become a holding company for council’s ownership in commercial investments. This option does not have identifiable implications for local boards.

CCO model –working better together

43.     The focus of the review to date has been on the rationale for arms-length delivery and options for structural change. The terms of reference for the review are much wider than this and include consideration of how to make the CCO model work best for the Auckland Council group. The Auckland Council CCO model is fundamentally different to other local authorities in New Zealand as CCOs deliver core services on behalf of council. The preferred approach is a collaborative model where CCOs are delivery partners, rather than autonomous entities that the council procures services from.

44.     Two workstreams likely to be of particular interest to local boards are the Accountability Framework workstream; and the Communication, Collaboration and Consultation workstream.

Accountability Framework

45.     To date, the Accountability Framework workstream has focussed primarily on processes, with a goal of improving alignment between budgeting, the LTP process and the annual statement of intent (SOI) process.

46.     Proposed new processes have been considered at CCO Review workshops and are due to be considered formally by the CCO Governance and Monitoring Committee on 7 October 2014.

47.     The proposed new process recognises that the council’s expectations of CCOs expressed through the SOI process, need to be aligned to the LTP/Annual Plan. When the council considers CCO priorities it should do so within the context of the funding it is providing, or the funding assumptions it is making in the LTP/annual plan.

48.     Under the proposed new process the Budget Committee will consider CCO key performance indicators and targets at its October/November workshops with CCOs, and will agree an annual letter of expectation (LOE) to CCO chairs, that reflects budget decisions made. The CCO Governance and Monitoring Committee will receive the draft SOIs in April each year as usual and will limit its shareholder comments to checking that deliverables reflect what has already been agreed through the budgeting process.

49.     For local boards, the main implication is that the Budget Committee will also have an overview of local board priorities when it sets its funding for CCOs. For the proposed LTP, the Budget Committee workshops with local boards occur shortly before workshops with CCOs. This will enable Budget Committee members to engage with CCOs regarding local board priorities if they have concerns about any priorities that are not reflected in programmes proposed by CCOs.

50.     This does not supersede the requirement for CCOs to take local board priorities into account when they develop their proposed programmes, and for CCOs to actively engage with local boards as they do this.

51.     The other proposed change is to streamline the SOIs so that they are focused on what the CCO will deliver. Council expectations in relation to how the CCO is expected to act will be included in a new Governance Manual that will replace the current Shareholder Expectation Guide.

52.     Under recent changes to the Local Government Act 2002, the council is required to have a binding agreement with its CCOs. It is proposed that the binding agreement will cross-reference the Governance Manual which will formalise the requirement to comply with council expectations.

53.     This Governance Manual will include council expectations of CCOs in relation to local board engagement and reporting, and consideration of local board priorities. These have already been articulated in resolutions of the Accountability and Performance committee in December 2012, and the Strategy and Finance Committee in September 2013. The recent elected member survey included questions for local board members to help assess the current level of satisfaction of local board members in relation to these matters. It is intended that this will continue to be monitored annually.

Communication, collaboration and consultation workstream

54.     The purpose of this workstream is to:

·    Ensure that CCOs, elected members and council staff engage effectively over strategic issues and keep each other well informed of sensitive issues. This includes CCO interaction with the IMSB and local boards.

·    Ensure appropriate public engagement on matters of public interest.

55.     This work is still being scoped. The working group will include a staff member from Local Board Services.

56.     This work could result in new content for inclusion in the new Governance Manual referred to in paragraphs 51-53. This would need to be identified in draft form by March 2015. If there are any proposals that relate to local boards, CCO Review staff will seek guidance from Local Board Services about further engagement with local boards on these matters.

Next steps in CCO review

57.     According to the current timetable, the Governing Body will receive a report on 27 November 2014 with recommendations on CCO configuration options. If the council agrees to support any option that would require significant structural change to any CCO or the establishment of a new CCO, this will be consulted on through the LTP. The proposal to establish a new vehicle to deliver on quality urban living objectives would require LTP consultation.

58.     Work on the “working better together” workstreams will continue from now until June 2015.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

59.     This report asks for local board views on a number of issues that are being considered as part of the CCO review. This report has provided an overview of review and noted the matters which are likely to be of most interest to local boards.

Māori impact statement

60.     The CCO review also includes a range of issues that are likely to be of interest to Māori and to the IMSB. Staff will also seek feedback from the IMSB in relation to these matters.  

Implementation

61.     There are no implementation issues associated with this report.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Signatories

Authors

Catherine Syme - Principal Advisor, CCO Governance and External Partnerships

Authorisers

John  Bishop - Treasurer  and Manager CCO Governance & External Pertnerships

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

30 October 2014

 

 

Puketapapa Local Board Small Local Improvement Projects (SLIPs) Programme 2014-2015

 

File No.: CP2014/24421

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       This report provides an overview of the Puketāpapa Local Board 2014/2015 Small Local Improvement Projects (SLIPs) programme and recommends projects for rescinding approval and deferment.

Executive summary

2.       The Puketāpapa Local Board has $119,635 SLIPs operational funding (Opex) to allocate in the 2014/2015 financial year. At the time of this report, $119,635 SLIPs operational expenditure has been approved totalling 100% of the total available budget.

3.       The Puketāpapa Local Board has $921,000 Local Board Discretionary capital (Capex) funding available in the 2014/2015 financial year.

4.       Of this, $782,920 capital expenditure has been allocated to projects in previous years and carried forward. The Puketāpapa Local Board has allocated a further $437,000 capital funding towards new projects in financial year 2014/2015.

5.       The Puketāpapa Local Board Local Board Discretionary capital (Capex) funding has been over allocated by $298,920.

6.       Approval is being sought in this report to rescind allocated budget by $298,920, with the recommendation that:

The following projects are put on hold until an alternative funding source has been confirmed:

1

Keith Hay Park Cycleway lighting

$100,000 SLIPs Capex

2

Mt Roskill Gateway Signage (Corten Steel Artwork)

$22,040 SLIPs Capex          

3

Manukau Foreshore Network Plan

$80,000 SLIPs Capex

4

Baseball Facilities at War Memorial Park

$85,000 SLIPs Capex

 

The Lynfield Reserve Cycleway Project - stage 3 allocated budget is reduced by $11,870 SLIPs Capex as savings against the project delivery.

7.       Approval of the recommendations in this report will allocate 100% of the available SLIPs capital expenditure in the financial year and 100% of the available SLIPs operational expenditure.

8.       All 2014/2015 projects should have budget allocated to them within the first quarter of the 2014/2015 financial year; to enable commencement and completion prior to 30th June 2015. 

9.       Most projects will need eight months or more to be successfully delivered within the 2014/2015 financial year. Projects that have budget allocated to them with less than six months remaining within the current financial year will be at risk of not being completed by 2014/2015 financial year end.

10.     Budgets for projects funded from 2014/2015 SLIPs capital expenditure and SLIPs operational expenditure must be fully expended within the 2014/2015 financial year.

 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)      acknowledge receipt of the Puketāpapa Local Board 2014/2015 SLIPs funding programme summary

b)      delegate authority to the spokesperson to provide guidance and advice to the SLIPs team regarding their allocated proposals and delegates authority to the spokesperson and chair of the board, to be exercised together, to make additional funding decisions where a variation to a project scope is needed due to unforeseen circumstances

c)      rescind the resolution to allocate $100,000 capital funding towards the Keith Hay Park cycleway lighting project and put the project on hold

d)      rescind the resolution to allocate $22,040 capital funding towards the Mt Roskill Gateway Signage (Corten Steel Artwork) project and put the project on hold

e)      rescind the resolution to allocate $80,000 capital funding towards the implementation of the Manukau Foreshore Network Plan and put the project on hold

f)       rescind the resolution to allocate $85,000 capital funding towards the implementation of the Baseball Facilities at War Memorial Park and put the project on hold

g)      rescind the resolution allocate $115,000 SLIPs Capital budget from financial year 2015-2016, to be utilised in financial year towards the Baseball Facilities at War Memorial Park from and put the project on hold

h)      acknowledge savings of $11,870 from the Lynfield Reserve Cycleway Project

i)        notes that upon approval of the above recommendations 100% of the available SLIPs capital expenditure and 100% of the available SLIPs operational expenditure would be allocated to projects.

 

Comments

11.     Communities are impacted by SLIPs projects. They provide an opportunity for staff and elected representatives to engage with the communities on their specific needs. SLIPs staff will liaise directly with all residents and stakeholders impacted by any SLIPs funded projects to be delivered.

12.     Funding for the proposed projects within this report will come from the Puketāpapa Local Board’s discretionary Capex budget. After allocating budget to all the projects listed in this report and elsewhere, the Puketāpapa Local Board have allocated 100% of the available Local Board Discretionary capital expenditure and 100% of the available SLIPs operational expenditure.

13.     SLIPs need to comply with all relevant legislation, including the Resource Management Act 1991, the Local Government Act and all Auckland Council policies.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

14.     This report canvasses the views of the Puketāpapa Local Board.

15.     The recommendations contained within this report fall within the Local Boards allocated authority.

 

Māori impact statement

16.     Parks and open spaces contribute significantly to Maori well-being, values, culture and traditions.  Where any aspects of the proposed work programme are anticipated to have a significant impact on sites of importance to Tangata Whenua, appropriate consultation will follow.

Implementation

17.     All 2014/2015 projects should have budget allocated to them within the first quarter of the 2014/2015 financial year; to enable commencement and completion between prior to 30th June 2015. 

18.     Most projects will need eight months or more to be successfully delivered within the 2014/2015 financial year. Projects that have budget allocated to them with less than six months remaining within the current financial year will be at risk of not being completed by 2014/2015 financial year end.

19.     Budgets for projects funded from 2014/2015 SLIPs capital expenditure and SLIPs operational expenditure must be fully expended within the 2014/2015 financial year.

20.     The ability to spend/deliver outcomes is dependent on the availability of experienced staff or consultant project management resource.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

SLIPs (Small Local Improvement Projects) Funding Programme 2014/2015 dated 20/10/2104

79

     

Signatories

Authors

Vandna Kirmani - SLIPs Project Portfolio Leader

Authorisers

Katrina Morgan - Team Leaders SLIPs

Ian Maxwell - Manager Parks, Sports & Recreation

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 



Puketāpapa Local Board

30 October 2014

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

30 October 2014

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

30 October 2014

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

30 October 2014

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

30 October 2014

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

30 October 2014

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

30 October 2014

 

 

Significance and Engagement Policy

 

File No.: CP2014/23134

 

  

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report 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 Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)      provide feedback on the draft Auckland Council Significance and Engagement Policy.

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

91

     

Signatories

Authors

Carol Hayward - Team Leader Consultation and Engagement

Authorisers

Karl Ferguson - Communication & Engagement Director

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

30 October 2014

 

 



















Puketāpapa Local Board

30 October 2014

 

 

Local Dog Access Review

 

File No.: CP2014/22619

 

  

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report is to decide whether to review dog access rules for Monte Cecilia Park by the summer of 2015 or to defer the review until when the Puketapapa Local Board reviews all dog access rules which is to be completed by the summer of 2016.

Executive summary

2.      The Auckland Council Governing Body delegated the review of dog access rules for local parks, beaches and foreshore areas to the relevant local boards in 2012.

3.      The primary objective for local boards in making decisions on dog access is to ensure public safety and comfort and to ensure that the needs of dogs and their owners are met.

4.      The governing body has established a standard process to assist local boards which identifies what aspects of the process will be funded by the governing body, including basic research and engagement and public notification. Local boards will fund any additional research and engagement, alternative forms of public notification, and signage.

5.      The Puketapapa Local Board discussed local dog access rules for Monte Cecilia Park at workshops in 2013, and indicated a medium priority, seeking to review these rules by the summer of 2015.

6.      The process is intended to start in September 2014 and to end in October 2015. The board will need to adopt a proposal by April 2015, hold hearings and deliberations and make decisions on submissions by August 2015.

7.      Monte Cecilia Park is located in Royal Oak, surrounded by Mt Albert Road, Hillsborough Road, Herd Road and Queenstown Road. Dogs are currently allowed under control, on a leash on this park.

8.       The dog access rules of Monte Cecilia Park were identified through the governing body review of the policy and bylaw on dogs in 2012. Two requests received at that time were to change dog access from under control, on a leash to time and season based, under control, off leash access.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)      resolve to review local dog access rules in the Puketapapa Local Board area as follows:

i)        undertake a review of local dog access rules in Monte Cecilia Park in 2014 / 2015; OR

ii)       undertake a review of local dog access rules in Puketapapa Local Board area in 2015 / 2016.

 

Comments

 

9.      In 2012, the governing body replaced seven legacy policies and seven legacy bylaws on dogs with a single Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 (the policy) and Auckland Council Dog Management Bylaw 2012 (the bylaw). As part of that process it delegated responsibilities for dog access rules on local park, local beach and local foreshore areas (areas not of regional significance or Department of Conservation[1]) to local boards.

10.    The delegations also contained a specific requirement that local boards review their dog access rules on any beach and foreshore area.

11.    A three year programme (2013-2016) has been established to assist local boards in reviewing local dog beach and foreshore access rules. As part of the establishment of this programme, workshops were held with each board to establish how much of a priority a review would be (low, medium, high) as well as ascertaining whether there were any key issues of concern. Another function of the programme is to also achieve efficiencies by aligning the review programmes across multiple local boards to allow for centralised support and activities.

12.    The Puketapapa Local Board indicated in August 2013 that the review of local dog access rules in Monte Cecilia Park was of medium priority and is to be completed by the summer of 2015. Current dog access rules in Monte Cecilia Park allow dogs under control on a leash.

General considerations

13.    The primary issues of dog access under the Dog Control Act 1996, the council’s Policy on Dogs 2012 and the Dog Management Bylaw 2012 are balancing the protection of the safety and comfort of the general public, the protection of wildlife and providing for the recreational and exercise needs of dogs and their owners on a region wide basis. This means having regard to:

(a)  The need to minimise danger, distress, and nuisance to the community generally

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

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

(d)  the exercise and recreational needs of dogs and their owners[2].

A more detailed outlined of the requirements is provided in Attachment A.

Safety and comfort of the general public

14.    While the following information is not specific to the Puketapapa Local Board area, it provides an indicative overview of the general issues.

15.    Primary research undertaken by staff for the Auckland Council Dog Management Bylaw 2012 identified that in 2010 the top three dog related complaints[3] were roaming, barking and dog attacks or aggression.

16.    Key points from this research of common dog related complaints received include:

·    Dogs that roam unaccompanied by their owners account for just over half of all dog related problems.

·    Dogs that persistently bark or howl account for one third of all dog related problems.

·    Dogs that attack, rush or are aggressive to people or animals account for just over a tenth of all dog related problems. Dog attacks on people account for less than three per cent of complaints.

17.    The research (as shown in Figure 1) identified that the most common location of reported dog attacks on people was outside the owner’s property (36 per cent). However, it should be noted that based on ACC injury statistics, the reported incidents are estimated to only account for less than a third of actual dog attacks[4]. A possible reason for lack of reporting, particularly in public places, may be an inability to identify the details of a dog or their owner in order to make a complaint.

18.    Comfort of the general public is more problematic to assess and quantify. The first matter for consideration is whether the general public can utilise a public area without ‘fear of attack or intimidation’. While it is noted that most dog owners consider their pets friendly and that they would not wilfully harm anyone, to another user the presence of an unknown unleashed dog may engender fear or intimidation. This is particularly within a confined area such as a boardwalk or narrow bush walk where there is no space to avoid coming into contact with the dog.

19.    Secondly, there is the requirement to consider nuisance to the community.  Do users of the space want to be approached by unknown dogs? As part of a survey conducted for the dog access reviews of the Kaipatiki and Orakei Local Board areas, 60 per cent and 65 per cent respectively of non-dog owner respondents did not want unknown dogs approaching them[5] .

20.    This would indicate that for the comfort of people to be maintained, dogs need to be effectively controlled in the proximity of non-dog owners, particularly around vulnerable people. Additionally any interactions need to be managed so that they are positive for the owners, their dogs and non-dog owners. Dog access rules can help in managing interactions by identifying areas where dogs are allowed under control off-leash, on-leash or are prohibited.

Wildlife

21.    A number of wetland and shorebirds are vulnerable to dogs as they nest, roost, breed or feed in wetland or inter-tidal areas. Feedback from Auckland Council biodiversity staff indicates that for some species, including the New Zealand Dotterel, the presence of dogs can cause ground-nesting birds to leave the nest resulting in loss of clutches and broods and disrupted feeding which is particularly important for migratory birds.

22.    Dog restrictions in protected wildlife areas are not only about protecting wildlife, but also reducing the risk of associated penalties on owners if such areas are disrupted by dogs.

23.    Under the Dog Control Act 1996, it is an offence to allow dogs to roam or attack protected wildlife. Penalties include seizure and destruction of the dog; owner imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or a fine not exceeding $20,000, or both. Under section 63 of the Wildlife Act 1953 it is an offence to kill or disturb wildlife. Penalties for individuals include imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or a fine not exceeding $100,000, or both.

Recreational and exercise needs of owners and their dogs

24.    Walking a dog is an important form of regular exercise for many dog owners with a study in Manukau showing that for 50 per cent of dog owners it was their main form of exercise[6]. Supervised interaction between a dog, other dogs and people is also important for the socialisation of dogs.

25.    It is generally accepted that areas to walk a dog (either on-leash or off-leash) that are easily accessible, desirable, and provide diversity of experience for both the dog and owner are important.

Objectives of review

26.    The primary objective for local boards in making decisions on dog access is the safety and comfort of the general public and the recreational and exercise needs of owners and their dogs, is provided in 15 above.

What local dog access rules to review

27.    Dog access in Monte Cecilia Park was identified through the governing body review of the policy and bylaw on dogs in 2011/2012. Two submissions were received at this time, both requesting Monte Cecilia Park dog access rules be time and season based, under control, off leash access.

28.    The following tables provide options in relation to the above matters to assist the board to decide when to review Monte Cecilia Park local dog access.


Table 1: When to review Monte Cecilia Park

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

Option 1: Review Monte Cecilia Park only

Background

Targeted review on known area of concern; public requesting change to rules.

Targeted review on known area of concern.

Local community have opportunity to consider request for change to park dog access rules, as per 2012 submissions.

Aligns with timing of concept plan consultation for Monte Cecilia Park.

 

 

Cost / resource of reviewing park in isolation when Puketapapa Local Board is to review the rest of their area in 2015 / 2016.

Could create confusion for public – “why is this the only rule being consulted on?”

Could also create confusion next year when community is asked to consult again for additional rules

Could clash with Long Term Plan consultation process, hearings / deliberations timelines

Only two submissions received during 2012 process

Option 2: Review in 2015 / 2016 with rest of local boards parks / and beaches

Background

Aligns review with adjoining local boards, and enables focus on local board plan which has a similar time line.

Aligns with dog access review by rest of Puketapapa Local Board area, and Maungakiekie-Tamaki and Whau Local Boards

No cost / resource this year

No public confusion with different consultations being run at same time (e.g. LTP)

Able to address concerns for whole local board’s dog access rules, as opposed to separating specific area out

Able to engage with all previous submitters, as opposed to two specific submitters

Delays Monte Cecilia park review by one year

 

 

Process and costs

29.    The governing body has established a standard process to assist local boards. The governing body will fund aspects of the standard process, including basic research and engagement and public notification. Local boards will fund any additional research and engagement, alternative forms of public notification, and signage.

30.    The standard process established by the governing body supports changes to dog access rules on an annual basis being integrated with the dog registration process. This process allows for a more timely and robust discussion as well as achieving efficiencies by aligning the review programmes across multiple local boards to allow for centralised support and activities.

31.    The process timeline starts in September 2014 and ends in October 2015. The local board will need to adopt a proposal by April 2015, and to hold hearings and deliberations, and make decisions on submissions by August 2015.

32.    Attachment B provides an outlines of the process together with clarification of responsibilities and funding allocations between the governing body and the local board.

Pre-consultation and research

33.    For completeness, the table below summarise the proposed activities covered through the standard process to be undertaken prior to the formal consultation for a statement of proposal using the special consultative procedure of the Local Government Act 2002. The confirmation of the standard initiatives is subject to the finalisation of the scope of the review.

Table 2: Nature and extent of Governing Body Research and Engagement

Pre-consultation activities: September 2014 – March 2015

Auckland Council internal stakeholders

Workshops/meetings with representatives from:

·   Parks

·   Animal Management

·   Biodiversity

·   Biosecurity

·   Community Policy and Planning

External interested parties and identified stakeholders

Workshops/meetings (via direct invitation) with representatives from:

·   Ecological groups

·   Specific interest groups (including e.g. residents and ratepayer associations)

·   Monte Cecilia special interest groups (TBC)

 

 

Consideration

Local board views and implications

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

Māori impact statement

35.    The views of 23 iwi in relation to dog access were sought as part of two hui held on 22 and 23 October 2013. The hui covered five bylaw topics - signs, trading in public places, navigation safety and lifejackets, animal management and dog access, outdoor fires.

36.    Feedback related to the ability of iwi to determine dog access on marae, a focus on control, responsible dog ownership, and ensuring the protection of sensitive ecological areas.

Implementation

37.    Issues related to implementation relate to the local board costs for additional research, engagement, and public notification initiatives; and the cost of any signage.

38.    The costs of implementation are expected to be obtained from existing budgets. The cost of signage will become clearer as the review progresses.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Decision Making Framework

117

bView

Standard Process

125

cView

Puketapapa Current Dog Access Rules

127

     

Signatories

Authors

Toni Ferdinands - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Helgard Wagener - Team leader, Policies and Bylaws

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

30 October 2014

 

 








Puketāpapa Local Board

30 October 2014

 

 



Puketāpapa Local Board

30 October 2014

 

 






Puketāpapa Local Board

30 October 2014

 

 

Auckland Transport Report, October 2014

 

File No.: CP2014/24495

 

  

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 since the last report.

Monthly Overview

2.       The Transport Portfolio Lead briefing on transport matters in the Puketāpapa area took place on 20 October. General transport matters in the Local Board area were discussed and reported back on.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)      receive the report.

b)      move forward to discussions with the local community on the broad concept of the Sandringham Road to Wesley Community Centre cycle link to gauge community support through its engagement advisor.

c)      allocate $25,000 from the Transport Capital Fund for investigation of the Sandringham Road cycle link, from Ernie Pinches Drive across SH 20 to the Wesley Community Centre and War Memorial Park following successful consultation on the draft concept.

Reporting back

Consultation Report

3.       Proposed roading changes that have been forwarded to the Local Board for comment in the past month are attached.

Local Board Capital Projects

Updates on the current projects being progressed by Auckland Transport on Puketāpapa Local Board behalf are detailed below:

Mt Albert Road Pedestrian Crossing Facility

4.       This project is still going through resolution processes however a start is anticipated in late October or early November.

Richardson Road/Oakdale Intersection improvements

5.       These works are now completed and grass is beginning to grow in the side islands.

June and August 2014 Resolutions – Rough Order of Cost requests

6.       Auckland Transport received the June resolutions of the Puketāpapa Local Board requesting rough order of costs for various proposals for use of the transport capital fund.  Feedback from these requests is noted below.

Sandringham Road Cycle Route

7.       The aim of the proposed project is to create a safe cycle route from Ernie Pinches Drive, across SH 20 to the Wesley Community Centre and War Memorial Park.

8.       Auckland Transport’s Walking and Cycling team has reviewed the possibility of putting a cycleway project in the area requested.

9.       They believe a project of a combined protected on road and off road scheme is viable and has merit and AT has estimated the rough order of costs to be $450,000. This amount does not include any allowance for service relocations that may be uncovered by detailed design. The proposal does include loss of some parking and hence will be dependent on successful consultation around this aspect.

10.     Should the Puketāpapa Local Board wish to take this project further, Auckland Transport suggests that the Local Board do a round of consultation with affected residents to ensure that there is broad community support for this initiative.  The costs associated with moving to detailed design are not inconsiderable, therefore some assurance that the project will be able to proceed with community support is desirable. Other Local Boards have worked with their engagement advisors with advice from Auckland Transport, to undertake this process.

11.     If the Local Board decided to move forward to detailed design with this project, a sum of $25,000 would need to be released from the Transport Capital fund by resolution for initial investigation, surveys, concept design and more accurate costings.

12.     Following consideration of the concept and costs, the Board could then proceed to detailed design and consultation.

Richardson Road Cycle Proposed Improvement (August request)

13.     A rough order of costs was requested at the August Local Board meeting for cycle improvements along Richardson Road south along the north side of the road from Hay Park school to Hillsborough Road and across Hillsborough Road to the cemetery.  This was submitted to Auckland Transport for a rough order of costs in late August and this is still being prepared.

Duncumb Street /Fearon Park Proposed Cycle Improvement (August request)

14.     A rough order of costs was requested for a cycle path from the northern entrance of Fearon Park, west along Fearon Avenue to Duncumb Street, north along the full length of Duncumb Street to Kings Road. This rough order of costs is still under preparation.

 

Mt Roskill Safe Routes Scheme

15.     At the September Local Board meeting, representatives from Mt Roskill Grammar School and the Mt Roskill Grammar School Artificial Playing Surface Trust appeared before the Local Board to express concerns about the loss of car parking on Somerset Road proposed through the delivery of the Mt Roskill Safe Routes Scheme and the adequacy of the public consultation.

16.     The Local Board passed Resolution (PKTPP/2014/182)

     That Puketāpapa Local Board request Auckland Transport to investigate rerouting the safer cycleway from Somerset Road along the northern boundary of the Mt Roskill Campus to connect with the recently constructed boardwalk.

17.     Auckland Transport responds that the consultation plan for Mt Roskill Safe Route Scheme was discussed with the Local Board on two occasions prior to consultation beginning and the results were also shared with the Local Board post consultation.

18.     An opportunity was also afforded to the Local Board through the April Transport report to request any further investigations in regard to route adjustments.  This opportunity was not taken up.

19.     Auckland Transport’s position is that it is not able to investigate a replacement cycle route through the school campus at this time without significant implications to the delivery of the current project.  The current scheme has been through a public consultation process and the contract for detailed design has been let.  Any changes to the route may trigger further consultation, with associated budget implications for the design contract and result in delays to the delivery of the project.

20.     The link through the school may be able to be constructed at a later time.  It would require agreement from the school and a License to Occupy agreement with the Ministry of Education.   Auckland Transport will meet with the Local Board to discuss the parking issues on Somerset Road and the reasons why it has proposed to remove parking at this location.  AT is also investigating whether the retention of some car parking on Somerset Road is desirable and/or possible.  After this, AT would like to discuss this matter further with the Mt Roskill Grammar School and the Mt Roskill Community Hockey Turf Association.

Cash Fares on Buses (Resolution PKTPP/2014/193)

21.     The Puketāpapa Local Board’s concerns were noted and will be taken into consideration by Auckland Transport’s Public Transport Operations team.

Hillsborough Road Cemetery “carfew”

22.     Auckland Transport has now developed a final design for the sign.  Discussions with Parks Officers over placement of the sign are to take place and it is anticipated that the sign will be installed by the end of November 2014.

Dominion Road Improvement Project

23.     Tenders for the main corridor works closed in late August.  Tenders have been evaluated and a decision on the award of the contract is likely after the Auckland Transport’s October Board meeting.

24.     Due to the later timeframe, work in the corridor may now not start until after the Christmas period.

Parallel Cycle Routes

25.     The work on the cycle route is progressing well.  At the time of writing, the project was on track to have most of the major works around schools completed by the end of the holidays.  However adverse weather could delay completion of work in the John Moore reserve.

26.     The completion date for the parallel cycle route project is anticipated to be December 2014 and a special opening for the cycleway and bridge is expected in February 2015 when the schools return after the Christmas holiday break.

Farrelly Avenue

27.     Speed and vehicle monitoring for Farrelly Avenue has been delayed due to the school holiday period in October.  The monitoring will begin once the holiday period has finished. 

East West Connections

28.     As a result of the public engagement carried out earlier this year as part of the East West Connections programme, a project is now being carried out to address two priority issues by 2021. These are the transport connections into and out of Onehunga-Penrose and a public transport between Mangere, Otahuhu and Sylvia Park. The aim of the project is:

·    to create more reliable travel times and better transport connections for freight and business traffic in the Onehunga/Penrose areas; and

·    to make travel times by bus quicker and more reliable by creating priority for buses between Mangere, Otahuhu and Sylvia Park.

29.     A number of potential options have been identified to address these issues and an initial assessment of the options has been undertaken. This included assessing factors such as transport performance, construction costs, ability to consent, constructability, urban design and social, natural environment, public health and cultural heritage effects. Following the assessment, some options have been identified for further investigation.

30.     There are now six shortlisted options. The options identified are still to go through a more detailed phase of design, which means that some specifics of the options have yet to be identified. For example if an option notes that an existing road will be widened, no decision has been made as to what side of the existing road the widening may occur.

31.     The joint project team of AT and the NZ Transport Agency are now undertaking public consultation in the month of October 2014, seeking feedback from the public on these options. The feedback received will be used to further develop the options and assist to identify the option to be progressed.

32.     An information pack has been developed which has been circulated to have been sent to affected Local Boards and councillors. 

Gifford Avenue LATM

33.     As reported earlier in 2014, this road safety investigation has been progressed to design and delivery in this financial year.

34.     The investigation into traffic speeds on Gifford Avenue recommended that a local area traffic management (LATM) infrastructure be installed to slow traffic.  The original design was for six raised tables along Gifford Avenue but as the Dominion Rd parallel cycle route construction has placed two speed tables on Gifford Avenue already, the project has needed some adjustment.  The project now consists of three speed tables plus a pedestrian refuge.  The pedestrian refuge is to be constructed adjacent to the carpark in which markets are held and car parking spaces on each side of the road around the kerb build outs for the pedestrian refuge will need to be removed.

35.     Consultation documents are being prepared and are expected to come to the Local Board in October or November.

Road Resealing Programme

36.     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. 

37.     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. 

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

Some weeks prior to reseal

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

A few days prior to reseal

Letter drop informing residents of the road reseal

Day of reseal

Set up traffic management

Sweep road for debris

Chip seal applied

Roll chip into road surface

Within a few days of reseal

Sweep excess chip off the road

Reinstatement of road marking

A week or so after reseal

Sweep excess chip off the road

Reinstatement of road marking

A week or so after reseal

Road surface checked

Further sweeping to pick up any excess loose chip

Remove traffic management

3 – 4 weeks after reseal

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

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

Auckland Transport News

New Public Transport Campaign “Get On Board with Jerome”

39.     On 6 October Auckland Transport launches a major campaign for public transport featuring All Black and Blues rugby player Jerome Kaino. The theme of this campaign is ‘Get on board with Jerome’. In the campaign Jerome Kaino will demonstrate how easy it is to use public transport and the AT HOP card.

40.     Jerome Kaino will be acting as an Ambassador for Auckland Transport, with a particular focus on public transport. He has been chosen because of his wide appeal, but particularly for his appeal in South and West Auckland where AT would like to grow HOP card use.

41.     The campaign focusses on a number of ‘how to’ videos hosted by Jerome Kaino. The videos are:

·    How to use the HOP card

·    How to buy and top up your HOP card

·    Using the Journey Planner to get around Auckland

·    Update on PT developments

42.     These videos are on a special ‘Get on Board with Jerome’ web page AT.govt.nz/onboard Radio is the main promotional media for the campaign and AT will primarily use MaiFM and Flava, due to their high audience ratings in South and West Auckland.

43.     AT will encourage comments on the campaign via Twitter on #jeromesonboard.

44.     The objective of the campaign is to show how easy it is to use public transport and the HOP card, to encourage AT HOP purchases and to grow PT patronage. The campaign will run during October and November and will be refreshed early in 2015.

New Safety Campaign

45.     As schoolchildren return from their holidays in October, Auckland Transport's Back to School Campaign reinforces its 'Slow Down Around Schools' message with the help of monsters and children.  The campaign opened with radio adverts and press ads in suburban newspapers reminding motorists to ‘Slow Down Around Schools’.

46.     The campaign continues with radio advertising and bus backs. A placard campaign is also scheduled where students, together with school staff, will be waving placards at passing motorists to encourage them to be more vigilant and reduce their speed around schools.

47.     Speeding cars and drivers around schools are portrayed as ‘monsters’ and the campaign features images of terrified children reacting to the approaching monsters. The aim is to raise awareness of the vulnerability of children on roads near schools and for motorists to ‘Slow Down Around Schools’.

Walk or cycle Auckland’s new road and tunnel

48.     Auckland’s newest road is expected to take thousands of trucks a day off Panmure roads when it opens to traffic in early November.

49.     Auckland Transport will open the 1.5km Te Horeta Rd in Panmure to traffic on Sunday 2 November. The road goes through a 220m tunnel, has new cycle lanes and a shared cycle and foot path alongside, which will all open at the same time.

 

50.     A community event will be held on Saturday 1 November so people in the area can walk or cycle through the tunnel, along the road and on the shared path.

51.     Completing the new road is the final major milestone for the $180m first stage of the Auckland Manukau Eastern Transport Initiative (AMETI). It also included building the new Panmure Station, three new bridges and new cycling and walking links.

52.     AMETI is a group of projects aimed at giving people in the south-eastern suburbs improved transport choices and better connections to the rest of Auckland. See an aerial video and photos of the new road, station and other upgrades here: at.govt.nz/projects-roadworks/ameti/.

Issues Raised through/by Board Members

Location or Name of Issue

Description

AT Response

Rubbish Bin request

Request for a rubbish bin at bus stop 8841, Mt Albert Road

This request was sent to Auckland Council for response.  They have declined to place a bin in this location at the current time but will monitor the tidiness of the area.

Pah Rd footpath issues

 

Complaint about footpath maintenance being substandard on the eastern side of Pah Rd between Trafalgar St and the Warehouse. Grass is long and edges need to be maintained to improve footpath width. Why is there are large steel plate on the footpath outside Sanitarium?

The footpath in this area has now been tidied up and the metal plate removed.

Farrelly Avenue

Request for traffic calming on Farrelly Avenue.

As above.

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Consultation update on Roading & Parking changes (October 2014)

141

     

Signatories

Authors

Lorna Stewart, Elected Member Relationship Manager, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon, Elected Member Relationship Team Manager, Auckland Transport

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

30 October 2014

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

30 October 2014

 

 

Draft Community Facilities Network Plan

 

File No.: CP2014/24095

 

  

Purpose

1.       To seek the Board’s feedback on the draft Community Facilities Network Plan (Attachment A) following workshops held with all local boards in August and September 2014.

Executive summary

2.       In August 2014 the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee endorsed the Draft Community Facilities Network Plan (REG/2014/98) for engagement with local boards, advisory panels and key external stakeholders.

3.       The purpose of the Community Facilities Network Plan (draft plan) is to guide council’s provision of community facilities for the next 10 years and beyond.  The key drivers are to:

·    Optimise the use and efficiency of existing facilities

·    Address gaps and needs for community facilities now and into the future

·    Meet demand arising from population growth and changing user expectations.

4.       The scope of the draft plan includes community centres, venues for hire (community or rural halls), arts and culture facilities, aquatic and leisure facilities.  The network includes facilities owned by council and facilities owned by third-parties which are supported by council and available for community use.  While facilities like libraries, sport clubs, community leases, schools, churches and marae are not included in the recommendations of the network plan, these facilities will be considered in the implementation phase.

5.       There are three key components of the draft plan:

·    Strategic framework – specifies the outcomes council is seeking from its investment in community facilities aligned with the Auckland Plan, Local Board Plans and other strategic priorities; and articulates the council’s key objectives for future provision.

·    Provision framework – guides council’s approach for future community facility provision.

·    Action Plan – over 50 recommended actions to investigate areas with potential gaps in provision and to investigate existing facilities with issues affecting their performance.

6.       Each action will require detailed community or sector based investigation to understand needs and determine the appropriate response.  Process guidelines have been developed to ensure a consistent approach to these investigations.  Local boards and the local community will be fully involved in investigation processes.

7.       As council may not have the capacity to invest in all community facility projects, the draft plan also provides prioritisation criteria to help determine the priorities for investment once the investigation process determines the appropriate facility response.  The ability and timeframe to implement the actions is dependent on the budget available for community facility investment in the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 (LTP).

8.       Feedback on the draft plan was sought from key stakeholders including regional sports organisations, facility partners, facility managers and advisory panels.  Submissions were also invited through shapeauckland.co.nz which closed on 15 September 2014.  A summary of feedback is attached in Attachment B.

9.       It is proposed that libraries should be included in the Community Facilities Network Plan as another key community facility that council provides, and to ensure alignment of planning and future facility provision.  Libraries have undertaken similar research to understand the gaps and needs for libraries and are well placed to be included.  There will need to be further communication with local boards on the libraries content.  Revised timeframes to integrate libraries into the plan and to align with the LTP process are outlined in this report.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)      provide feedback of the Draft Community Facilities Network Plan which will guide council’s provision of community facilities, including any specific feedback on the strategic framework, provision framework, action plan, implementation approach and prioritisation criteria.

b)      notes proposed revised timeframes to include libraries in the Community Facilities Network Plan and that further engagement with local boards will be undertaken to discuss the libraries content and the final revised network plan.

 

Comments

Draft Community Facilities Network Plan

10.     Community facilities contribute to building strong, healthy and vibrant communities by providing space for people to connect with each other, socialise, learn skills and participate in a range of social, cultural, art and recreational activities.  Community facilities contribute to improved lifestyles and a sense of belonging, identity and pride among residents.

11.     The draft plan outlines how council will provide and invest in community facilities to respond to community needs and population growth and changes.

12.     The draft plan sets out a strategic framework for community facilities to articulate why council invests in the provision of community facilities, the desired outcomes from this investment and the key objectives for future provision.  This is aligned with the strategic direction and transformational shifts in the Auckland Plan, local board plans and relevant strategic action plans.

13.     The proposed common purpose for community facilities is “Vibrant and welcoming places at the heart of where and how communities connect and participate”.

14.     The draft plan sets out four proposed key objectives to guide and underpin the future provision of community facilities:

·    Undertake robust and consistent planning to ensure future decisions on the provision of community facilities are based on clear evidence of needs and assessment of all options.

·    Maintain, improve and make the best use of existing community facilities where they continue to meet community needs and investigate the future of facilities that no longer meet community needs.

·    Provide flexible and multi-purpose facilities that are co-located and/or integrated with other community infrastructure.

·    Look for opportunities to leverage and support partnerships.

Future Provision Framework

15.     The draft plan proposes provision frameworks for each type of community facility to guide council’s approach to the provision of new facilities in the future.

Community Centres

16.     The proposed provision approach for community centres is to continue to maintain and deliver community centres at the local level across the region, recognising the important role they play in meeting local community needs for spaces to deliver a wide range of community, recreation, learning, events, arts and culture activities.

Venues for hire

17.     Given the wide range of providers of venues to hire, the draft plan proposes the council does not invest in any more new stand-alone venues for hire. It is proposed that bookable space is included in multi-purpose community centres (new or existing/redeveloped), guided by community needs assessments. Other options should be explored including partnerships or encouraging other organisations (such as schools, sports clubs and churches) to make bookable spaces available for community use. In some cases where venues for hire are no longer serving community needs, there may be potential to consider repurposing venues for other activities or possible divestment.

Aquatic and Leisure Facilities

18.     The proposed provision framework for aquatic and leisure facilities is through a hierarchy of local, destination and regional facilities to support participation in a range of sport and recreation activities from casual play through to competitive sport.  The draft plan outlines different functions and level of provision for local, destination and regional facilities.

Arts and Culture Facilities

19.     At the local level, the proposed future provision will focus on enabling participation in arts and culture activity through programming in existing facilities and new multi-purpose facilities, rather than building new standalone local arts facilities.  The focus will be placed on integrating arts space and programming within the existing network or in new multi-purpose facilities, repurposing existing spaces or partnering with others to provide suitable space.

20.     It is recognised there is a need for some specialised arts and culture facilities that serve larger catchments.  The draft plan proposes supporting a network of destination and regional arts and cultural facilities to meet sector and audience demand, which would be determined by robust investigation on a case-by-case basis.  It is proposed the council would only intervene when the private sector does not and opportunities for partnerships with the wider sector including central government should be explored.

Action Plan and Implementation

21.     The draft plan includes over 50 recommended actions to undertake investigations into the future provision of community facilities, focused on both existing facilities and potential areas for new facilities.

22.     All recommended actions will require detailed community or sector based investigation to determine the appropriate response. It is intended that any future investment in community facilities will be determined following detailed investigation which provides clear evidence of need, options analysis and development of a robust business case. Detailed process guidelines to ensure a consistent approach to these investigations have been developed (Appendix 2 of draft plan: Community Facilities Development Guidelines). Local boards and the community would be fully involved in investigation processes.

23.     As council may not have the capacity to invest in all community facility projects, the draft network plan provides prioritisation criteria to assist the governing body to determine its priorities for investment in community facilities.

24.     The draft plan identifies existing community facilities which have issues impacting on their performance and ability to meet community needs. In these cases, investigation is required to understand in more detail how the facility is operating and meeting community needs, explore various options for the facility and to determine the appropriate response. There could be a variety of options including changes to facility governance, management or programming, facility redevelopment, repurposing for another activity or possible divestment.

25.     For potential areas for new facilities, a similar investigation process is required to understand community needs, explore and test the feasibility of different options and assess the business case for a new facility.  The outcome of this investigation may identify a non-asset solution is required such as programming, partnerships or supporting a non-council facility.

26.     The actions in the draft network plan have been ranked according to the urgency of completing the investigation recognising different factors including condition issues, responding to catalysts, opportunities for rationalisation or partnerships, timing and scale of population growth and location in a spatial priority area.

27.     During workshops with local boards, some inaccuracies were identified in the draft plan.  Corrections have been included in the draft plan attached in Attachment A.

Stakeholder Engagement

28.     The draft plan has been informed by previous feedback from communities, principally via annual customer satisfaction surveys, user surveys, catchments studies and consultation on the Auckland Plan and relevant strategic action plans.

29.     Given this context, engagement on the draft plan has primarily been limited to targeted stakeholders, including council’s advisory panels, facility partners and managers and external stakeholder groups such as regional sports organisations.  Additionally, the draft plan has been available for wider public comment on shapeauckland.co.nz.  A summary of feedback is attached in Attachment B.

30.     Most of the actions identified in the draft plan will require further investigation to determine the appropriate response.  This will include detailed and localised community and/or sector based investigation/engagement and feedback from communities on different options. The public will also have the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed level of future investment in community facilities via the LTP consultation process.

Incorporating Libraries into the Network Plan

31.     Through the LTP process, the Parks, Community and Lifestyle theme has been working to address priorities and funding for activities including community facilities, recreation facilities and libraries.  It has become clear there is a need for a more coordinated and aligned approach for the future planning and development of community facilities with an emphasis on multi-purpose facilities.

32.     It is proposed that libraries be included in the network plan as a key community facility that council provides and to ensure alignment of planning and future facility provision.  Libraries have undertaken similar research to understand the gaps and needs for future libraries and are well placed to be included.  There will need to be further communication with local boards on the libraries content which means the timeframes to complete the network plan will need to be extended into 2015.

33.     One advantage of extending the timeframes is alignment with the LTP process.  The level of future capital investment in community facilities won’t be known until after the public consultation process on the LTP is completed in May 2015.  Finalising the network plan once the LTP process is completed (or near completion) will ensure the plan can incorporate the LTP outcomes and governing body priorities for future investment in community facilities.

34.     The key benefit of modifying the scope to include libraries is the alignment of planning and provision to achieve better community outcomes and greater efficiency. 

35.     The revised timeframe for integrating libraries into the draft plan is outlined below:

Dec

Briefing with local boards on the library research

Dec-Jan

Development of revised Community Facilities Network Plan

Feb 2015

Workshops with local boards to review the revised plan

Mar

Report to the governing body on the revised draft plan

Apr-May

Report to local boards seeking feedback on revised draft plan

July

Report to governing body seeking approval of final Community Facilities Network Plan

Consideration

Local board views and implications

36.     During August and September, workshops with local boards were undertaken to present on the draft Community Facilities Network Plan, to respond to any questions and assist local boards in formulating their feedback.

37.     Feedback from local boards is sought on the draft plan, particularly on the following:

·    Strategic framework (section 3) including the common purpose, outcomes and objectives

·    Provision frameworks (Section 4)

·    Action plan (section 5)

·    Implementation approach (section 6) including process guidelines and prioritisation criteria.

38.     The feedback from local boards will be incorporated into a revised network plan (which includes libraries) and will be presented/reported to local boards in 2015.

Māori impact statement

39.     The provision of community facilities contributes to improving wellbeing among Maori communities by providing spaces to connect, socialise, learn skills and participate.  For all community facility types Maori are represented as users.  At aquatic facilities Maori make up 14% of users (compared to 9% of the population), 11% of leisure facility users and 9% of community centre users.  Maori are under-represented as users compared to the Auckland population at arts and culture facilities.

40.     Given the context of the network plan and the information already received through the user surveys and iwi consultation on the strategic action plans, it was not proposed to undertake any specific engagement with Maori or other facility users.

41.     The broader picture of community facility provision recognises that marae and kohanga reo are important social infrastructure for Maori and the community. Officers from Te Waka Angamua are currently scoping a project to address the future provision and development of marae facilities.  Opportunities for aligned provision and/or partnerships with marae facilities should be considered as potential options to meet community needs.

Implementation

42.     The draft plan is an aspirational plan for the next 10 to 20 years which outlines what needs to be investigated and undertaken to deliver a network of community facilities to meet community needs.  The ability and timeframe to implement the actions is dependent on the level of budget available through the council’s LTP 2015-2025.

43.     Through the LTP process, the governing body will consider the amount of funding available for investment in community facilities.  To deliver the network plan this will need to include both operational funding to undertake the required investigations and depending on the outcome of each investigation, capital and operational funding to implement the recommended response.

44.     Once the network plan is adopted, implementation will focus on progressing the high priority actions using the implementation approach and community facilities development guidelines.

45.     The draft plan lists a number of community facility projects that are already underway or were anticipated to commence construction in 2014/15.  The current review of the 2014/15 capital works programme may result in the deferral of some of these projects.  Once decisions have been made on deferrals, then the draft network plan will be amended to reflect this.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Draft Community Facilities Network Plan

149

bView

Draft Community Facilities Network Plan stakeholder feedback

215

     

Signatories

Authors

Anita Coy-Macken - Principal Policy Analyst – Central

David Shamy - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

30 October 2014

 

 















Puketāpapa Local Board

30 October 2014

 

 



Puketāpapa Local Board

30 October 2014

 

 













































Puketāpapa Local Board

30 October 2014

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

30 October 2014

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

30 October 2014

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

30 October 2014

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

30 October 2014

 

 



Puketāpapa Local Board

30 October 2014

 

 






Puketāpapa Local Board

30 October 2014

 

 

Installation of sculptures at Monte Cecilia Park

 

File No.: CP2014/18882

 

  

Purpose

1.       To seek land owner approval from the Puketāpapa Local Board to site up to three art pieces by the entrance to Monte Cecilia Park and to confirm $7,000 funding for the installation of two sculptures.

Executive summary

2.       A project is underway to increase the visibility of Monte Cecilia Park and promote the TSB Bank Wallace Arts Centre in the park from the main entrance to the park from Hillsborough Road into Delargey Avenue.

3.       As a way to make the Delargey Avenue entrance more obvious and promote the arts centre it has been proposed that some sculptures be placed by the entrance.  The TSB Bank Wallace Arts Trust (the Trust) has proposed these be the Spinning Tiers by Steve Woodward and the Stem by Rory McDougall, refer to Attachment 1.

4.       The local board has delegated authority to provide landowner approval for this by way of approving the appropriate footings or base from which the Trust can then curate the sites.  The local board has previously agreed to assist funding the installation of these footings and putting the artworks in place.

5.       The Public Arts Team would draw up a formal agreement in regard to the Trust being given permission to curate the art on the park in the three identified sites. The Trust will have curatorial control over the sites and choice of the sculptures, however as a condition of the formal agreement and resource consent the Public Arts Team will articulate expectations around appropriate sculptures for the entrance way. 

 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)      give land owner approval for up to three artworks to be installed at the Delargey Avenue entrance to Monte Cecilia Park.

b)      request the Public Art team to draw up a formal agreement with the TSB Bank Wallace Arts Trust in regard to the Trust being given permission to curate the art on the park in the three identified sites. 

c)      confirm $7,000 funding for the installation of two artworks from the SLIPs Capex budget for the Monte Cecilia Park signage project (Resolution PKTPP/2013/223 and PKTPP/2014/24

Comments

6.       A project is underway to increase the visibility of Monte Cecilia Park and promote the TSB Bank Wallace Arts Centre in the park from the main entrance to the park from Hillsborough Road into Delargey Avenue.

7.       As a way to make the Delargey Avenue entrance more obvious and promote the arts centre it has been proposed that some sculptures be placed by the entrance.  The TSB Bank Wallace Arts Trust (the Trust) has proposed these be the Spinning Tiers by Steve Woodward and the Stem by Rory McDougall, refer to Attachment 1.

8.       In addition to the installation of the proposed sculptures a new park plinth and interpretive panels will be installed at the entrance and around Monte Cecilia Park to promote the park’s history and heritage and increase visibility. 

9.       Two trees will have to be removed to facilitate the placement of the sculptures.  The Parks arborist has agreed the silver birch and a small flowering cherry in close proximity to the entrance can be removed.

10.     Discussions have been held with the Public Arts Team, that support this project, and the Trust that will curate the sites.  The chosen pieces of art are:

Rory McDougall Stem - Acquired by the Trust from the Sculpture in the Gardens exhibition at the Auckland Regional Botanic Gardens and currently on site at the Botanic Gardens.  It is made of corten steel and measures, 3850 x 200 x 200mm.

Steve Woodward Spinning Tiers 2006/07 -the artist has agreed to lend this work for this site indefinitely.  It is currently in storage.  It is a sequence of bronze, stainless steel bearing system measuring 240cm x 150cm x 150cm, and a granite base measuring 100cm x 100cm x 70cm.

11.     It is proposed that three footings be put in place to allow for an additional piece in the future. The Public Arts Team will manage getting consent for these three footings for the artworks.  The Heritage Team has advised it is likely archaeological observation of the excavations for the footings will be required. 

 

12.     The Public Arts team would draw up a formal agreement in regard to the Trust being given permission to curate the art on the park in the three identified sites.  The Public Arts Asset Management Team at Council would take responsibility for any responsive maintenance with the Trust taking responsibility for insurance of the art.

 

13.     The Trust will have curatorial control over the sites and choice of the sculptures, however as a condition of the formal agreement and resource consent the Public Arts Team will articulate expectations around appropriate sculptures for the entrance way. 

 

14.     There has been no decision by the Trust about the third art piece that could be placed at the Delargey Street entrance to the park.    

Consideration

Local board views and implications

15.     Michael Wood as the Parks portfolio holder has been involved with the development of the wider project to promote the park from Hillsborough Road and provide greater way-finding and interpretation in the park.  Puketāpapa does not currently have a lot of public art on display and this proposal would promote the arts centre in the park.

16.     The Local Board has allocated $30,000 for the Pah Homestead contribution for provision for signage (Resolutions PKTPP/2013/223 and PKTPP/2014/24).  It is proposed that the board allocate $7,000 of this budget for the installation of these two sculptures. 

Māori impact statement

17.     Local iwi have not yet been consulted on this proposal but will be as part of the resource consent process.

Implementation

18.     It is proposed that the board assist to fund the installation of the sculptures which would include the cost of providing the concrete footings on the park, or in the case of the Steve Woodward piece sinking the sculpture’s granite block base into the ground as this forms a ready-made foundation.  An estimated cost for the installation of these two sculptures is $7,000.  In addition, the Public Arts Team will cover the costs of the resource consent which is estimated to be between $5-10,000. 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Sculptures at Monte Cecilia Park entrance

225

     

Signatories

Authors

Jacki Byrd - Parks Advisor - Puketapapa

Authorisers

Ian Maxwell - Manager Parks, Sports & Recreation

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

30 October 2014

 

 

Proposed sculptures

 

Rory McDougall Stem

 

Steve Woodward Spinning Tiers 2006/07


Proposed locations of sculpture footings


Puketāpapa Local Board

30 October 2014

 

 

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

 

File No.: CP2014/22727

 

  

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 Puketāpapa 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

231

bView

Consultation Summary

235

c

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

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

30 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

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

30 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

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

30 October 2014

 

 

Integrated Bylaws Review and Implementation Programme (IBRI) Update – September 2014

 

File No.: CP2014/22899

 

  

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 Puketāpapa 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

1.       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.

2.       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.

3.       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

4.       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

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

6.       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.

7.       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

8.       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

9.       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.

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

Māori impact statement

11.     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

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

Implementation

13.     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)

249

Signatories

Authors

Helgard Wagener - Team leader, Policies and Bylaws

Authorisers

Warren Maclennan - Manager North West Planning

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

30 October 2014

 

 



Puketāpapa Local Board

30 October 2014

 

 

Record of Puketāpapa Local Board Workshop Proceedings

 

File No.: CP2014/24112

 

  

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of Puketāpapa Local Board (the Board) workshop proceedings.

Executive Summary

2.       The attached summary of workshop proceedings provides a record of the Board workshops held in September 2014.

These sessions are held to give an informal opportunity for board members and officers to discuss issues and projects and note that no binding decisions are made or voted on at workshop sessions.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board receive the Workshop Proceedings for September 2014

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Workshop proceedings 3 September 2014

253

bView

Workshop proceedings 10 September 2014

255

cView

Workshop proceedings 17 September 2014

257

    

Signatories

Authors

Brenda  Railey - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

30 October 2014

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

30 October 2014

 

 



Puketāpapa Local Board

30 October 2014

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

30 October 2014

 

 

Resolutions Pending Action Schedule, October 2014

 

File No.: CP2014/24111

 

  

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report is to provide the Board with a schedule of resolutions that are still pending action.

Executive summary

2.       Attached is an updated version of the Resolutions Pending Actions schedule for October 2014.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board

a)         receive the Resolutions Pending Action Schedule for October 2014.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Resolutions Pending Action Schedule,October 2014

261

     

Signatories

Authors

Brenda  Railey - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

30 October 2014

 

 









    

    



[1] See Auckland Council Dog Access Rule Change Procedure/Dog Control Bylaw delegations for clarification of areas of responsibility.

[2] Section 10(4) Dog Control Act 1996

[3] A ‘dog related complaint’ is a dog related service request that relates to a dog incident (e.g. dog attack).  In addition to dog related complaints, dog related service requests include such things as requests for property inspections and lost dog notifications.

[4] Auckland Council (2011)– Dog Control - Issues and options discussion paper.gust 2011

[5] While some caution needs to be taken when interpreting the results of these surveys as they were self-selecting, the results were also mirrored in a statistical study in Adelaide in 2004, which found 43 per cent  of respondents were afraid of dogs. In addition the study found that being frightened by a dog was not related to having been attacked, however being threatened by a dog was a significant indicator of whether a person was likely to be frightened by dogs.

Boyd, C., Fotheringham, B., Litchfield, C., McBryde, I., Metzer, J., Scanlon, P., . . . Winefield, A. (2004). Fear of dogs in a community sample: Effects of age, gender and prior experience of canine aggression. Anthrozoos, 17 (2).

 

[6] Manukau City Council ( 2007) Understanding Dog and Dog Owner Physical Exercise Habits