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

 

Date:                      

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Tuesday, 28 October 2014

7.00pm

Upper Harbour Local Board Office
30 Kell Drive
Albany

 

Upper Harbour Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Brian Neeson, JP

 

Deputy Chairperson

Lisa Whyte

 

Members

Callum Blair

 

 

John McLean

 

 

Margaret Miles, JP

 

 

Christine Rankin-MacIntyre

 

 

(Quorum 3 members)

 

 

 

Suad Allie

Democracy Advisor

 

20 October 2014

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 414 2684

Email: suad.allie@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 

 

Portfolio Activity

Responsibilities

Board Lead/s and Alternate

1

Governance

·         Board Leadership

·         Board-to-Council Relationships

·         Board-to-Board Relationships

·         Civic Duties

·         Advocacy (local, regional, and central government)

·         Relationships with Maoridom

·         Relationships with government departments and agencies

·         Relationship with Property CCO

·         Relationship with Auckland Waterfront Development

·         Advocacy with Governing Body (Local Board Plan; Local Board Agreements)

·         Unitary Plan

·         Local area plan

Brian Neeson

Lisa Whyte

 

2

Regulatory & Bylaws / Civil Defence Emergency Management

.

·         Resource consents

·         Heritage

·         Liquor

·         Gambling

·         Swimming pools fencing

·         Trees

·         Bylaws

·         Relationships with the Civil Defence Emergency Management Group

·         Community preparedness, disaster response, relief, and recovery

Callum Blair

John McLean

Christine Rankin-MacIntyre

Margaret Miles (Resource Consents only)

3

Events / Arts and Culture

 

·         Community celebration

·         Community identity

·         Neighbourhood gatherings and renewal

·         Event compliance

·         Relationship with ATEED

·         Relationship with Regional Facilities CCOs

·         Tourism

·         Artistic and cultural service levels

·         Promoting all aspects of artistic endeavour

·         Development of public art strategy and policy

Margaret Miles

4

Community and social well-being / Local Facilities

 

·         Community development

·         Neighbourhood relationships

·         Funding for neighbourhood projects

·         Community safety (excl. town centres)

·         Graffiti removal

·         Community advocacy

·         Relationships with Youth

·         Leisure centres

·         Community houses

·         Halls

·         Community hubs

·         Arts facilities

·         Community Partnerships

·         Asset Management

Callum Blair
Margaret Miles

 

 

 

 

Portfolio Activity

Responsibilities

Board Lead/s and Alternate

5

Libraries

·         Stewardship of libraries

·         Mobile library

Christine Rankin-MacIntyre
Lisa Whyte

6

Sports parks and recreation (active) / Parks, Reserves and playgrounds (passive)

 

·         Stewardship of sports parks

·         Stewardship of recreation facilities

·         Relationship with sports clubs

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

·         Design and maintenance

·         Plantings, playgrounds, bollards, and walkways

·         Skateparks

·         Track Network development

Margaret Miles

Lisa Whyte

7

Town Centres

·         Town centre renewal

·         Design and maintenance

·         Community safety within town centres

·         Business Improvement Districts liaison

·         Urban design

·         Built Heritage

Margaret Miles
Brian Neeson

8

Transport / Regional Transport and CBD development

 

·         Local transport projects and public transport

(incl. roading, footpaths, cycleways)

·         Liaison on regional Transport matters

·         2nd harbour crossing

·         Bridge walk cycleway

·         Inner City Rail Link

·         Waterfront development

·         CBD master plan

John McLean
Margaret Miles

9

Natural Environment

.

·         Restoration of wetlands, streams, and waterways

·         Local priorities in relation to regional environmental management

·         Costal management including mangrove encroachment and erosion mitigation

·         Relationships with Watercare

·         Waste minimisation strategy

·         Bio security

John McLean
Callum Blair
Lisa Whyte
(waste minimisation only)

10

Economic Development / Financial oversight

 

·         Key relationship with Business Development Manager in Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development team

·         Establish and promote local opportunities for increased tourism and economic development

·         Budgets

·         Project expenditure

·         Monitor GB strategy and Finance

·         Service Levels

·         Local funding policy

Lisa Whyte
Margaret Miles

 

 

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

28 October 2014

 

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                        PAGE

1          Welcome                                                                                                                         7

2          Apologies                                                                                                                        7

3          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   7

4          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               7

5          Leave of Absence                                                                                                          7

6          Acknowledgements                                                                                                       7

7          Petitions                                                                                                                          7

8          Deputations                                                                                                                    7

9          Public Forum                                                                                                                  7

10        Extraordinary Business                                                                                                7

11        Notices of Motion                                                                                                          8

12        Meeting Minutes Upper Harbour Local Board, Tuesday 14 October 2014             9

13        Upper Harbour Local Board Community Group Funding, Applications for Round One, 2014/2015                                                                                                                      27

14        Council Controlled Organisation Review, Progress Report to Local Boards     53

15        Report Name: Swimming Pool Fencing Exemption – Special Exemption (Section 6) Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987                                                                      61

16        Status of the Upper Harbour Local Board Discretionary Funds for the 2014/2015 financial year                                                                                                                                65

17        Summary of Actions and Reports Requested - Upper Harbour Local Board - October 2014                                                                                                                               67

18        Granted Resource Consent Applications by Local Board Area                            73

19        Records of the Upper Harbour Local Board Workshops held on 25 September 2014, 7 and 14 October 2014                                                                                                           79

20        Governing Body Members' Update                                                                           87

21        Board Members' Reports                                                                                           89  

22        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

23        Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public                                                                 93

15        Report Name: Swimming Pool Fencing Exemption – Special Exemption (Section 6) Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987

a.      3 Kerlin Crescent, West Harbour                                                                     93  

 


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 Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 14 October 2014, including the confidential section, 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.

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

28 October 2014

 

 

Meeting Minutes Upper Harbour Local Board, Tuesday 14 October 2014

 

File No.: CP2014/23411

 

  

Purpose

The open unconfirmed minutes of the Upper Harbour Local Board meeting held on Tuesday,14 October  2014, are attached at item 12 of the Agenda for the information of the Board only.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      note that the open unconfirmed minutes of the Upper Harbour Local Board meeting held on Tuesday, 14 October 2014 are attached at Item 12 of the agenda for the information of the board only, and will be confirmed under item 4 of the agenda.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

281014, Upper Harbour Local Board unconfirmed minutes - 141014

11

      

Signatories

Authors

Suad Allie - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

28 October 2014

 

 
















Upper Harbour Local Board

28 October 2014

 

 

Upper Harbour Local Board Community Group Funding, Applications for Round One, 2014/2015

 

File No.: CP2014/17892

 

  

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report is to present the applications received for round one of the Upper Harbour Local Board Community Funding Programme 2014-15.  The Upper Harbour Local Board is required to fund, part-fund or decline these applications.

Executive summary

2.       For the 2014-15 financial year, the Upper Harbour Local Board set a total community funding budget of $92,675.  This is the first round for the financial year. 

3.       Seven applications were received in this round, with total requested amount of $19,507.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      consider the applications listed in Table 1

b)      agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application in this round.

 Table 1: Upper Harbour Local Board Community Funding Applications

Organisation

Funding for

Amount requested

Albany CoCo Incorporated

Towards the sound/lighting, resources and promotion of the Big Tree Christmas event at the Albany Domain between November 2014 to December 2015

 $      4,432.00

Chinese New Settlers Services Trust

Towards the venue hire of a room at Massey University (Albany), the purchase of a data projector, screen and arts and crafts supplies for the Culture Learning Centre between November 2014 to June 2015

 $      3,096.00

Hobsonville Community Trust

Towards staff training and development, tools, administration and management, communication, transport, programme costs, youth worker salary, insurance and 24-7 youth worker network support and development of the 24-7 youth work at Hobsonville Point Secondary School between November 2014 to December 2015

 $      5,000.00

Massey University Albany Community Garden

Towards the purchase of a composting tumbler, cloches and bird netting for the Massey University (Albany) Garden between November 2013 to January 2015

 $      1,223.00

North Harbour Hockey Association Incorporated

Towards the coordinator’s salary for the Harbour Hockey summer master’s competition at the North Harbour Hockey Stadium between November 2014 to April 2015

 $         960.00

PHAB (Physically Disabled and Abled Bodies) Association Auckland Incorporated

Towards youth workers’ wages, volunteer expenses, administration and venue hire of the Albany Community House for the PHAB Youth and Young Adult group at the Albany Community House between November 2014 to June 2015

 $      2,100.00

Young Men's Christian Association of Auckland Incorporated (YMCA of Auckland Inc.)

Towards the purchase of Tumbltrax gymnastics equipment for gymnastic classes run at the Massey Leisure Centre between November 2014 to May 2015

 $      2,696.00

 

 

 $    19,507.00

 

 

 

Comments

4.       In March 2013, the Regional Development and Operations Committee resolved to continue the interim community funding approach for the 2013/2014 financial year (RDO/2013/32).

5.       Two community funding rounds are scheduled for this financial year the first of which closed on 15 July 2014.

6.       Through community grants, the Upper Harbour Local Board recognises the vital role that community groups and organisations play in developing strong, sustainable communities. The Upper Harbour Local Board Community Discretionary Fund aims to assist groups in providing activities, projects, programmes, initiatives and events that make a positive contribution within the local board area.

7.       When reviewing applications, the local board should be guided by the following aims of the fund (these are not eligibility criteria; rather they are guidelines to help the local board when considering the merits of each proposal):

·   the benefit of the proposal to the local area

·   the group’s role in the local area

·   the alignment of the proposal with the priorities of the board; such as

o youth and families

o the environment

o migrants

o volunteering

o community participation.

 

8.       This fund is allocated at the discretion of the Upper Harbour Local Board.  In accordance with its fiduciary duties, the local board is to act honestly, avoid conflicts of interest and act in what the local board believes to be the best interests of the community.

9.       Round one of the Upper Harbour Local Board Community Fund closed on 15 July 2014. The fund was advertised through local community networks, local publications and via the Auckland Council website.  

10.     For the 2014-15 financial year the Upper Harbour Local Board set a total community funding budget of $92,675, none of which has been allocated to date.

11.     Seven applications were received in this round, with a total requested of $19,507.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

12.     Local board feedback on the community funding applications will be sought at the 28 October 2014 Upper Harbour Local Board business meeting.

Maori impact statement

13.     Community funding is a general programme of interest and accessible to a wide range of groups, including Maori. Maori are therefore likely to benefit alongside other groups in the community.

Implementation

14.     The allocation of grants to community groups is within the adopted annual plan.

15.     Following the Upper Harbour Local Board allocating funding for round one, Community Development, Arts and Culture (CDAC) will notify the applicants of the local board decision.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Upper Harbour Local Board Discretionary Community Funding - Round One 2014/15 Application Summaries

31

     

Signatories

Authors

Kim Hammond - Community Grants and Support Officer West

Authorisers

Kevin Marriott - Acting Manager Community Development Arts and Culture

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

28 October 2014

 

 






















Upper Harbour Local Board

28 October 2014

 

 

Council Controlled Organisation Review, Progress Report to Local Boards

 

File No.: CP2014/23216

 

  

Purpose

1.       To inform local boards about key aspects of the current review of council controlled organisations (CCOs) and to 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; and

·    next steps in the CCO review.

3.       This report seeks feedback from local boards, in particular feedback regarding 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 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 Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (ATEED); and

·    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 becoming 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 a Long-term Plan (LTP) issue. Current LTP proposals are for funding for local economic development to be provided in the council’s spatial priority areas only.

6.       In relation to local boards, any specific proposals regarding Auckland Transport activities in relation to local board place-making responsibilities 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 will 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 Upper Harbour 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; and

·    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, as 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 it can be challenging for the council where there is high political, public, iwi, or stakeholder interest in CCO decision-making.

16.     At its meeting on 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 and reduce costs; and

·    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’ (water, stormwater and wastewater services), 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 greater collaboration of council groups responsible for these activities. 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, a CCO 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 Regional Facilities Auckland (RFA).  The main drivers for this option were a 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 Auckland Council Investments Limited (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 that 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; and

·    the roles of 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.     It should be noted 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;

·    Auckland Council Property Limited (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; and

·    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 urban 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 that 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 that 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 under consideration is the transfer of 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 the 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 the 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 that 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 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, which includes CCO interaction with the Independent Maori Statutory Board (IMSB)and local boards; and

·    ensure appropriate public engagement on matters of public interest.

55.     This work is still being scoped, and 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 the review and noted the matters that 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

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

28 October 2014

 

 

Swimming Pool Fencing Exemption – Special Exemption (Section 6) Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987

 

File No.: CP2014/22956

 

  

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report is to present the Upper Harbour Local Board one application for special exemptions from some of the requirements of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 (The Act).

Executive summary

2.       The Upper Harbour Local Board Swimming Pool Fencing Exemption Working Party, consisting of the Chairperson and Members Blair and Rankin-Macintyre, were requested to consider an application for special exemption under section 6 of the fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987.

3.       The application pertained to and in-ground swimming pool and necessitated a site visit that was conducted by Member Blair and Senior Swimming Pool Specialist Phillip Curtis on 30th September 2014. The applicant was provided the opportunity to speak to their application for special exemption on the occasion of the site visit.

4.       After consideration of the application, the working party’s recommendation is as follows:

·    3 Kerlin Crescent, West Harbour (in-ground swimming pool). Recommends granting the application to include the landscaping in the backyard in the immediate pool area and the repositioning of the fence from the corner of the dwelling to further down the side of the dwelling.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      receive the report.

b)      receive the application by:

i)        3 Kerlin Crescent, West Harbour.

c)      determine each application, by way of resolution, to:

i)        grant the application for special exemption as sought, or

ii)       grant the application subject to conditions, or

iii)      decline the application for special exemption sought.

 

Comments

 

5.       Each property, which is the subject of an application before the local board, has been inspected by Auckland Council pool inspectors.  In each case, the swimming/spa pool fencing does not comply with the Act.  The details of non-compliance in each case vary and are specified in the attachments to this report. Each applicant has chosen to seek a special exemption from the requirements of the Act.

 

6.       The purpose of the Act is stated to be “to promote the safety of young children by requiring the fencing of … swimming pools”.

 

7.       The Act requires pool owners to fence their pool with a fence.  Specific detail on the means of achieving compliance with the Act is contained in the schedule to the Act.  If a pool is not fenced with a complying fence it is an offence under the Act, unless exempt.

 

8.       An exemption can only be granted by the local board after consideration of the particular characteristics of the property and the pool, other relevant circumstances and taking into account any conditions it may impose.  Then, only if satisfied that an exemption would not significantly increase the danger to young children, can an exemption be granted.

 

9.       Defining the immediate pool area will be relevant to considerations concerning the property and the pool. The immediate pool area means the land in or on which the pool is situated and as much of the surrounding area that is used for activities or purposes related to the use of the pool.  The Act provides that the fence should be situated to prevent children moving directly to the pool from the house, other buildings, garden paths and other areas of the property that would normally be available to young children.

 

10.     Another common consideration for local boards in exemption applications will be instances where a building forms part of the pool fence.  Where doors from a building open into the pool area, the council may grant an exemption from compliance with clauses 8 to 10 of the schedule to the Act.  It may exempt if it is satisfied that compliance with the Act is impossible, unreasonable or in breach of any other Act, regulation or bylaw, and the door is fitted with a locking device that when properly operated prevents the door from being readily opened by children under the age of 6 years. If the local board is satisfied that a door within a wall in a building meets that test, the local board must also be satisfied that an exemption would not significantly increase the danger to young children.

 

11.     When granting a special exemption, the local board may impose such other conditions relating to the property or the pool as are reasonable in the circumstances (section 6(2) of the Act).  Issues to be considered include:

a)         Will the exemption be personal to the applicant so that on a sale of the property a new owner will need to apply for a new exemption?  This might be appropriate where the personal circumstances of the applicant have been considered as a relevant circumstance and had a bearing on the exercise of the discretion.

b)      Will the exemption be granted for a fixed term and irrespective of changes of ownership so that the exemption runs with the property?

c)      Are there any other conditions which should be imposed, such as repairs to existing fencing, or a requirement for more frequent inspection of the pool (currently pools are inspected every three years)?

 

12.     Any exemption granted or condition imposed may be amended or revoked by the local board by resolution.  The rules of natural justice would however dictate that this action should not be taken without prior notice to the pool owner and allowing the pool owner an opportunity to be heard.

Consideration

13.     The recommendations contained within this report fall within the local board’s delegated authority.

 

14.     The Act enables an exemption to be granted from clauses 8 to 10 of the Act (doors in walls of buildings) if the local board is satisfied that compliance with the Act is impossible, unreasonable or in breach of any other Act, regulation or bylaw and the door is fitted with a locking device that when properly operated prevents the door from being readily opened by children under the age of 6 years.

 

15.     The overarching consideration in terms of the Act is that a resolution to grant an exemption may only be made after having regard to the particular characteristics of the property and the pool, any other relevant circumstances and any conditions it may impose, and only if it is satisfied that such an exemption would not significantly increase the danger to young children.

 

16.     The local board may resolve to grant, grant subject to conditions, or decline an application for special exemption.

 

17.     If an application is declined the applicant will be required to fence their pool in accordance with the Act.  The exemption hearing process under the Act does not trigger the significance policy, but it is an important statutory function.

 

18.     The council is committed to ensuring the Auckland is a safe place for children to live and play in.  Pool fencing issues have a strong relationship with the council’s strategic priorities for community safety.

Local board views and implications

19.     The local board is the decision maker in relation to exemption applications under the Act.

Māori impact statement

20.     This report does not raise issues of particular significance for Maori.

General

21.     Compliance with the Act is a mandatory requirement for all pool owners unless exempt.

22.     Council’s pools inspectors have consulted with the applicants in each case.  Applicants have been made aware of the council’s requirements to ensure fencing is compliant with the Act.  The applicants have elected to seek a special exemption for individual reasons.

Implementation

23.     The decision must be made by resolution and contain conditions (if any).

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

3 Kerlin Crescent, West Harbour (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential

 

     

Signatories

Authors

Phillip Curtis - Senior Swimming Pool Specialist

Authorisers

Barry Smedts - Manager Compliance

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

28 October 2014

 

 

Status of the Upper Harbour Local Board Discretionary Funds for the 2014/2015 financial year

 

File No.: CP2014/24513

 

  

Purpose

1.       This report provides an update to the Upper Harbour Local Board on the availability of discretionary funding for the 2014/2015 financial year. It also provides a running total of the balances of the board’s various discretionary funds.

Executive summary

2.       The Upper Harbour Local Board has a number of discretionary funds available in the 2014/2015 financial year. The current balances of the board’s discretionary funds are as follows:

Fund

Total available in 2014/15
($)

Amount spent
($)

Balance remaining
($)

Local Events Contestable Fund

36,693.00

22,000.00

14,693.00

Local Discretionary Community Grants

92,674.57

0.00

92,674.57

Local Events Support Fund

36,432.25

34,430.00

2,002.25

SLIPs Funding*

62,716.60

0.00

62,716.60

          *This amount is subject to change and will be reviewed once all financial year end deferrals are calculated.

3.       There has been no change to the funding balances since reporting in September, however, the board did approve a contribution of $5,000.00 toward the reparation of the vandalised Balance Sculpture from its local discretionary community grants budget.  This was subject to additional funds being sought from other sources and will be recorded once the funds are required.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      receive the Status of the Upper Harbour Local Board Discretionary Funds for the 2014/2015 financial year report.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Signatories

Authors

Karen Marais - Local Board Services

Authorisers

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

28 October 2014

 

 

Summary of Actions and Reports Requested - Upper Harbour Local Board - October 2014

 

File No.: CP2014/24058

 

  

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report is to update the Upper Harbour Local Board on the status of actions and requested reports arising out of local board business meetings.

Executive summary

2.       The attached schedule provides a list of the actions and reports requested arising out of the Upper Harbour Local Board business meetings and workshops, and their current status.

3.       The completed actions listed will be removed from the list once the board is satisfied that the matter has been resolved.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      receive the Summary of Actions and Reports Requested – Upper Harbour Local Board – October 2014 report.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Summary of Actions and Reports Requested - October 2014

69

     

Signatories

Authors

Karen Marais - Local Board Services

Authorisers

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

28 October 2014

 

 





Upper Harbour Local Board

28 October 2014

 

 

Granted Resource Consent Applications by Local Board Area

 

File No.: CP2014/23640

 

  

Executive Summary

Please find attached Northern Resource Consents granted applications for September 2014.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)         receive the Granted Resource Consent Applications by Local Board Area report.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Granted Applications by Local Board Area Report September 2014

75

    

Signatories

Authors

Jan Asplet - Unit Administrator

Authorisers

Heather Harris - Manager Resource Consents

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

28 October 2014

 

 





Upper Harbour Local Board

28 October 2014

 

 

Records of the Upper Harbour Local Board Workshops held on 25 September 2014, 7 and 14 October 2014

 

File No.: CP2014/23401

 

  

Executive summary

The Upper Harbour Local Board held workshops on 25 September 2014, 7 and 14 October 2014.  Copies of the workshop records are attached.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      receive the records of the Upper Harbour Local Board workshops held on 25 September 2014, 7 and 14 October 2014.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

250914 Upper Harbour Workshop Minutes

81

bView

071014 Upper Harbour Workshop Minutes

83

cView

141014 Upper Harbour Workshop Minutes

85

    

Signatories

Authors

Suad Allie - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

28 October 2014

 

 



Upper Harbour Local Board

28 October 2014

 

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

28 October 2014

 

 



Upper Harbour Local Board

28 October 2014

 

 

Governing Body Members' Update

File No.: CP2014/23406

 

  

 

Executive summary

An opportunity is provided for governing body members to update the board on governing body issues relating to the Upper Harbour Local Board.

 

Recommendations

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)         receive the governing body members’ verbal updates.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Authors

Suad Allie - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

28 October 2014

 

 

Board Members' Reports

 

File No.: CP2014/23402

 

  

 

Executive summary

An opportunity is provided for members to update the Upper Harbour Local Board on projects and issues they have been involved with since the last meeting.

[Note: This is an information item and if the board wishes any action to be taken under this item, a written report must be provided for inclusion on the agenda.]

1.       Board member John McLean provided a written report regarding his attendance at the Trafinz Conference, held in Auckland in September 2014.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a)      receive the written report from member John McLean and the verbal reports from the remaining board members.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

281014 Member John McLean board report, Tranfiz conference

91

    

Signatories

Authors

Suad Allie - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

28 October 2014

 

 


    

 


Upper Harbour Local Board

28 October 2014

 

 

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

 

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

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

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

 

15        Report Name: Swimming Pool Fencing Exemption – Special Exemption (Section 6) Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 - Attachment a - 3 Kerlin Crescent, West Harbour

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

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

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

s7(2)(a) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.

In particular, the report contains.

s48(1)(a)

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