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

 

Date:                      

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Thursday, 13 November 2014

6.30pm

Waitakere Ranges Local Board Office
39 Glenmall Place
Glen Eden

 

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Sandra Coney, QSO

 

Deputy Chairperson

Denise Yates, JP

 

Members

Neil Henderson

 

 

Greg Presland

 

 

Steve Tollestrup

 

 

Saffron Toms

 

 

(Quorum 3 members)

 

 

 

Glenn Boyd

(Relationship Manager)

Local Board Services (West)

 

Tua Viliamu

Democracy Advisor

 

 7 November 2014

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 813 4798

Email: Tua.Viliamu@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 

 

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

13 November 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          Update from Ward Councillors                                                                                    5

8          Deputations                                                                                                                    5

8.1     Karekare Surf Club Development                                                                      6

8.2     Violence Free Waitakere                                                                                      6

9          Public Forum                                                                                                                  6

10        Extraordinary Business                                                                                                6

11        Notices of Motion                                                                                                          7

12        Waitakere Ranges Local Board Transport Fund Application

            This report was not available at the time of building this agenda and will be tabled at the meeting.

13        Local & Sports Parks West 2014/2015 Capex Programme                                       9

14        Consultation Plan for the Mitigation of Erosion Along the Huia Domain Shoreline and Seawall                                                                                                                          15

15        Engagement Feedback for Lily Control Options at Claude Abel Reserve Pond 23

16        Dog Access Review Work Programme                                                                     29

17        Draft Community Facilities Network Plan                                                                53

18        Waitakere Ranges Local Board feedback on the draft Arts and Culture Strategic Action Plan (ACSAP)                                                                                                             131

19        Waitakere Ranges Local Board submissions to Auckland Transport on the Proposal to install guard rails on Piha Road, the Proposed sealing of existing metal laybys along Piha Road and submission to the Waikumete Cemetery Reserve Management Plan 137

20        Chairperson’s Report                                                                                                155

21        Portfolio update: Member Sandra Coney                                                               159

22        Portfolio update: Member Denise Yates                                                                 163

23        Portfolio update: Member Neil Henderson                                                             167  

24        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

 

 


1          Welcome

 

2          Apologies

 

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

 

3          Declaration of Interest

Members were 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.

Specifically members are asked to identify any new interests they have not previously disclosed, an interest that might be considered as a conflict of interest with a matter on the agenda.

At its meeting on 28 November 2013, the Waitakere Ranges Local Board resolved (resolution number WTK/2010/5) to record any possible conflicts of interest in a register. 

            Register

Board Member

Organisation / Position

Sandra Coney

·       Waitemata District Health Board – Elected Member

·       Women’s Health Action Trust – Patron

Neil Henderson

·       Portage Trust – Elected Member

·       West Auckland Trust Services (WATS) Board – Trustee/Director

·       Weedfree Trust – Employee

Greg Presland

·       Portage Trust – Elected Member

·       Lopdell House Development Trust – Trustee

·       Titirangi Residents & Ratepayers Group – Committee Member 

Steve Tollestrup

·       Waitakere Licensing Trust – Elected Member

·       Community Waitakere – Trustee

·       West Auckland Trust Services (WATS) Board – Trustee/Director

Saffron Toms

·                                       NIL

Denise Yates

·       Ecomatters Environment Trust – Deputy Chair

·       Keep Waitakere Beautiful Trust – Board Member

·       Huia-Cornwallis Ratepayers & Residents Association – Co-chairperson

·       Charlotte Museum Trust – Trustee                           

 

Member appointments

Board members are appointed to the following bodies. In these appointments the board members represent Auckland Council.

                                              

Board Member

Organisation / Position

Sandra Coney

·       Friends of Arataki Incorporated – Trustee

Neil Henderson

·       Friends of Arataki Incorporated – Trustee

·       Living Cell Technologies Animal Ethics Committee – Member

Saffron Toms

·       Ark in the Park – Governance Group Member

4          Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a)         Confirms the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 23 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          Update from Ward Councillors

 

An opportunity is provided for the Waitakere Ward Councillors to update the board on regional issues they have been involved with since the last meeting.

 

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.

 

8.1       Karekare Surf Club Development

Purpose

The Karekare Surf Club Development have asked for an opportunity to update the board on the following:

 

1.       Karekare access status and council support for current site and timeline/work plans for short and long term solutions.

2.       Clubs building project status covering priority, funding and planning status.

3.       Current status and work of the 10:20 SLSNR planning status and LTP proposal for lifesaving facilities in Auckland.

4.       The principles and how the funding would work in relation to total project costs and where Karekare is at in relation to this.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

Receives the deputation from Karekare Surf Club Development and thank them for the presentation

 

 

 

8.2       Violence Free Waitakere

Purpose

1.       Elaine Dyer (CEO) will present an overview of the primary violence prevention services offered to the city by this organisation. Elaine will give particular emphasis to the Toddler Day Out and Great Parenting Fair event held on the Children’s Day weekend at beginning of each March, to which the local boards have made a much valued contribution. 

www.violencefreewaitakere.org

 

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a)      Receives the deputation from Elaine Dyer, Violence Free Waitakere and thank her for the presentation

 

 

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.

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

13 November 2014

 

 

Local & Sports Parks West 2014/2015 Capex Programme

 

File No.: CP2014/24554

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To seek approval from the Waitakere Ranges Local Board for the capex programme proposed by Local & Sports Parks West (LSPW) for the 2014/2015 financial year.

Executive summary

2.       The Waitakere Ranges Local Board’s LSPW capex budget for 2014/2015 is $2,604,306.  The programme has been developed from information received through asset condition auditing, requests from the local board and from residents through the councils service request system.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a)      Approves the Local & Sports Parks West 2014/2015 capex programme.

b)      Delegates the authority to the Parks Portfolio Holder and the Board Chair to make changes to the programme to the value of $50,000.

 

 

Comments

 

Background

 

3.       LSPW manages a range of assets on local parks and sports parks.  The programme includes the renewal of existing assets and the development of new assets.  These include sport fields, car parks, playgrounds, amenity and sport field lighting, seats, bins and signage, toilet and changing room facilities, walkways, footpaths and footbridges, storm water and drainage requirements.  Provision is made for the programme in the Long Term Plan.

Programme Process

4.       The renewal programme is compiled using information gathered during condition auditing undertaken during 2011 and 2014, requests received from the Waitakere Ranges Local Board and from residents.

5.       A draft programme was approved by the Board during May 2014.  Following this period the governing body sought budget savings for the 2014/2015 financial year and confirmation of final budgets were received by LSPW during October 2014.  Therefore LSPW has continued with the project process for most of the proposed projects and also completed some minor projects.  If this work was not continued the completion of many projects would be at threat due to time restraints.

6.       LSPW is seeking Local Board approval of the Parks development and renewal programme for the 2014/2015 financial year.  The following are the key proposed projects:

·    Piha Domain renewal of existing toilet and changing room facilities;

·    Piha Stream erosion control;

·    Parrs Park sports field renewal;

·    Harold Moody Reserve toilet/changing room renewal;

·    Les Waygood Park renewal of camp ground effluent field; and

·    Laingholm Scenic Reserve walkway/track upgrade.

7.       All proposed activities are funded from approved budgets within the 2014/2015 Local Board Annual Plan.

8.       The Waitakere Ranges Local Board 2014/2015 Parks development and renewals budget is $2,604,306. 

9.       The costs shown on the attached programme are estimates only and the actual cost will not be known until the project work is taken through the procurement process.  Adjustments to the programme may be required when the actual costs are identified.  Changes of under $50,000 will be reported back to the Parks Portfolio Holder and Board Chair for approval.  Changes of over $50,000 and any savings will be reported to the Local Board for their approval or reallocation.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

10.     The Waitakere Ranges Local Board approved a draft Local & Sports Parks West 2014/2015 Capex Programme during May 2014.  A workshop was held on 5 November with the Board to determine the final programme.

Māori impact statement

11.     The programme will ensure that facilities continue to be well maintained for everyone to use and enjoy, including Maori.

Implementation

12.     Weather conditions and budget restraints may have an impact on Councils ability to deliver this programme of work within the time restraints.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Local & Sports Parks West 2014/2015 Capex Programme

3

      

Signatories

Authors

Helen Biffin - Team Leader Parks Liaison and Development

Authorisers

Ian Maxwell - Manager Parks, Sports & Recreation

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

13 November 2014

 

 

 

Project Title

Park Name

Local Board

Suburb

Project Description

Funding Option

 
2014/2015 FY

 

Armour Bay Reserve Drainage on beach frontage

Armour Bay Reserve

Waitakere Ranges

Parau

Install drainage on the beach reserve

Development

 $            20,325

Armour Bay Reserve Signage new

Armour Bay Reserve

Waitakere Ranges

Parau

Install new tennis court sign

Development

 $              1,000

Bethells Beach Dog Bylaw signage

Bethells Beach

Waitakere Ranges

Bethells

Install dog bylaw signage

Development

 $              4,000

Huia Domain Park refurbishment

Huia Domain

Waitakere Ranges

Huia

Upgrade of park furniture, barriers, footpaths

Development

 $            25,000

Kowhai Reserve & Claridge Common Reserve Upgrade Lighting

Kowhai Reserve & Claridge Common Reserve

Waitakere Ranges

Glen Eden

Walkway lighting

Development

 $            43,577

Laingholm Hall Reserve Signage new

Laingholm Hall Reserve

Waitakere Ranges

Laingholm

Install new tennis court sign

Development

 $              1,000

Landing Road Walkway Interpretational signage

Landing Road Walkway

Waitakere Ranges

Titirangi

Install interpretational signage on the walkway viewing platform

Development

 $              7,000

O'Neills Road 122 New Subdivision footpath and landscaping

O'Neills Road 122

Waitakere Ranges

Swanson

New Subdivision Footpath and landscaping

Development

 $            89,542

Parrs Park Cricket Net Improvements

Parrs Park

Waitakere Ranges

Glen Eden

Structural improvements to cricket nets

Development

 $              3,475

Parrs Park Playground upgrade

Parrs Park

Waitakere Ranges

Glen Eden

Playground upgrade includes car park upgrade

Development

 $            35,129

Parrs Park Playground upgrade

Parrs Park

Waitakere Ranges

Glen Eden

Playground upgrade includes car park upgrade

Development

 $            10,000

Piha Area Dog Bylaw signage

Piha Area

Waitakere Ranges

Piha

Install dog bylaw signage

Development

 $              8,000

Piha Domain Interpretive signage

Piha Domain

Waitakere Ranges

Piha

Design, build and install interpretive for campground

Development

 $              6,000

Piha Stream Erosion Control

Piha Domain

Waitakere Ranges

Piha

Erosion control of stream bank

Development

 $          350,000

Soldiers Memorial Res Interpretive signage

Soliders Memorial Res

Waitakere Ranges

Titirangi

Design and install interp signage

Development

 $              5,000

Tangiwai Reserve Boundary Fence upgrade

Tangiwai Reserve

Waitakere Ranges

Titirangi

Upgrade boundary fence to stop dogs entering neighbouring farmland

Development

 $              2,629

Various Walkway and Track development

Various Sites

Waitakere Ranges

Various

Walkway and track development

Development

 $            15,991

Waitakere Ranges Foothills Walkway

Waitakere Ranges Foothills Walkway

Waitakere Ranges

Various

New Dev - Creation of walkway on council owned land in waitakere foothills

Development

 $            51,206

Waituna Stream/Landing Road/Little Muddy Creek Walkway New track network (Stage 1, 2, 3)

Waituna Stream/Landing Road/Little Muddy Creek Walkway

Waitakere Ranges

Laingholm

New track network (Stage 1, 2, 3)

Development

 $            22,506

Armour Bay Reserve Toilet/changing room renewal

Armour Bay Reserve

Waitakere Ranges

Parau

Renewal of existing toilet/changing block

Renewal

 $            21,427

Ceramco Park Athletics track irrigation system upgrade

Ceramco Park

Waitakere Ranges

Glen Eden

Upgrade of irrigation system around Ceramco Park athletics track

Renewal

 $            40,000

Ceramco Park Bridge and footpath upgrade

Ceramco Park

Waitakere Ranges

Glen Eden

Armour footbridge footings and replace steps into park with all accessible footpath. 

Renewal

 $            65,000

Ceramco Park Carpark renewal

Ceramco Park

Waitakere Ranges

Glen Eden

Renewal of carparks as required

Renewal

 $            29,000

Ceramco Park Toilet Block Upgrade

Ceramco Park

Waitakere Ranges

Glen Eden

Minor Upgrade to female toilet block with the purpose of opening it for public use.  To include a sign on the changing room.

Renewal

 $              5,000

French Bay Esplanade Toilet/changing room renewal

French Bay Esplanade

Waitakere Ranges

Titirangi

Renewal of existing toilet/changing block

Renewal

 $            20,690

Harold Moody Reserve Park refurbishment

Harold Moody Reserve

Waitakere Ranges

Glen Eden

Upgrade of signage, footpaths, park furniture, retaining walls

Renewal

 $            52,300

Harold Moody Reserve Park refurbishment

Harold Moody Reserve

Waitakere Ranges

Glen Eden

Park refurbishment projects

Renewal

 $            12,000

Harold Moody Reserve Toilet/changing room renewal

Harold Moody Reserve

Waitakere Ranges

Glen Eden

Renewal of existing toilet and changing room design 13 14 - refurb existing block

Renewal

 $          150,000

Harold Moody Reserve Upgrade of public court facilities

Harold Moody Reserve

Waitakere Ranges

Glen Eden

Resurface courts, install tennis nets and renew fences

Renewal

 $            50,000

Harold Moody Reserve Upgrade of sportsfield lighting

Harold Moody Reserve

Waitakere Ranges

Glen Eden

Upgrade of sports field lighting

Renewal

 $              7,200

Huia Domain Carpark Renewal

Huia Domain

Waitakere Ranges

Huia

Carpark - East End Of Park, Off Huia Rd Next To Playground.

Renewal

 $            28,500

Huia Domain Renewal of skate ramp

Huia Domain

Waitakere Ranges

Huia

Skate Item - Adjacent Huia Road.

Renewal

 $            20,460

Huia Domain Seawall upgrade

Huia Domain

Waitakere Ranges

Huia

Seawall upgrade

Renewal

 $            48,000

Kowhai Reserve Footbridge Upgrade

Kowhai Reserve

Waitakere Ranges

Glen Eden

Upgrade footbridge over swale with 6-7m boardwalk

Renewal

 $            17,747

Laingholm Hall Reserve Footpath renewal

Laingholm Hall Reserve

Waitakere Ranges

Laingholm

Renew sections of footpath as required

Renewal

 $              8,500

Laingholm Scenic Reserve Park refurbishment

Laingholm Scenic Reserve

Waitakere Ranges

Laingholm

Renewal of park furniture

Renewal

 $            20,493

Laingholm Scenic Reserve Walkway/track Upgrade

Laingholm Scenic Reserve

Waitakere Ranges

Laingholm

Renewal of Walkway/track throughout reserve

Renewal

 $            90,251

Les Waygood campground toilet block roof renewal

Les Waygood Park

Waitakere Ranges

Piha

Roof renewal of womens toilet block

Renewal

 $            15,000

Les Waygood Park - Camp Ground Effluent

Les Waygood Park

Waitakere Ranges

Piha

Upgrade waste water system

Renewal

 $            94,400

Mahoe Walk, Paturoa Way, Titirangi War Memorial Walkway/track upgrade

Mahoe Walk

Waitakere Ranges

Titirangi

Construct boardwalks over Kauri roots

Renewal

 $            20,000

Maywood Park Footpath renewal

Maywood Park

Waitakere Ranges

Glen Eden

Renew sections of footpath as required

Renewal

 $              7,000

Nicolas Reserve Structure renewals

Nicolas Reserve

Waitakere Ranges

Glen Eden

Renew boardwalk as per scope

Renewal

 $              5,000

Parrs Park Playground upgrade

Parrs Park

Waitakere Ranges

Glen Eden

Playground upgrade includes car park upgrade

Renewal

 $            43,776

Parrs Park Playground upgrade

Parrs Park

Waitakere Ranges

Glen Eden

Playground upgrade includes car park upgrade

Renewal

 $            20,951

Parrs Park Playground upgrade

Parrs Park

Waitakere Ranges

Glen Eden

Playground upgrade includes car park upgrade

Renewal

 $            10,000

Parrs Park Playground upgrade

Parrs Park

Waitakere Ranges

Glen Eden

Playground upgrade includes car park upgrade

Renewal

 $            10,000

Parrs Park Skate Ramp Renewal

Parrs Park

Waitakere Ranges

Oratia

Renewal of components of the skate ramp

Renewal

 $              7,818

Parrs Park Sports field renewal

Parrs Park

Waitakere Ranges

Glen Eden

Renewal of no 2 sand field

Renewal

 $          202,017

Parrs Park Structure renewals

Parrs Park

Waitakere Ranges

Glen Eden

Renewal boardwalk as per scope

Renewal

 $              5,000

Piha Domain - Build (new block)

Piha Domain

Waitakere Ranges

Piha

New Dev - Upgrade of existing toilet and changing room

Renewal

 $            61,600

Piha Domain - Build (new block)

Piha Domain

Waitakere Ranges

Piha

New Dev - Upgrade of existing toilet and changing room

Renewal

 $            10,000

Piha Domain Relocate telemetry as part of Domain toilet upgrade

Piha Domain

Waitakere Ranges

Piha

Upgraded For Toilet Flushing Telemetry System

Renewal

 $            25,000

Piha Domain Renewal of existing toilet and changing room - camp and public facilities

Piha Domain

Waitakere Ranges

Piha

Renewal of existing toilet /changing block

Renewal

 $          595,267

Piha Domain Renewal of water supply

Piha Domain

Waitakere Ranges

Piha

Replacement of multiple components in the water supply system

Renewal

 $            27,529

Sunvue Park Footpath renewal

Sunvue Park

Waitakere Ranges

Glen Eden

Renew sections of footpath as required

Renewal

 $              5,000

Swanson Station Park Park refurbishment

Swanson Station Park

Waitakere Ranges

Swanson

Renew park furniture including signage

Renewal

 $            11,000

Warner Park Walkway/track Upgrade

Warner Park

Waitakere Ranges

Laingholm

Track renewal - Metal, edging, stairs, some drainage, foliage clearance

Renewal

 $            40,000

 

 

 

 

 

Total

 $       2,604,306

 



Waitākere Ranges Local Board

13 November 2014

 

 

Consultation Plan for the Mitigation of Erosion Along the Huia Domain Shoreline and Seawall

 

File No.: CP2014/25658

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report is to seek approval from the Waitakere Ranges Local Board for the consultation plan prepared for options to mitigate the erosion of Huia Domain shoreline and seawall.

Executive summary

2.       Local & Sports Parks West seek to mitigate the erosion impacts on Huia Domain shoreline and seawall.

3.       Local & Sports Parks West wish to seek feedback from the Huia-Cornwallis community and known stakeholders in regards to a preferred option to mitigate against erosion.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a)      Endorses the consultation plan proposed for the mitigation of the Huia Domain shoreline and seawall erosion.

 

 

Comments

4.       The Huia Domain shoreline has been eroding over the last few years and recently the erosion has accelerated. Consequently, the footing of the seawall has become exposed and undermined in a number of locations, a section of the wall at the western end has broken off and large holes have formed along the back of the seawall, several of which expand laterally under the remaining surface. Land erosion has also occurred at the Western end of Huia Domain in and around the trees and in front of the toilet block.

5.       The two options recommended by the Auckland Councils Coastal Management Services team for mitigating the erosion at Huia Domain are:

·        Repair and reinforce the existing seawall and construct a rock revetment along the unprotected shoreline

·        Removal of the seawall through managed retreat

6.       Local & Sports Parks West have commissioned coastal specialists Tonkin & Taylor Ltd to develop a comparative assessment of the two recommended options to mitigate against the erosion along the Huia Domain seawall and shoreline Removal of the seawall through managed retreat

7.       Local & Sports Parks West have commissioned coastal specialists Tonkin & Taylor Ltd to develop a comparative assessment of the two main options to mitigate against the erosion along the Huia Domain seawall and shoreline.

8.       A consultation plan has been prepared to seek feedback from all known Huia-Cornwallis stakeholders and residents. The consultation plan is available as Attachment A.

 

Consideration

Local board views and implications

9.       The Waitakere Ranges Local Board has requested community consultation on the preferred option for erosion mitigation for the Huia Domain shoreline and seawall.

Māori impact statement

10.     Iwi will be invited to provide feedback on a preferred option.

Implementation

11.     There are no known implementation issues arising from the proposed consultation plan.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Consultation Plan- Huia Domain Shoreline and Seawall Erosion Mitigation

3

     

Signatories

Authors

Kaitlyn  White - Park Advisor

Authorisers

Ian Maxwell - Manager Parks, Sports & Recreation

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

13 November 2014

 

 

 

 

 


Consultation/Engagement Plan                                   Date

To:                   Waitākere Ranges Local Board- Sandra Coney, Neil Henderson, Greg Presland, Steve Tollestrup, Saffron Toms, Denise Yates

CC:                  Grant Jennings- Local & Sports Park West Manager,
Paul
Klinac- Coastal Management Services – Team Manager 

From:              Kaitlyn White – Local board Advisor

 

 

Project name: Consultation on the proposed remedial works on the Huia Domain seawall

Background / context / challenges)

The shoreline along the western end of Huia Domain has been eroding over the last few years. Recently the erosion has accelerated, with the shoreline now in close proximity of the trees beside the toilet block. The seawall itself has now also become undermined in sections, with voids forming landward and vertical rock face of the seawall. The toe of the seawall is also exposed along the western and central part of the shoreline. Auckland Council engaged Tonkin & Taylor in 2013 to provide long term options to assist Auckland Council and Waitākere Ranges Local Board in their preferred response. The recent acceleration in erosion, and deterioration of the seawall integrity, requires a more urgent response. Tonkin & Taylor have now revised their recommendation to two main options, either to repair the seawall or to remove it through managed retreat.

 

Why is council consulting on this project?

Local residents and land owners in the Huia area have an interest in the proposed options for Huia Domain Seawall remedial works. Auckland Council would like feedback from the community on their preferred option to ensure buy in.

 

What is council consulting on?

Auckland Council is consulting on the two options proposed for the seawall remedial works

1)      Immediate repairs to the seawall

2)      Managed retreat (removal of the seawall)


Target audiences: key stakeholders – likely interest and method of engagement

o Internal

Who

Why are they likely to be interested?

Method of engagement

Waitakere Ranges Local Board

Governance of local parks

Email and Public meeting

Auckland Transport

Management of assets close to Huia Domain

Email and Public meeting

Regional Parks

Management of assets close to Huia Domain

Email and Public meeting

Watercare

Management of assets close to Huia Domain

Email and Public meeting

 

o External

Who

Why are they likely to be interested?

Method of engagement

Local iwi

Mana whenua

Email and Public meeting

Huia-Cornwallis Residents and ratepayers association

Interested resident group

Email and Public meeting

General community

General interest in Huia

Public meeting to be held at Huia Cornwallis residents and ratepayers association hall, flyer drop and posters to advertise

Waitakere Ranges
Conservation Network

General interest in Huia

Email and Public meeting

Waitakere Ranges protection society

General interest in Huia

Email and Public meeting

Waitakere Branch of Forest and Bird

General interest in Huia

Email and Public meeting

Huia Beach and Store Cafe

General interest in Huia

Email and Public meeting

Laingholm Roundabout Incorporated

General interest in Huia

Email and Public meeting

Friends of Whatipu

General interest in Huia

Email and Public meeting

Huia Museum

General interest in Huia

Email and Public meeting

 


Spokespeople

Waitākere Ranges local Board

Sandra Coney

Denise Yates

Auckland Council Staff

Grant Jennings

Paul Klinac

Kaitlyn White

 

Decision-making process

Following consultation with all stakeholders the following will occur:

·        Submit a business report to Waitakere Ranges Local Board to relay consultation findings and seek approval for the preferred option

·        Begin physical works for preferred option from July 2015

 

Level of influence and engagement

Overall, council should be consulting at the Consult level:

o   Consultation goal – seek assistance to decide on the preferred option for the Huia Seawall

o   Council’s promise to the public – Feedback will be provided to the public on submissions made by email.

o   Examples of techniques/methods to consider – Provide documents via email and request feedback. Hold  a public meeting at Huia to inform public and gain feedback on the two options

Issues/Risks management

Risks/Issues

Recommended mitigation

Community could be adverse to possible reduction of recreational  land in Huia Domain

Ensure options are explained in detail and provide visuals of what the future Domain might look like.

 

Community expectation is high

Ensure understanding of long term consequences of proposed options

Ensure community is well informed the details of each option

 

Timelines for the communications and consultation activities

Date

Activity

Who is responsible?

Oct-Nov 2014

Investigate managed retreat option viability at Huia Domain

Tonkin and Taylor

13 Nov 2014

Formal approval of consultation Plan from Local Board

Waitakere Ranges Local Board

28 Nov 2014

Email proposed options to all known stakeholders

Kaitlyn White

28 Nov 2014

Provide hard copy of proposed options at Titirangi library

Kaitlyn White

Dec 2014

Public meeting at the Huia Cornwallis Ratepayers and residents association hall

Kaitlyn White

Jan 2015

Consultation closes

 

Feb 2015

Results of consultation and recommendations of work plan are formally reported to Waitakere Ranges Local Board

Kaitlyn White

 

Budget

BUDGET REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSULSATION ARE MINIMAL.


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

13 November 2014

 

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

13 November 2014

 

 

Engagement Feedback for Lily Control Options at Claude Abel Reserve Pond

 

File No.: CP2014/25846

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To report on feedback received from the public engagement undertaken with respect to control options of Mexican Water Lily at the Claude Abel Reserve pond, Garden Road, Piha and to seek approval for a lily control proposal in consideration of the feedback received.

Executive summary

2.       Public engagement for lily control options was undertaken from 12 July to 31 July 2014 with known Piha stakeholders and local residents.

3.       A public drop-in session was held on 12th July 2014 at the Old Piha Schoolhouse to provide information about the options for addressing the infestation of Mexican Water Lily at Claude Abel Reserve pond. Submissions received at the drop-in session have been included in the engagement findings referred to in this report.

4.       Engagement findings show opinion on this issue to be widely split. However, Option 2 - Eradicate with approved agrichemical (glyphosate), was the most preferred single option with 46% of submissions received. However, a further 46% of submissions preferred mechanical removal, combined with either ongoing hand control or eradication using glyphosate at 24% and 22% respectively.

5.       A lily control proposal has been developed after considering the feedback received during the engagement process.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a)      Receives the engagement findings for lily control options at the Claude Abel Reserve pond and the associated lily control proposal.

b)      Approves the lily control proposal for the Claude Abel Reserve pond.

 

 

Comments

6.       The Waitakere Ranges Local Board (WRLB) requested that the options to control Mexican Water Lily in the Claude Abel Reserve pond be presented to known Piha stakeholders and local residents.

7.       The control options presented for consideration at both the drop-in session and as a submission form were as follows:

·        Option 1 -     Do nothing.

·        Option 2 -     Ongoing Hand Control.

·        Option 3 -     Eradicate with approved agrichemical (glyphosate) – Auckland Councils 
                     recommended option.

·        Option 4A -   Mechanical removal + ongoing hand control.

·        Option 4B -   Mechanical removal + eradication using glyphosate.

8.       The introduction of a non-invasive lily to the Claude Abel Reserve pond was also put forward for consideration as part of the engagement process.

9.       Engagement was carried out between 12 July 2014 and 31 July 2014.

10.     39 submissions were received in total, with 38 submissions indicating a preferred option for lily control. The support for preferred control options have been recorded as follows:
  

Lily Control Option

Number of Responses

Percentage of Responses

1 - Do nothing

1

3%

2 - Ongoing Hand Control

2

5%

3 - Eradicate with approved agrichemical (glyphosate)

17

46%

4A - Mechanical removal + ongoing hand control

9

24%

4B - Mechanical removal + eradication using glyphosate

8

22%

 

11.     The consultation document also asked whether the submitters would like to have a non-invasive lily introduced into the pond. Of the 39 submissions, the support for the non-invasive lily introduction are as follows:
  

Introduction of non-invasive lily

Number of Responses

Percentage of Responses

In favour

21

54%

Opposed

7

19%

No response

11

28%

 

12.     A full list of submissions can be viewed in Attachment A - Claude Abel Lily Control Received Submissions. A number of submissions included comments that raised concerns around the use of agrichemicals, particularly in water, and the impact this may have on the flora and fauna in the pond.

Submissions were also received from two community organisations. The Piha Coastcare Trust’s submission was in favour of Option 4B, and the Piha Residents and Ratepayers Association did not specify a preferred option, but commented that the lily pond must remain a lily pond.

13.     Stakeholder feedback has been considered and as such Auckland Council Local and Sports Parks West propose to undertake control of Mexican Water Lily as follows:

·        To proceed with Option 3 - eradication with approved agrichemical (glyphosate), following best practice.

·        Before, during and after monitoring of the site to ensure agrichemical spray is successful with minimal adverse effects.

·        A non-invasive lily is introduced to the Claude Abel Reserve pond following lily eradication.



Consideration

Local board views and implications

14.     Stakeholder feedback was discussed with the WRLB at a workshop on 30th October 2014 where they proposed a trial agrichemical application on approximately one eighth of the lily cover, in order to assess the potential impacts on water quality. The trial is to be carried out in the centre of the pond, following best practice and away from any threatened native flora.

15.     The results of the agrichemical trial are to be reported to the WRLB for their consideration of Option 3 - agrichemical application as the preferred lily control method.

Māori impact statement

16.     Local iwi groups were sent an invitation to attend the public drop-in session however no feedback was received.

Implementation

17.     Implementation of the work will be carried out by Auckland Council approved contractors. The trial agrichemical application is expected to be carried out before the end of November, weather permitting.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Claude Abel Lily Control Recieved Submissions

3

     

Signatories

Authors

Kaitlyn  White - Park Advisor

Authorisers

Ian Maxwell - Manager Parks, Sports & Recreation

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

 



Waitākere Ranges Local Board

13 November 2014

 

 

 

 

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

Option 4a

Option 4b

Question 1

Other Comments / Suggestions

No.

Do Nothing

Ongoing hand control

Eradicate with approved agrichemical (glyphosate)

Mechanical removal + ongoing hand control

Mechanical removal + eradication using glyphosate

Indicate if you would like to introduce a non-invasive lily into the pond

1

 

 

 

 

 

1

Needs to remain a lily-pond.

2

 

 

 

 

 

1

Keep lily pond for amenity value.

3

 

 

 

1

 

1

Restore to as natural as possible.

4

 

 

1

 

 

1

Also control alligator weed etc.

5

 

 

1

 

 

1

Strictly monitor chemical effects.

6

 

 

1

 

 

1

Ongoing monitoring/follow-up.

7

 

 

1

 

 

0

Remove carp/protect natives. Return to native wetland.

8

 

 

1

 

 

0

Follow prior wetland decision. Return to native wetland.

9

 

1

 

 

1

0

Must include regular follow up.

10

 

 

1

 

 

 

Also control alligator weed.

11

 

 

1

 

 

0

Sewerage issue is more important. Return to native wetland.

12

 

 

 

1

 

 

No chemicals.

13

 

 

 

1

 

 

No chemicals-protect frogs.

14

1

 

1

 

 

1

The last attempt at lily eradication was an environmental disaster!!  Open water, yes but stinking, muddy, lifeless, dead eels, no frogs, no fish, even the ducks abandoned it!  Without lilies the lily pond is (or became) an eyesore.  Whatever you did failed miserably, no one wants a repeat of that.  I missed the drop-in session so may be missing information, but wish to stress our desire for a clear, healthy pond – with lilies.

15

 

 

1

 

 

1

No comment.

16

 

 

 

1

 

1

We live opposite the ponds and would not like to see any herbicides used.  The pond is an important local amenity.  It is much used over summer by many families who picnic and play there.  It is a cool retreat from the heat and crowds on the beach.  The ducks and fish in the pond are an important part of the ponds attraction.

17

 

 

1

 

 

1

No comment.

18

 

 

1

 

 

1

If the lily could be controlled (i.e. non-invasive) some features would be acceptable.
I wish to add to the submission I made in completing the questionnaire on the Lilly pond in Garden Road Piha.  I wish to endorse the recommendations of the Coastal Care Committee to establish an environment which supports natural ecology rather than introduced plants or species.  I think that is in fitting with the values of Piha and the Waitakere Ranges and is important for the future of the area. 

19

 

 

 

1

 

0

Would definitely not want non-invasive lily introduced in the pond.  I would like to see the pond as a wetland.  Over the 18 years I've lived in Garden Rd there has been a lot of time and money spend on eradicating the lilies!  This time let’s have a plan!!  I support 4a but don't see the need to make the pond deeper.  The areas that are now 'wetland' are a delight to look at and home to frogs, pukeko and visiting shags.

20

 

 

1

 

 

 

Option 3 requires annual eradication maintenance.

21

 

 

1

 

 

1

No comment.

22

 

 

 

 

1

0

If mechanical removal too expensive, hand removal using local volunteers could be a good option.  Plants to be introduced to the pond should be native flora suitable that will assist with maintaining water clarity and pond health.

23

 

 

1

 

 

1

No comment.

24

 

 

 

1

 

1

No comment.

25

 

 

 

 

1

0

Option 4b repeated, seconded by hand removal and chemical spray if cost prohibits option 4b.
- Carp removal.
- Establishment of a healthy weed-free native environment which would ensure the survival of the unique and rare species found in the wetland on the island at the south end of the pond, and open water that would be attractive to native flora and fauna. Once a healthy environment is established, it may be possible to negotiate the re-introduction of such species as the endangered little brown and grey teal ducks.
- Coastcare would be prepared to do practical research on the viability of hand removal.
- Comments on achieving the vision.

26

 

 

1

 

 

1

My real concern about choosing Option 3 would be the toxicity of any "approved" agrichemical such as Glyphosate on other forms of wildlife at the reserve.
To have no lilies whatsoever is not an option for me.

27

 

 

 

 

1

 

I think most of the lilies need to be removed before spraying.  Last time the lilies were sprayed they were left to rot in the pond.  The water became anaerobic, the ducks died.  Also there would need to be follow-up every time the water lilies started to come back again.

28

 

 

1

 

 

1

I would like to have a non-invasive lily introduced in the pond, after the invasive lilies are killed or removed.
Option 3 is the choice "provided" agrichemical has no harmful effect on humans, animals or plants (other than lilies).

29

 

 

 

 

1

1

-     I strongly favour Option 4B.
The duck pond has been a part of Piha for as long as I have been coming to Piha, some 45 years. Now our grandchildren ask us if they can feed the ducks as did our own children a generation before them. It must be preserved as a tranquil place to sit and appreciate the beautiful Pohutakawa trees which frame the pond. It is away from traffic and the hustle and bustle of the beach and surf. It is a great place to just sit and reflect.
-     For these reasons it is essential that the pond is restored to its original state and then be maintained that way in the long term. This can only be achieved with Option 4B as all the other options have serious shortcomings in effectiveness in the short or long term or both.
-     I have difficulty in believing that the Council can’t find the money to restore and maintain a facility as valuable to the community as this duck pond.

30

 

 

 

 

1

1

-     I strongly favour Option 4B. The Lily Pond, or duck pond as my family called it, has been a family favourite since the early 1940’s and 3 generations of adults and children have visited and enjoyed the amenity value of this area, as it used to be, on a very frequent basis. We have over the years taken some hundreds of visitors and tourists to see the ‘Lily Pond’ in the same way that we take them to the Kitekite Falls or around to the Gap and as an attraction it rates well with the falls and Gap. For us the pond has heritage value and we believe that it is essential that the pond be restored as near to its original form (as at mid1900s) as possible. It used to be over 15ft deep and while that depth may not be practical today it is absolutely worthwhile removing as much sediment as possible along with the invasive lilies and their tuber roots.
-     Having done that it is essential then that the Mexican lilies be controlled (and hopefully eventually eradicated) using a herbicide as other methods will not be effective and the pond will inevitably revert to its present terrible state over time. We have no problem with the use of herbicides.
-     Option 3 may be cost effective but it does not restore the pond to its former state and leaves the pond silted up and with the dying vegetation further polluting the pond. There can be no guarantee that future Councils will continue to control and remove the lilies and I believe that in a short time the pond will revert back to its present terrible state making the expenditure under Option 3 a waste of money. It needs to be ‘cleaned out’ to get its amenity value back.
-     The hand control in Option 4A is ineffective, expensive and unlikely to happen frequently enough. It is a waste of time and therefore a waste of money.
-     We recognise that the Council does not presently have a budget for Option 4B but maintaining this type of amenity for ratepayers, residents, visitors and tourists is a fundamental role of the Council and I believe this type of expenditure should have a much higher priority than many other activities the Council engages in. This pond is of such heritage and amenity value that money should not be a problem.

31

 

 

 

 

 

 

-     As a long term resident and ratepayer at Piha I wish to voice my opposition to any reintroduction of non-native species to the pond.
Although I understand the desire of many to take children and grandchildren to 'feed the ducks' we now know that this has contributed to poor water quality.
-     It is vital that all water lilies, carp and non-native species are removed so that the pond can revert to a wetland with some open water. I do not believe it is appropriate to have these species in an area zoned SEA, within the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area. Nor does it reflect the principles outlined in Council's policy documents for this area.

32

 

 

 

1

 

 

Locals would be happy to help remove the lily - a community working bee!

33

 

 

 

1

 

1

No chemicals.  Thanks.

34

 

 

 

 

1

1

 Realise the pond is choked up and needs clearing but would like a non-invasive lily introduced.

35

1

 

 

 

 

 

I think enough resources have been expended already in attempting to control the lilies.
I have serious concerns about agrichemical use in that area.
If the pond returns to wetland it will be self-maintaining and support native wetland species.  The reserve will continue to be an area enjoyed by many.

36

 

 

 

 

1

 

I loved the ducks in their pond, but if it is no longer a healthy environment for them - mores the pity - cos it was always known as the duck pond - but an attractive alternative would be appreciated by the locals - speaking personally.

37

 

 

1

 

 

1

Option 3 seems the one we can afford and have a good looking pond again.   Please keep the gold fish or if they don't survive, replace with new ones.

38

 

 

 

1

 

 

Glyphosate is a hideous chemical that is part of the Monsanto arsenal of ugly chemicals that are destroying our environment.
Putting it in water! That is insane.  The pond will never recover.  It takes time and money but in the long run the mechanical and hand method will be the best option for the future.

39

 

 

 

 

1

1

Concerned that following Option 3 spraying, dead lilies will sink to the bottom of the pond, adding to the sediment which is tending to reduce the water depth of the Pond.
-      While it is recognised that Option 3 provides the most cost effective and efficient method to remove the invasive lilies, and also that mechanical removal in not currently funded, some mechanical removal of dead plants subsequent to spraying is highly desirable.  Maybe the dead plants can be removed without resource consent.
-     It is noted that community meetings more than 10 years ago, overwhelmingly voted to support the continuation of the Lily Pond.

Total

2

1

17

9

8

21

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

13 November 2014

 

 

Dog Access Review Work Programme

 

File No.: CP2014/23994

 

  

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report is to decide on the scope of review of local dog access rules in the Waitakere Ranges Local Board area.

Executive summary

2.       The Auckland Council Governing Body delegated the review of dog access rules on local park, local beach and local foreshore areas to 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.

5.       The Waitakere Ranges Local Board indicated in August 2013 that it sought to review certain local dog access rules contained in the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 and Auckland Council Dog Management Bylaw 2012 by summer 2015.

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

7.       The following matters were identified through the 2012 governing body review process and can be used as a basis for establishing the scope of the review:

·        A review of the current time and season beach and foreshore dog access rules.

·        A review of ‘bush walks’, ‘picnic’, ‘fitness apparatus’ and ‘protected wildlife’ areas.

8.       The beach and foreshore areas available for review are summarised as follows:

·        22 local beach and foreshore areas available for review.

·        19 of the above areas are subject to a default on-leash rule, and the other three areas are subject to a time and season rule (North Piha, Piha, Te Henga).

·        Four of the above areas are in close proximity to regional parks (Foster Bay-Little Huia, Titirangi Beach/French Bay, North Piha and Piha) and ideally any review of these areas would be undertaken at the same time as a review of regional park dog access rules.

·        17 beach and foreshore areas have adjacent local parks which are subject to the default off-leash rule. The other five areas have no adjacent park.

·        There are approximately a further 19 beach, bay and foreshore areas in the Waitakere Local Board area that are associated with regional parks. Dog access rules on these areas are determined by the Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee and are therefore outside the scope of this report.

9.       The final scope of the review is a matter for the Waitakere Ranges Local Board to decide.

10.     Depending on the scope of the review, options for pre-consultation and research may include both internal and external engagement activities.


 

Recommendations

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a)      Resolves to review local dog access rules in the Waitakere Ranges Local Board area in 2014/15 as follows:

i)        A review of local beach and foreshore dog access rules.

ii)       A review of local parks adjacent to beaches.

iii)      A review of ‘picnic area’, ‘fitness apparatus’, ‘bushwalk’ and ‘protected wildlife area’ dog access rules.

 

 

Discussion

Background

11.     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.

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

13.     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 local 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 achieve efficiencies by aligning the review programmes across multiple local boards to allow for centralised support and activities.

14.     The Waitakere Ranges Local Board indicated at a workshop in August 2013 that the board wished to undertake a review of dog access rules by summer 2015.

General considerations

15.     The primary issues of dog access under the Dog Control Act 1996, 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

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

17.     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.

18.     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.

19.     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.

20.     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 would consider their pets friendly and 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.

21.     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] .

22.     This would indicate that in order 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 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

23.     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.

24.     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.

25.     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

26.     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.

27.     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 is important.

Objectives of review

28.     The primary objective for local boards in making decisions on dog access is provided in paragraph 14 above. 

29.     While a local board has the power to determine the full scope of any review in accordance with its delegations, the directive provided by the governing body through the delegations as part of the 2012 policy and bylaw review process provides a framework for this first review of the Waitakere Ranges Local Board dog access rules. Therefore the secondary objectives are initially informed by that directive which can be used as a basis for discussion about the scope of the review and this is provided in the following section.

What local dog access rules to review

30.     Category 1 - Review

This relates to the delegated duty to review all beach and foreshore dog access rules. A proposal must be adopted for public notification[7].This review includes the following:

·        The identification of possible under control off-leash at all times beaches.

·        The identification of where it is appropriate to use the region wide standard summer times (10am and 5pm) and summer season (Labour Weekend to 1 March).

The identification of marine based significant ecological areas is closely linked to the above rules and is therefore recommended by staff to be considered appropriate for inclusion in the review.

 

31.     Category 2 –Consider

This relates to public requests for changes to dog access rules on specific parks and beaches during the 2012 process. It is at a local board’s discretion to include any such requests in a proposal for public notification. The requests for changes to existing rules in the Waitakere Ranges Local Board area are as follows, with the number of people making the request shown in (brackets):

·        West Auckland: More off-leash dog access (1)

·        The Waitakere Ranges Local Board want more off-leash areas in their local board area (1)

·        Want off-leash dog access around the stream near the eel bridge at Piha (1). Reasons for the request include need for off-leash areas to exercise dogs. This is an area between Piha Domain and South Piha Beach.

32.     Category 3 – Optional

This category relates to making dog access rules less complicated. During the 2012 process staff identified a number of issues which, if resolved, would clarify or revoke ambiguous legacy rules and ensure any changes are easier to understand ‘on the ground’[8]. Staff analysis identified the following issues for the Waitakere Ranges Local Board area (the relevant reference to the dog access rule in Schedule 2 of the policy is shown in [brackets]):

·        Clarify default under control off-leash rules which currently refer to two former legacy councils [WRLB (1)].

·        Identify bush walks on which dogs are required to be under control on-leash in the former Rodney District Council area [WRLB (3)(b)].

·        Review dog access rules on ‘picnic areas’ and ‘fitness apparatus areas’ in which dogs are required to be under control on a leash or are prohibited [WRLB (6)(c) and 7(b)].

·        Identify habitats home to protected wildlife recognised by the council or Department of Conservation in which dogs are prohibited in the former Rodney District Council area [WRLB (7)(a)].

 

33.     The current Waitakere Ranges Local Board dog access rules are provided in Attachment C for completeness.

34.     The Waitakere Ranges Local Board area includes the following beach and foreshore areas:

Beach and foreshore area

Rule

Oatoru Bay

On a leash

Wood Bay

Otitiori Bay (French Bay)

Beach adjacent to Okiwa Reserve

French Bay/Titirangi Beach

Davies Bay

Herrings Bay

Jenkins Bay

Estuary Area between Laingholm & Point on Warner Park

Laingholm Bay

Beach area adjacent to Taumatarea Esplanade

Armour Bay Reserve Beach

Swanson Bay

Fletcher Bay

Foster Bay

Huia Bay Main Beach

Little Huia Beach

Piha Beach

On a leash outside of daylight saving from approximately Piha Streams and hence generally in a southern direction 600 metres to the southern - most end of the Piha Beach, as is marked by appropriate marker poles.
Prohibited during daylight saving from approximately Piha Streams and hence generally in a southern direction 600 metres to the southern - most end of the South Piha Beach, as is marked by appropriate marker poles.
Prohibited
within any rock or reef wildlife area shown by appropriate marker poles.
 

North Piha Beach

Off a leash between sunrise and sunset on each day on the middle portion of North Piha Beach approximately between 320 metres and 1200 metres north of Piha Streams (excluding Lion Rock) as marked by appropriate marker poles.
On a leash on those portions of North Piha Beach not specifically identified as a prohibited or off-leash area.
Prohibited on the northern end of North Piha Beach at all times from a point approximately 190 metres north of the end of North Piha Road and hence generally in a northern direction.

Wahirua Bay

On a leash

Wigmore Bay

On a leash

Te Henga (Bethells)

Off a leash between sunrise and sunset on each day on the middle portion of Bethells Beach approximately between 490 metres and 840 metres generally in a southern direction from the Waitakere River mouth as marked by appropriate marker poles.
On a leash between sunset and sunrise on the portion as described above.
On a leash on all other parts of Bethells Beach at all times.

Waitakere Bay/North Te Henga

On a leash

 

Summary:

·        22 local beach and foreshore areas are available for review.

·        19 of the above areas are subject to a default on-leash rule and the other three areas are subject to a time and season rule (North Piha, Piha, Te Henga).

·        Four of the above areas are in close proximity to regional parks (Foster Bay-Little Huia, Titirangi Beach/French Bay, North Piha and Piha) and ideally any review of these areas would be undertaken at the same time as a review of regional park dog access rules.

·        17 beach and foreshore areas have adjacent local parks which are subject to the default off-leash rule. The other five areas have no adjacent park.

·        There are approximately a further 19 beach, bay and foreshore areas in the Waitakere Local Board area that are associated with regional parks. Dog access rules on these areas are determined by the Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee and are therefore outside the scope of this report.

 

35.     The following tables provide options on each matter outlined above to assist the board in deciding what local dog access rules to review.

Table 1: Beach and foreshore dog access rules

Option

Advantages and Disadvantages

Option 1: Review dog access rules on all (approx. 22) local beach and foreshore areas and adjacent local parks in the Waitakere Ranges Local Board area.

Why?

Comprehensive review of all local beach and foreshore areas and adjacent parks to review whether current rules are appropriate in terms of public safety and comfort, the needs of dogs and their owners, protection of wildlife.

Will identify if and where the region-wide standard summer beach time and season is appropriate.

Will include a review of the current ‘default’ beach and foreshore dog access rules. Legacy Rodney District Council and Waitakere City default rules are inconsistent (off a leash/on leash on beaches).

Will allow for consideration of more 24/7 under control off-leash dog access on beaches.

Will address issues raised in the 2012 submission process about dog access on North Piha and Piha Beaches and the adjacent park.

Will ensure rules are easy to understand ‘on the ground’.

Advantages

Holistic review of all local beach, foreshore and adjacent park areas.

Disadvantages

Review will precede review of regional park beach and foreshore areas and therefore won’t allow for integrated decisions on beaches in close proximity to regional parks (i.e. Foster Bay-Little Huia, Titirangi Beach/French Bay, North Piha and Piha).

Possible outcomes and costs of review (illustration only)

Confirmation of if and where the standard summer beach time and season is appropriate, if not what the alternatives are, and type of dog access between time slots.

Adjacent park rules aligned.

Local board signage costs. Unable to estimate until investigation completed.

Option 2: Review dog access rules on (approx. 18) local beach and foreshore areas and adjacent local parks in the Waitakere Ranges Local Board area, excluding the four in close proximity to regional parks (i.e. Foster Bay-Little Huia, Titirangi Beach/French Bay, North Piha and Piha).

Why?

As per option 1 except that the exclusion of the four beach areas would allow for more integrated decisions if reviewed at the same time as the review of regional park dog access rules currently scheduled for 2016/2017.

Advantages

As per Option 1 except that it also provides for more integrated decisions in relation to dog access rules on Foster Bay-Little Huia, Titirangi Beach/French Bay, North Piha and Piha with adjacent regional park dog access rules.

Disadvantages

The current rules on the four beach and adjacent park areas will remain in place until 2017.

Possible outcomes and costs of review (illustration only)

Confirmation whether and where the standard summer beach time and season is appropriate, if not what the alternatives are, and type of dog access between time slots on the beaches subject to review.

Adjacent park rules aligned.

Local board signage costs. Unable to estimate until investigation completed.

 

Table 2: bush walks

Option

Advantages and Disadvantages

Option 1: Review ‘bush walk’ rules.

Why?

The current rule, requires dogs to be under control on a leash on ‘bush walks’ in the former Rodney District area.

‘Bush walks’ undefined thus difficult to enforce the rules.

Rule does not apply in former Waitakere City Council area.

Advantages

Will clarify rules related to ‘bush walks’ and remove inconsistency between previous two legacy areas.

Removes lack of definition enforcement issues (e.g. between an off-leash park and an on-leash bush walk).

Disadvantages

Resource (time) required to investigate.

Possible outcomes and cost of review (illustration only)

Rule revoked for ‘bush walk’. Investigation finds rule unnecessary and that underlying rule for the park (typically under control off-leash) is appropriate. Rule replaced for ‘bush walk’. Investigation finds a small number of particular areas easily identifiable on the ground as bush walks.

Local board signage costs. Unable to estimate until review completed. May be minimal if only a few areas identified and existing appropriate signage present.

Option 2: Do not review (retain current rules)

Advantages

No resource (time) required to investigate, and no cost for signs (if required).

Disadvantages

Retains inconsistent and unclear rule across two legacy council areas.

Possible outcomes and cost of review (illustration only)

Continued lack of easy to understand ‘on the ground’ rules. No cost.

 

Table 3: picnic and fitness apparatus areas

Option

Advantages and Disadvantages

Option 1: Review ‘picnic area’ and fitness apparatus rules.

Why?

Legacy Rodney District Council rule prohibits dogs in ‘any designated public picnic area’. Legacy Waitakere City Council rule allows dogs under control on a leash in any area that is developed or marked out as a picnic area.

Legacy Waitakere City Council rule prohibits dogs on or within 10 metres of any area that contains fitness apparatus in the former Waitakere City. No rule for former Rodney District Council area.

Terms not defined and therefore considered unenforceable.

Lack of clarity around where and how the rule applies.

Advantages

Will clarify rules related to picnic areas and fitness apparatus and remove inconsistencies between previous two legacy areas.

Disadvantages

Resource (time) required to investigate.

Possible outcomes and cost of review (illustration only)

Investigation finds rule unnecessary and that underlying rule for the park (typically under control off-leash) is appropriate. Rule revoked.

No or minimal local board signage costs.

Investigation finds a small number of particular areas easily identifiable on the ground picnic areas. Rule replaced for ‘picnic areas’.

Local board signage costs. Unable to estimate until review completed. May be minimal if only a few areas identified.

Note: This would not include isolated tables or BBQ facilities but particular areas.

Option 2: Do not review (retain current rules)

Advantages

No resource (time) required to investigate, and no cost for signs (if required).

Disadvantages

Retains unnecessary or confusing rules, some of which are not enforced, and difficult to communicate.

Possible outcomes and cost of review (illustration only)

Continued lack of easy to understand ‘on the ground’ rules. No cost.

 

Table 6: protected wildlife

Option

Advantages and Disadvantages

Option 1- Review ‘wildlife’ rule.

 

Why?

The current rule, based on the Legacy Rodney District Council rule, prohibits dogs in protected wildlife habitat areas in the former Rodney District Council area. Areas undefined.

Rule does not apply in former Waitakere City Council area.

‘Wildlife’ undefined term. Move across the region to use the significant ecological areas of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan as a basis for habitat and fauna protection rules.

The review would include a review of both land and marine based significant ecological areas.

Advantages

Will clarify rules related to wildlife areas and remove inconsistency between previous two legacy areas.

Will identify specific locations to allow for rules to be applied to protect identified wildlife as well as habitat and fauna.

Disadvantages

Resource (time) required to investigate.

Possible outcomes of review and costs (illustration)

Rule clarified for ‘wildlife areas’. Investigation identifies relevant areas and associated dog access restrictions and lists them in the bylaw.

Local board signage costs. Unable to estimate until review completed. May be minimal as likely to be existing signage or inaccessible.

Option 2: Do not review (retain current rules)

Advantages

No resource (time) required to investigate, and no cost for signs (if required).

Disadvantages

Retains inconsistent rules, some of which are not enforced, and difficult to communicate.

Unclear definition and location of significant ecological areas means important habitat and wildlife areas are at risk from dogs.

Possible outcomes and cost of review (illustration only)

Continued lack of easy to understand ‘on the ground’ rules. No cost.

Process and costs

36.     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.

37.     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.

38.     The process timeline starts in September of one year and ends in October of the following year. The local board will need to adopt a proposal by April 2015, hold hearings and deliberations and make decisions on submissions by August 2015.

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

Pre-consultation and research

40.     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.

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)

Survey (on-line survey on beach use only), invitees to include:

·   General public

·   Local board identified stakeholders

·   People’s panel members in Waitakere Ranges Local Board area

Photo library (beaches within review only)

Consideration

Local board views and implications

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

Māori impact statement

42.     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.

43.     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

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

45.     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 requirements

3

bView

Standard process

3

cView

2012 Dog Control Bylaw Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 Waitakere Ranges

3

     

Signatories

Authors

Shireen  Munday - Policy Analyst

Toni Ferdinands - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

13 November 2014

 

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

13 November 2014

 

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

13 November 2014

 

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

13 November 2014

 

 

Draft Community Facilities Network Plan

 

File No.: CP2014/24972

 

  

 

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 Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a)      Provides feedback on 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

3

bView

Draft Community Facilities Network Plan stakeholder feedback

3

     

Signatories

Authors

Anita Coy-Macken - Principal Policy Analyst – Central

David Shamy - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

13 November 2014

 

 















Waitākere Ranges Local Board

13 November 2014

 

 



Waitākere Ranges Local Board

13 November 2014

 

 















































Waitākere Ranges Local Board

13 November 2014

 

 





Waitākere Ranges Local Board

13 November 2014

 

 






Waitākere Ranges Local Board

13 November 2014

 

 

Waitakere Ranges Local Board feedback on the draft Arts and Culture Strategic Action Plan (ACSAP)

 

File No.: CP2014/25864

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       This report is to enable the Waitakere Ranges Local Board to formally record its feedback to Policy and Planning, Local Boards Services on draft Arts and Culture Strategic Action Plan (ACSAP).

Executive summary

2.       The feedback was submitted to the Policy and Planning, Local Board Services on Friday, 24 October 2014.

 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a)    Endorses the feedback that the local board provided on draft Arts and Culture Strategic Action Plan (ACSAP) on Friday, 24 October 2014, as detailed in the WRLB – Feedback on Arts and Culture Strategic Action Plan attachment.

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

WRLB feedback on draft Arts and Culture Strategic Action Plan

3

     

Signatories

Authors

Tua Viliamu – Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

13 November 2014

 

 

Waitakere Ranges Local Board – Feedback on Arts and Culture Strategic Action Plan

1.   The Waitakere Ranges Local Board welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback on Auckland Councils draft Arts and Culture Strategic Action Plan. 

2.   The board agrees that Arts and Culture plays a pivotal role in our everyday lives and contributes not only to the transformational shifts of the Auckland Plan, but also to one of the Waitakere Ranges Local Board Plan outcomes, ‘Arts and Culture flourish, with Titirangi as the vibrant arts hub for the west’. The west has a tradition of incorporating art into public infrastructure from the beginning of planning rather than attaching it as an afterthought e.g. various bridges, the pavements of Project Twin Streams, libraries and so on.  A recent example is the new toilet/shower block at Piha camping ground.    

3.   The Waitakere Ranges is a unique environment with natural wilderness landscapes, cultural and historic heritage providing artistic inspiration to its communities.  Some famous artists from the west have included Colin McCahon, Don Binney, Dean Buchanan, Ruth Cole, John Edgar, Ann Robinson, Allie Eagle, Neill Miller and many more.

4.   The re-development of Lopdell precinct and Te Uru, Waitakere Contemporary gallery, the new gallery opening in November 2014, is a major asset for Titirangi and the Waitakere Ranges.  It is disappointing that currently the draft Arts and Culture Strategic Action Plan does not mention this new purpose-built facility in any detail, which will be world-class and a place to visit alongside places such as the Auckland Art Gallery and Auckland War Memorial Museum.  In comparison the plan uses relatively minor examples of ‘public’ art like Mt Albert train station window panels where you would not make a special visit to see them.

5.   Goal 1: The board supports the goal ‘All Aucklanders can access and participate in Arts and Culture’.  Our board area includes many outer-lying rural villages which do not have public transport access therefore one of the barriers for some of our communities is access, particularly into the city and other centres. Having the re-development of Lopdell precinct and Te Uru gallery will mean there is a world-class arts facility within our board area to be accessed by our communities and those from afar.  The Waitakere Ranges board area also has other arts and theatre facilities which include the West Coast Gallery at Piha, McCahon House in Titirangi, the Playhouse Theatre in Glen Eden and the Titirangi Theatre. In order to achieve this goal, the implementation phase of the plan needs to detail the specific actions and measures to be put in place and by whom, to address issues such as access, affordability and opportunities for local areas.

6.   Goal 2: The board supports the goal ‘Auckland values and invest in Arts and Culture’. Our board will continue to work with our arts partners and stakeholders to ensure the Lopdell precinct and the other arts, culture and theatre facilities in our board area, enables high-quality arts programme to showcase local and international artists, Māori arts and events. Our board seeks clarity on Council’s role in the delivery and on-going support of these facilities and how they will be working with local boards to achieve this goal. 

7.   Goal 3: The board supports the goal ‘A network of vibrant arts and culture organisations and facilities meets Auckland’s diverse needs’.  It is imperative that organisations work together to build on the network across the region from regional to more localised arts and cultural facilities and programmes.  Getting information out to the people is also important, so the public is aware of what is happening, when and where.  Tapping into social media and digital tools to get that message across should be extended. 

8.   Another opportunity to expand on the network facility is to incorporate spaces such as community leases, venue hire and halls to respond to geographical or demographic gaps, cultural, social and economic needs.

9.   Goal 4: The board supports the goal ‘Auckland’s arts and culture are intrinsic to place making’.  Acknowledged within this goal, the plan encourages partners to work with Council on best-practice approaches to integrating arts and culture into place making.  Our board would assume that local boards would be an integral partner in this process given the connection we have with our unique and distinctive areas, and local communities we represent. It would be a strengthened plan to include more examples of local areas for opportunities to encounter arts and culture than predominantly inner city areas.  Refer earlier comment regarding incorporating arts in projects from the outset. 

10. Goal 5: The board supports the goal ‘Auckland celebrates a unique cultural identity’. The Waitakere Ranges contains some of the most unique and spectacular examples of dense forests, coastal waters, historic and cultural heritage, wild landscapes which makes it different to other parts of the region. This backdrop provides a unique experience for those who live in the area and for those who visit from other areas or countries.  This goal supports our board’s aspirations to continue to foster Māori arts as well as pacific and other cultural arts and events.  Within our board area is the Hoani Waititi marae located in Glen Eden, which we will continue to build strong relationships including arts and events collaboration. 

11. Goal 6: ‘Auckland supports a robust and flourishing creative economy’.  One of our local board outcomes which shares similar aspirations to this goal is ‘sustainable local economic activity is supported’.  The Waitakere Ranges local economy is relatively small with many of our businesses being owner-operated and who work from home.  Some of our initiatives to ensure the success of our businesses include network opportunities to share information, business tools, improved communications such as broadband, exchange of ideas and supporting all creativity and innovation.  The board welcomes further details of how Council, Council Controlled Organisations and key stakeholders will action this goal. 

12. The board is concerned that the plan as currently set out, is not strong enough around the economic value of Arts and Culture.  This aspect needs to be strengthened by making a statement about the benefits Arts and Culture could play on our local communities and economy.  If we can get the balance right there is significant potential to create more jobs, increase investment and stimulate local economies.

13. Lopdell precinct along with our other local arts and culture facilities, will contribute positively to the local and regional economy.  We encourage the Arts and Culture Strategic Action Plan to support local not just regional facilities, to ensure they become a visitor destination which in turn will have a positive effect on other local businesses and economy.  We recommend a report be prepared on the economic benefits of having a cultural area like Lopdell precinct for the local area. 

14. The board recommends that since local boards feedback was not sought in time to influence the final draft Arts and Culture Strategic Action Plan that will be presented to the meeting of the Arts, Culture and Events Committee in October 2014, that the Chair, Arts and Culture Portfolio holder and Community and Cultural Strategy Manager, be delegated authority to make final changes based on local board feedback.


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

13 November 2014

 

 

Waitakere Ranges Local Board submissions to Auckland Transport on the Proposal to install guard rails on Piha Road, the Proposed sealing of existing metal laybys along Piha Road and submission to the Waikumete Cemetery Reserve Management Plan

 

File No.: CP2014/26055

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       This report seeks the board’s endorsement of the Waitakere Ranges Local Board’s submissions to Auckland Transport on the proposal to install guard rails on Piha Road, the proposed sealing of existing metal laybys along Piha Road and Waikumete Cemetery Reserve Management Plan submission.

Executive summary

2.       The Proposal to install guard rails on Piha Road submission was submitted on 30th October 2014.

3.       The Proposed sealing of existing metal laybys along Piha Road submission was submitted on 02 November 2014.

4.       The Waikumete Cemetery Reserve Management Plan submission was submitted on 16 September 2014.

 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a)      Endorses the submissions that the local board provided to Auckland Transport on the Proposal to install guard rails on Piha Road (attachment A), the Proposed sealing of existing metal laybys along Piha Road (attachment B) and the draft Waikumete Cemetery Reserve Management Plan submission (attachment C and D).

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Proposal to install guard rails on Piha Road submission

3

bView

Proposed sealing of existing metal laybys along Piha Road

3

cView

Waikumete Cemetery Reserve Management Plan submission

3

dView

Waikumete Cemetery Reserve Management Plan submission - supporting information

3

     

Signatories

Authors

Tua Viliamu – Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

13 November 2014

 

 

Submission of Waitakere Ranges Local Board

On Proposal to install guard rails on Piha Road

30 October 2014

The Waitakere Ranges Local Board thanks Auckland Transport for the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposal to install guard rails on Piha Road before the lookout as you descend into Piha. The Board does not support the installation of the guard rails for the reasons that follow.

The Board wishes to impress on Auckland Transport the scenic importance of this location.

The view descending Piha Road towards this corner provides the first glimpse of the sea for travellers to Piha. The sea is viewed over the recently acquired parkland, before the traveller reaches the formal structured lookout and the view of Piha beach itself.

The initial view is distinctive for having no built structures in it. Travellers have a clear view over forested parkland to the sea. These views are nationally if not internationally important.

The proposed guard rails will intrude into this view and compromise its naturalness. This is generally to be avoided in the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area. The Heritage Area Act talks about the subservience of built structures to the natural environment and the importance of protecting vistas and viewing points. This can be achieved at this location by not installing guard rails.

The Local Board is aware that Auckland Transport recently agreed to reduce the speed of Piha Road to 50 kph from 170 Piha Road down to Piha. The Local Board supports this and believes this reduction in speed could well obviate the need for crash barriers at this site.

At the very least a trial should be made of the reduced speed to see if this avoids crashes and therefore removes the need for barriers.

The Board has a wider concern about the incremental accumulation of road furniture on Piha Road, and in the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area in general.

In June 2013, the Board received the 5 year Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Monitoring Report. This report said that, with regard to landscape, there had been little change, but that the greatest area of concern was the activities of Auckland Transport.

 

In its Summary of Field Assessment Findings, the report stated:

“The negative changes identified were often the result of infrastructure development either by the council or Auckland Transport.” (page 17)

And, under Strategic Issues for Consideration:

“Recent infrastructure projects have introduced an urban style road corridor design. More awareness is required by council and Auckland Transport of the effects of infrastructure on these landscape values. This may warrant reconsideration of the infrastructure design specifications used in the heritage area.” (page 21)

We are unclear as to how Auckland Transport considered the requirements of the Act in proposing these guard rails, nor what it has done to address the issues raised by the Monitoring Report. We are frustrated that we still have not seen the promised design guidelines for the heritage area, and in the meantime standard road furniture continues to proliferate.

The Local Board  notes the response of the Piha Ratepayers and Residents Association, and its concern that the matter of crashes at this site have been canvassed a few years ago, leading to the installation of crash barriers to the north of the slip road.

The Board wonders whether the installation of this crash barrier bears any relationship to the case being advanced for crash barriers to the south of the slip road.

The R&R also observes that the options of using different materials do not include the wooden-faced crash barriers that were installed a few years ago north of the slip road.

The Local Board notes that there are already three styles of barriers at this location, and is concerned at the impact on visual amenity and coherence of the site from yet another style of road furniture.

We have heard from residents regarding the difficulty the crash barriers will propose for pedestrians. This occurred with the earlier crash barriers. With the purchase of the Byers property as parkland, the regional parks team has gravelled the road leading down to the Gap. This is not intended for vehicles, but it is expected that people living in this locality will use this road to access the Gap on foot, and Piha beyond that, and vice versa. Crash barriers will make walking impossible and will force people to cross the road at a very difficult bend. The Board believes the safety of pedestrians is critical and road furniture should not create risks to people on foot.

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

13 November 2014

 

 

Waitakere Ranges Local Board submission on

Proposed sealing of existing laybys along Piha Road

The Waitakere Ranges Local Board wishes to comment on the proposed sealing of existing laybys along Piha Road.

Auckland Transport proposal contained two sites: one on the left just before Lone Kauri Road coming from town, and the other between the Karekare turnoff and Te Ahuahu Road on the southern side.

The Board wishes to make a general comment, which repeats the comment made on our recent submission on the proposed crash barriers before the lookout on Piha Road.

These proposed road works are occurring in the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area, created by the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008.

It is not clear how, if at all, these proposed works have taken into account the objectives of the Act. The Board would like to know how the Act and its objectives have been considered by Auckland Transport in coming to these proposals.

We are frustrated that over a year ago, AT embarked on design guidelines for the Heritage Area. We have never seen a draft, and in fact there has been silence about the guidelines since early this year. Recently we learned that a draft of the guidelines does exist and stakeholders are being consulted, but not the Local Board!

When the Board commissioned a five-year monitoring report for the Heritage Area, a requirement of the Act, the one adverse impact the report authors highlighted was urban-style developments by AT in the road corridors, and a recommendation was made that AT develop a more sympathetic style of developments within the road corridor. We are frustrated at the lack of action on this.

AT has recently sealed other "laybys" on Piha Road. It is not clear how these were selected and some were informal areas that had developed over the years where WCC had left piles of gravel, or they were entrances to tracks that are no longer in use. In other words they should have been decommissioned, not formalised through AT sealing the areas. In fact, AT has created a risk by sealing these laybys, giving the impression that they have some purpose as slow vehicle bays or entrances, when they are often unsuitable for such purposes and are hazardous for vehicles moving on or off them into fast travelling traffic.

This risk applies to the second of the laybys in this proposal. As far as can be seen from the aerial, this area is one of WCC's old gravel storage places that is no longer used for this purpose. It is certainly not a slow-vehicle bay as identified on the plan. It would actually be dangerous for that purpose as  there is limited visibility and the camber of the road is poor on this bend which has led to accidents in the past where vehicles have failed to take the corner.

It is the Local Board's view that this area should be de-commissioned and if anything replanted to discourage vehicles from pulling off here.

The first pull-off area is where the Piha school bus stops and is called a Slow Vehicle Bay. However, as you know, this road is about to decrease in speed from 70 kph to 50 kph, so it will not longer qualify as a "high speed rural road". The reduction in speed should reduce risks at this location obviating the need to extend the seal in the bay.

Consequently the Local Board sees no need for sealing at these locations and would prefer that AT did not spend its funds on these projects.


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

13 November 2014

 

 

Logo_WTK

16 September 2014

 

Draft Waikumete Cemetery Reserve Management Plan – Waitakere Ranges Local Board submission

The Waitakere Ranges Local Board has a special interest in the Waikumete Cemetery Reserve Management Plan as the cemetery is located within our local board area, and is the distinguishing landmark of our main town centre, Glen Eden. The cemetery is intrinsically associated with the town of Glen Eden both historically and in the present day.

The cemetery is the largest area of open space in the area. It is used as a local reserve by surrounding residents for pursuits such as walking, dog exercise, and the enjoyment of the peace and quiet provided by the natural environment and heritage features of the cemetery. It is also a place for many local residents to visit their loved ones.

The facilities within the cemetery, such as the Chapel of Faith, serve the local community. There are a number of local community groups that do volunteer work or have an interest in the cemetery. 

The cemetery provides a recognisable backdrop to the otherwise urban township as you drive into Glen Eden. The Glen Eden Urban Design Framework (2010, Waitakere City Council) and Glen Eden Town Centre Implementation Plan (2013, Waitakere Ranges Local Board) look to improve the visual and physical links between the cemetery and the township. The pedestrian links between the cemetery, township and adjoining neighbourhood are currently severed by busy roads.

The Glen Eden Heritage Study (2010, Waitakere City Council) provides some historic context of the cemetery within Glen Eden.

The Chair and Deputy Chair of the Waitakere Ranges Local Board were on the advisory group that provided input to the development of the draft Waikumete Cemetery Reserve Management Plan. The Waitakere Ranges Local Board also hosted workshops on the draft plan to provide local board input.


We wish to be heard at the hearing.

This submission lists the range of topics we wish to speak on below, though this may not be an exhaustive list. It does not however go into the detail of our view.

The local board has not yet come to a position on the issues it wishes to address at the hearing, as it had not originally intended to make a submission. When the draft reserve management plan was approved for notification by the Parks Sport and Recreation Committee (10 June 2014), the committee recommended a representative of the Waitakere Ranges Local Board be appointed to the hearing panel. On that basis, the Waitakere Ranges Local Board decided not to make a submission. However, five days before submissions closed, the Hearings Committee came to a different decision on the make-up of the hearing panel. As the Waitakere Ranges Local Board is not represented on the hearing panel we are instead making a submission.

Objectives, policies and discussion points the local board wishes to comment on (including Part 1 and Part 2)

1.1 Cemetery operations

1.1.1   Services and management. Objective and policies to improve funeral service facilities so as to increase the nature and quality of on-site funeral services, and to improve accuracy of historical records.

1.1.2   Burial capacity and cemetery expansion. Objective and policies to extend the operational timeframe of the cemetery; retain the most important of the SEAs, develop in a way that enhances landscape and character.

1.1.3   Burial methods. Objectives and policies to provide a range of burial methods.

1.1.4   Infrastructure – vehicle entrances

1.1.5   Maintenance – historic cemetery

1.1.6   Design Guidelines, including entrances, interpretation, and signage  

1.2    Vegetation management

1.3    Heritage values

1.4    Community use

1.4.1   Stakeholder groups. Objectives and policies to encourage community participation in care and use of the cemetery by engaging with community and volunteer groups.

1.4.2   Recreation and events. Objectives and policies to develop the reserve for passive recreation and events that are respectful of the special qualities of commemoration and tranquillity.

1.4.3   Safety and security

 

Contact for service:

Brett Lane, Senior Local Board Advisor – Waitakere Ranges, Local Board Services, Waitakere Ranges Local Board Office, Auckland Council, 39 Glenmall Place, Glen Eden.  Brett.Lane@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Sharon Davies, Local Board PA / Liaison Officer – Waitakere Ranges
Tel: 09 813 9150, Sharon.Davies@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

13 November 2014

 

 








Waitākere Ranges Local Board

13 November 2014

 

 

Chairperson’s Report

 

File No.: CP2014/25773

 

  

 

1.       With the Local Board Plan completed, the Board presented our top priorities to the Governing Body. Struck down with a bug that involves uncontrollable coughing fits, I was unable to attend so the Board’s Deputy-Chair, Denise Yates, stepped in and, supported by other board members, presented the board’s “case”.

2.       We will now have to wait until the Governing Body unveils its Long-Term Plan in a month or so to see whether we were successful in swaying the councillors. Our big wish is to see funding for improvements to the town centre of Glen Eden, to define clearer links between the train station and Glen Mall, and to create some outdoor public spaces that will invite residents to better enjoy their town centre.

3.       In the meantime, we have supported the Glen Eden BID in a Tidy Town clean-up on Sunday 2 November, when board members will turn up equipped with scrubbing brushes and elbow grease.

4.       With one year into our three-year term, the Board took itself off for a weekend “retreat” to consider what we had achieved and what we still wanted to get done. Our destination was Craw Homestead on the Anawhata Road, one of a suite of Bach Escapes available for hire at reasonable cost on regional parks. It was a freezing weekend and we feared we would only need every woolly sock and feather duvet we could take, the bach being solar powered, with no power sockets and gas for cooking. Instead there was a magnificently effective gas heater and we put in many hours of work before eating large piles of food and sleeping soundly while the wind whistled outside. We thank the park rangers for working out that three women and three men were going to have trouble fitting in  three bedrooms and adjusting the sleeping arrangement accordingly.

5.       We were impressed to meet three girls from Glendowie College, staying overnight in a single pup tent in the neighbouring campground, while doing the Hillary Trail.

6.       It was a very worthwhile weekend for us. During the week we are so busy that there is little time to reflect and plan, so this was good “time out” for us, and we can recommend the location. With no phone and intermittent cellphone reception, no TV and no shops nearby, we loved Craw homestead and can recommend it to any groups wanting a similar retreat opportunity. In better weather there are some splendid walks over farmland or down to beaches, so there is plenty of scope for clearing the head.

7.       Environment and ecological restoration are important goals for the board, especially weed control. Animal pest control is largely a regional responsibility; that is where the budget sits. Pig control in the Waitakeres is much improved from six or so years ago. Changes in the methodology used to deploy pig hunters in the Ranges has seen much greater success in keeping pig numbers down. There are no goats or deer in the Ranges, but possums and rats take a large toll on our birds and other wildlife, through predation on birds and nests, and competition for food.

8.       Control of these animal pests is a regional responsibility, especially in the 17,000 ha Waitakere Ranges Regional Park, although there are many volunteer efforts, especially by Ark in the Park, and by wonderful volunteers like June Henderson and Linda Graham with their operation Possum Blitz. June sells Timms Traps to members of the public, and demonstrates how they work. The proxceeds go back to the council, and June has distributed literally hundreds of traps and must be single-handedly responsible for the demise of thousands of possums.

9.       The area where the Local Board is wanting to make a mark is in weed control. It is our perception that in the amalgamation of councils, much good work being done by Auckland Regional Council and Waitakere City Council has been lost. Residents tell us they are not always able to source support for weed control they used to get, many of the educational resources have been discontinued, and while the Council has been distracted by the many tasks required through amalgamation, the weeds haven’t waited.

10.     We are concerned at the explosion of weeds, particularly ginger in Titirangi and Laingholm, and climbing asparagus, in the coastal villages, Titirangi, the Manukau Harbour edge, Scenic Drive and the foothills.

11.     Both these weeds are highly shade tolerant, and spread rapidly. They have the potential to suppress successional growth in our forests and over time, destroy our forest.

12.     With its limited funds the Board is trying to do something about this. With the Waitakere branch of Forest and Bird, we are working on a Waitakere’s 15 Worst Weeds poster which will be distributed to all households in the Heritage Area.

13.     We have also commissioned a report on weeds in our area, to be developed by Jack Craw, former biosecurity manager at ARC and then Auckland Council.

14.     We are aware that there are many efforts going on through various parts of council, and many volunteer programmes in the community, but it is unclear whether these efforts are being directed at the locations and weed species which will enable us to achieve the greatest ecological gains. There needs to be greater coordination of efforts, and Jack’s plan will help us identify gaps and where we need to focus our efforts.

15.     The plan should be available by the end of this year and we will invite all those interested to a launch.

16.     In the meantime there is another development that promises to assist greatly with this effort. For some months a group of locals – from Forest and Bird, Friends of Whatipu and the like – has been working on a network of groups and individuals to work together in the heritage area. They had the first inaugural meeting of what they are calling the Waitakere Ranges Conservation Network on the 19th October and it was very well attended.

17.     The steering group was mandated to keep developing the concept. We are hopeful that this group will be able to work as partners with Council. Collectively we have some chance of turning back the tide of pest plant encroachment in the Ranges.

18.     Another highlight of September was the first Going West Readers and Writers Festival to be held under the Waitakere Ranges Local Board. In late 2013, the funding for the festival was devolved from the regional level to the Local Board. The festival was well-attended and a great success. The Board is very pleased with this development.

19.     One of the main roles of the Board is to advocate to other parts of Council for recognition of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act. This Act puts our Local Board in a unique position in the Council, as no other local board has a piece of national legislation sitting over it. This creates obligations on both the Governing Body and the Local Board.

20.     We find it necessary to regularly remind various parts of Council of this fact, and to enquire how they are taking account of the Act in their work, whether this is regulatory, policy of planning. We are currently particularly keen to see the draft design guidelines for the Heritage Area being worked on by Auckland Transport. This was identified by the Local Board some time ago and is seen as a way of avoiding unsympathetic treatment of roadsides and native vegetation, and urban style road corridor treatments.

21.       During the year, the Board was successful in seeing Foothills Design Guidelines in use by the consents team. We have budgeted for a similar design guide for “bush living” areas of the Ranges in this financial year.


 

 

Recommendation

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a)      Receives the Chairperson’s report.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Authors

Tua Viliamu – Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

13 November 2014

 

 

Portfolio update: Member Sandra Coney

 

File No.: CP2014/25774

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       This report provides an opportunity for Member Sandra Coney to give an update with regards to activity within her portfolio areas.

2.       Portfolio holders are responsible for leading policy development in their portfolio area, proposing and developing project concepts, overseeing agreed projects within budgets, being active advocates, accessing and providing information and advice.

3.       Member Coney has lead for the portfolios of Historic Heritage/Character and Parks area.

Executive Summary                                                              

Heritage and WW1

4.       Libraries are really taking a lead in commemorating WW1. The west’s main library in Henderson has had several exhibitions, the most recent More than a war: Remembering 1914-1918, which opened on 26 September. This consists of projects carried out by students from Unitec’s Communication Studies, using a number of different media. Students who talked at sessions were clearly moved by what they had found out through doing these projects. Many looked at their own family stories and for these young students it was a journey of discovery and learning.

5.       On 30 September I went to the central library which had organised a seminar about the Anzacs in Palestine, a part of WW1 which does not get a lot of attention. The focus was the Mounted Rifles and one of the speakers clarified what had happened to the thousands of horses that the Mounted Rifles rode. The story many of us have heard is that the soldiers shot them, or another story is they sold them to the Egyptians who did not treat these faithful horses well.

6.       The truth is that the weakest horses were shot and the rest given to the British, who, flooded with horses, sold them to the Egyptians. Scholarship during this centenary period will help correct some of these stories from the past.

7.       WW1 was the theme of this year’s heritage festival. There was a great launch on Friday 26 September in the restored Shed 10, which was a fitting location as it stood on the wharf when the men sailed off in 1914.

8.       I always get a slightly smug feeling of satisfaction when I go to Shed 10 as I was a bit of a lone voice in the ARC when the fate of Shed 10 and Shed 11 was being decided. Shed 10 has scrubbed up enormously well and is a great venue for events for large numbers of people. Mike Lee and Chris Malone spoke very well at the opening about the impact of WW1 on New Zealand.

WP_20140927_010.jpg

NZ Artillery Band giving concert in Shed 10

9.       The next morning there was an official ceremony outside Shed 10, the star of this event being the NZ Artillery Band which was celebrating its 150th anniversary. Penny Hulse spoke for the Council and I was asked to make a short reading. I read Rudyard Kipling’s My Boy Jack, about the loss of his son in WW1. For anyone who does not know this poem, I reprint it below. There is a little bit of context to introduce it.

“It was from this wharf that the first troops left Auckland for the Great War. On 24 September 1914, 2000 troops and 900 horses from the Mounted Rifles, the College Rifles, 16 platoons of infantry, the Army Service Corps and 3 sections of the Field Ambulance Company came onto the ships at this wharf after a send-off at the Domain where the New Zealand Herald cheerfully observed that the colourful costumes and hats of the women looked like all the flowers of spring.

There was a mood of gaiety and celebration.  The men were sent off with great fanfare, crowds lined the streets and pressed onto the wharves. Bands played, people cheered, and the flags on Mt Victoria spelled out “Wish you a pleasant voyage. Goodbye.”

This was how New Zealand’s eager entry into “the war to end all wars” began in Auckland.

Foremost amongst those cheering the boys off were their families – their mothers and fathers, siblings, sweethearts and wives.

But the optimistic predictions of “over by Christmas” were soon replaced by the reality of a long drawn-out war with appalling loss of life.

For thousands of Auckland families, they never saw their loved sons again, and many soldiers simply disappeared or they were never identified but were buried in tombs inscribed “A Soldier of the Great War, Known Unto God.”

Rudyard Kipling wrote that inscription which is used on 180,000 headstones near the battlefields of Europe and the Middle East.

Kipling’s beautiful words arose from his experience as a father of a soldier. His 18 year old son, Jack, became one of “the missing”, disappearing at the Battle on Loos in 1915. Jack was seen limping, then he fell and was not seen again.

Kipling wrote a poem about his loss which can stand for all the parents who lost their sons in the First World War.  It is called “My Boy Jack”

“Have you news of my boy Jack?”
Not this tide.
“When d’you think that he’ll come back?”
Not with this wind blowing, and this tide.

“Has any one else had word of him?”
Not this tide.
For what is sunk will hardly swim,
Not with this wind blowing, and this tide.

“Oh, dear, what comfort can I find?”
None this tide,
Nor any tide,
Except he did not shame his kind —
Not even with that wind blowing, and that tide.

Then hold your head up all the more,
This tide,
And every tide;
Because he was the son you bore,
And gave to that wind blowing and that tide!

WP_20140927_024.jpg

Mock enlistment in Shed 10 during the Heritage Festival. The “officers” said that women were much keener to sign up than men.


 

10.     On Sunday 12 October I attended the ceremony to mark the 97th anniversary of the Battle of Passchendaele at the Auckland Museum.

11.     In the last few weeks I have had meetings with the Consul for the Cook Islands and the Trust organising the Fields of Remembrance, about WW1 commemorations. A second meeting was held with groups in the community, including Red Cross, Waitemata DHB, Auckland Girls’ Grammar School and others.

12.     Turning to WW2 I have been working with the parks’ interpretation staff on interpretation of the site of the WW2 radar station at Piha. This will involve a short film as well as some interpretation on the site, which is on the Hillary Trail. The Board is also talking to the Local Parks Team to see if we can install some interp in the cookhouse at the Piha campground which started life as the radio house for the Piha radar station. 

 

Recommendation

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a)      Receives the portfolio update from Member Sandra Coney.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Signatories

Authors

Tua Viliamu – Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

13 November 2014

 

 

Portfolio update: Member Denise Yates

 

File No.: CP2014/25849

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       This report provides an opportunity for Member Denise Yates to give an update with regards to activity within her portfolio areas.

2.       Portfolio holders are responsible for leading policy development in their portfolio area, proposing and developing project concepts, overseeing agreed projects within budgets, being active advocates, accessing and providing information and advice.

3.       Member Yates has lead for the portfolios of Arts and Culture, Community Facilities, Libraries and Events.

Executive Summary                                                              

 

Events:

 

4.       Since my last report, the Peace Event has been held, as have the various celebrations to mark the opening of Te Uru Waitakere Contemporary Art Gallery.

5.       The Peace event went well, though attendance was small. Highlights included several performances by young people, dance and music included, some great speakers including Sir Bob Harvey, excerpts from the film of the celebrations in Aotea Square a couple of years back, and the release of white Peace doves.

6.       Events at Te Uru commenced with a Dawn Blessing by representatives of Te Kawerau a Maki (who also made some wonderful gifts to the gallery) on the morning of Friday 31 October, followed on the Saturday by the formal opening at 9am, public viewing all day, and functions at 5pm for members of the gallery, and from 7pm onwards a celebration.  The events highlighted what a treasure the new gallery is, with beautiful spaces awaiting a range of artworks, and its amazing contrast yet totally appropriate alignment with the restored Lopdell House next door.

7.       During the month of October I also attended the Community Art and Sculpture Awards and exhibition at Corban Art Estate, and along with about a thousand other people, Board members attended the opening of the new Playground at Parrs Park, the Oratia Beauty.

8.       For our young people there have been a number of Halloween parties and events around our Local Board area, making Halloween a safe time for our kids, and the Board has been pleased to contribute to such occasions.

9.       Plans are well progressed for our Christmas Movies in the Park and for the Kauri Karnival to be held in the new year.  The Kauri Karnival is a new event as I have mentioned previously, and it is shaping up to be a really fun time as well as passing on the message  about our iconic Kauri trees which are under threat from Kauri Dieback disease.

10.     There will be a Christmas Parade in Glen Eden again this year, thanks to the enthusiasm of local people. See you there!


Arts and Culture

 

11.     Projects completed in our area include Te Uru Waitakere Contemporary Gallery, completing the 4 part project of renovating the Treasure House at the back of Lopdell House, building a parking platform opposite it on South Titirangi Road, restoring and seismic strengthening of Lopdell House, and now the completion of Te Uru.

12.     Also completed is the new toilet and ablutions block at Piha, for which the artwork was planned from the outset. “Arts on Sunday” on National Radio reported on this about a year ago and this highlighted how Waitakere Ranges Local Board has continued the Waitakere way of including art in community facilities from the outset of planning, a situation we will fight to retain even though there is such a strong push from Auckland Council to keep rates at the lowest possible level.

13.     Plans to paint a mural in Baker’s Lane in Glen Eden are proceeding. This will have a similar style to the mural further down the mall where photographs have been used to create the artwork.  Also we have a small amount of funds to paint 2 Utility boxes out in the rural areas.  (More will be done in the 2015/15 financial year)

14.     The matter of artists wanting to gift their artwork to the council has come up recently.  While on the surface this seems a great idea, we are finding there are rules around this that make what seemed simple actually somewhat challenging!

15.     Watch for the launch of the Portage Ceramics Award exhibition at Te Uru  -  it will be on until February, so you can go along to see that and have a good look around Te Uru while you are there!

 

Facilities

 

16.     The Ambulance shed at Piha is finally completed. This was built to be high enough to accommodate the “new” ambulance that the First Response team at Piha need to provide all the services required by a community located some distance from a hospital. The Board contributed financially for its construction, and once again what looked like a straightforward project was actually not quite that simple.  No artwork on it yet, but we will see what can be arranged.

17.     Similarly the money the Local Board gave the Waitemata Table Tennis Club at Parrs Park, towards a new facility there has met with delays. We will meet with them in the next few days to see what can be done.

18.     Council has been working on a new Network Plan around facilities, including libraries, and I will attend a planning session on that next month.

 

Recommendation

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a)      Receives the portfolio update from Member Denise Yates.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Authors

Tua Viliamu – Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

13 November 2014

 

 

Portfolio update: Member Neil Henderson

 

File No.: CP2014/26017

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       This report provides an opportunity for Member Neil Henderson to give an update with regards to activity within his portfolio areas.

2.       Portfolio holders are responsible for leading policy development in their portfolio area, proposing and developing project concepts, overseeing agreed projects within budgets, being active advocates, accessing and providing information and advice.

3.       Member Henderson has lead for the portfolios of Waitakere Ranges Heritage area including walkways and Greenways.

Executive Summary

 

Bethells Local Area Plan (LAP) Progress

 

4.       We on the Waitakere Ranges Local Board, through our officers have been working with the Bethells valley community on the preparation of a Local Area Plan. This has been done  over the last three months through  community workshops to identify our long term goals for the area and especially to tease out possible processes whereby Council, the community and iwi could better work together to enhance the exceptional ecology of the area, and protect its beautiful landscapes and unique Maori and European heritage.  We have also touched on ideas around improvements needed to better manage visitors to the area and improve road safety, and some of these improvements are already being investigated including trialling no-stopping lines from the Lake Wainamu car-park to the beach on one side of the road, to leave space for pedestrians, cyclists, cars and emergency vehicles to circulate safely.  Auckland Transport has indicated that pending approval by the Board, the line markings should be in place by November/December.

5.       We have also been discussing possible future uses for the land at Te Henga Road quarry when the quarrying operation stops in 2015.At the Local Board meeting on October 09, Board members resolved the following.

Resolution number WTK/2014/162

MOVED by Member NR Henderson, seconded by Member S Toms:

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a)       Approves the uses recommended in this report for the land to be returned to bush and wetland to provide informal recreation, including viewing points, walking tracks as the basis for developing a draft Reserve Concept Plan for the future Waitakere Quarry open space area.

b)       Approves the development of a draft Reserve Concept Plan for the Waitakere Quarry site at Te Henga Road (Lot 1 DP 193044, Pt Lot 27, Lots 28 and 29 and Pt Lot 32 DP 40739, and Pt Lot 1 DP 31841) based on the future uses approved by the Local Board, and developed with input from the local community through the Te Henga (Bethells Beach) and Waitakere Valley Local Area Plan process.


 

c)       Recommends further investigation into other uses through development of the concept plan, including:

i.       Mountain biking

ii.      Rock climbing

iii.     Dog walking tracks

iv.     Film set

v.     Native plant nursery

vi.            Swimming hole or lake

vii.  Grassed area for play including picnic tables, toilets and a playground area

d)       Notes that the above resolutions are subject to clarification of the availability of funds from the “Waitakere Quarry Aftercare” fund or royalties received by Auckland Council subsequent to amalgamation, that the board considers should be available.

e)       Requests a report back on the issue of continued acceptance of cleanfill at the quarry for a period to supplement the contouring work and provide revenue.

CARRIED

 

6.       Since then we have asked ACPL to work on a report on the potential opportunities/issues around bringing clean fill onto the site as part of the remediation program. We are hoping to get this report in December.  Some of the issues that will come up around this option for clean fill are:

·        The resource consent will be costly and likely will need to go to the Environment Court or be referred straight there. It is also likely that to make it worthwhile the clean fill operation would need to operate for quite a few years. This is obviously something the community will need to feedback on.

·        Contamination in the loads coming in is a major issue and would need very tight management (in terms of testing the loads, inspecting the source sites, providing for areas where loads can be left while they await testing etc) otherwise all the suspect loads in Auckland will head for the quarry and we’ll end up with a contaminated site.

7.       In our resolution we recommend further investigation around the following:

·        Talking to the rock climbers about just which faces they would want available

·        Sourcing some ideas from the Mountain Bike NZ club on mountain bike track design

·        Dog walking tracks – Auckland Council bylaws officers are currently looking at criteria for dog walking in the Quarry area and at this stage, things look promising.

·        Developing Film set opportunities – We are already in possession of a good deal of information around requirements for this and we will need to work with Film Auckland on design.

·        Swimming hole – An issue immediately arises with this in that there may be a requirement to fence it if it is something that is newly created as part of the remediation program.  It is possible that if the swimming whole idea goes through, we   may be able to use the existing lake (pond) with a few modifications?

8.       Back to the wider LAP, we are also looking into identifying parts of Bethels Road where the berm can be made safer for people to walk along, identifying off-road walking linkages, especially in the first place between the Waiti bridge near Lake Wainamu carpark and the beach.

9.       Finally, at the community workshop on Thursday 20 November, we will be reviewing the feedback on the draft Discussion Document that has just been sent out. (Also see attachment 1 to this portfolio update).

10.     This draft Discussion Document brings together the views that have already received support from people during the consultation as well as contributions to these ideas from Council’s project team. The team has particularly focused on feasibility from the Council’s perspective, as we are facing increasing budget constraints at the Local Board level and the last thing we want to do is create expectation from the community that we are then unable to deliver on.  It’s important to note that this is not a list of all the suggestions that have been made to date, nor is it Auckland Council’s or the Local Board’s view of what should be in the LAP.

11.     At the community workshop on Thursday 20 November 7-9 pm Waitakere Primary School, we will review feedback on this document and prioritise actions, looking at how urgent they are and how easy they are to implement, taking into account community buy-in and resources available. We expect that the draft Local Area Plan will be publicly notified around April 2014.

12.     Please send us your feedback to the discussion document by Tuesday 18 November 2014

 

Candia Road slip.

 

13.     As part of the Waitakere Ranges Local Board ongoing focus on invasive weed infestation control, three areas of highly visual roadside weed infestation were identified for follow up action. These areas were the Bush Rd corner of West Coast Rd in Waiatarua, The Waituna Stream, near the historic bridge on Huia Rd, adjacent to Tangiwai reserve and Candia Road.

14.     These weed control projects were undertaken by contractors toward the end of the last financial year and subsequently planted out with natives in July and August. Unfortunately one of the sites, 1/101 Candia Road  suffered a major slip before planting could occur and now planting will need to be put off until the extent of the slip has been assessed and the required remedial work is done by AT.

15.     We received feedback from the public that suggested the slip may have been brought about by the weed removal done just prior to a period of very heavy rainfall and storms experienced throughout the region during this period.  I have discussed this with Parks staff who managed the weed removal contract and I have also followed up with the Auckland Transport engineer responsible for assessing the slip as well as investigating options for repair. The response from Parks is that the weeds removed were shallow rooted and /or ephemeral and there were no large weed trees removed like privet or monkey apple that might have contributed to destabilising the bank there.

16.     The preliminary report on the slip done for Auckland Transport indicates that the slope failure was most likely a combination of a very steep slope (possibly the road was originally constructed on fill in this area) along with relatively weak near surface soils and shallow rooted vegetation, compounded by saturation of the surface soils by recent stormwater run- off from the road.

17.     It is important to note that a similar large  slip  occurred on the same side of Candia Road, in the direction of Henderson Valley Road, just below the Sturges Road turn off  a couple of years ago and  there had been no vegetation removal work done prior to the road edge collapsing.  Similar to the present slip, a steep gully extended right up to the road edge.

18.     It is our understanding that Auckland Transport sees this as a very high priority and is in the process of conducting an in-depth analysis of the site to determine the most effective retention scheme. Until works begin, the present black plastic sheeting will remain to deter further saturation of the slope and any further activity will be monitored in case the slip begins to encroach on the road proper.

 

 

 

Recommendation

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a)      Receives the portfolio update from Member Neil Henderson.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Draft LAP discussion document v4

3

     

Signatories

Authors

Tua Viliamu – Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

13 November 2014

 

 

Local Area Plan for Te Henga (Bethells Beach) and the Waitakere Valley

 

Please send us your feedback by 18 November 2014, so that we can use it at the workshop on 20 November. To return your feedback:

·              send it by email to claire.liousse@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz  (call Claire Liousse on 440 7996 to receive a digital copy of the draft discussion document), or

 

·              fill in your comments and place the document in the feedback box in the office at Waitakere Primary School, or

 

·              send your comments by mail to: Auckland Council, Private Bag 92300, Auckland 1142, Attention: Claire Liousse, North West Planning, Henderson

 

 
Draft Discussion Document

October 2014

Your name and contact details

 
 

 

 

 


Working towards a long term vision

An exceptional, thriving natural environment

A place rich in character, cultural heritage and history

Our lifestyles foster our native ecosystems and our beautiful natural, rural and coastal landscapes

Our remote and inspiring environment nurtures our well-being and creativity

Our community is peaceful, diverse, strong and well-connected

The community, Auckland Council and iwi work productively with each other and with other partners

 

List of abbreviations:

AC                          Auckland Council

AT                           Auckland Transport

ATEED                    Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development

 

Content:

Cultural Heritage                                                                                          page 3

Visitor Management and Parks                                                                  page 5

Community and economic development                                                  page 11

Roads and Walkways                                                                                   page 15

Ecology and Ecosystems                                                                              page 17

 


 

 

Cultural Heritage - Our goals for the area

 

What could we do?

Who may be involved?

How would it happen?

Do you agree?

(Y/N)

 

Priority?

Number 1 (highest) to 5

Your ideas and comments

1.         People know about the history of the place and its cultural landscape

1.1

Locate an information board or kiosk at the beach with interpretation of Maori cultural landscape (e.g. significant pa and kainga sites) and European history of the area (e.g. farming families, flax milling, logging)

See also related proposed action #2.5 in Visitor Management and Parks

Led by AC Local Parks with skilled local people and iwi involved in the design and making

Local Board decision through annual plan

 

 

 

1.2

Document the history of the area: summary for the community web site, historical study, recording of local stories,  recording of old tramline sites

Led by community and iwi.  May require funding support for historical research.

May require Local Board decisions through annual plan or community grants

 

 

 

2.         Wahi tapu, archaeological sites and other taonga are adequately and proactively protected

2.1

Implement a programme of archaeological surveys, site management plans and monitoring for cultural heritage sites, prioritised as part of the monitoring programme underway for the whole of Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area

Led by Heritage Unit of AC in collaboration with iwi and land owners

Desk top review is underway, start of field work in 14/15. Local Board decision through annual plan.  Environmental Initiatives and Heritage funds.

 

 

 

2.3

Map the Maori cultural landscape of the area

Led by iwi, in collaboration with AC and land owners

 

 

Linked with monitoring programme

 

 

 

3.         The Maori and European heritage of the area is interpreted and celebrated

3.1

Celebrate Te Kawerau’s relationship with the area and community with a pou whenua at the beach entrance

Led by iwi, in collaboration with community

May require funding support through Local Board, fundraising or grant

 

 

 

3.2

Celebrate people’s cultural and spiritual connection to nature, raise awareness of the natural cycles in the valley (migrations of eel and fish, movements of birds, bats, insects)

Led by the community in collaboration with iwi

May require funding support through Local Board, fundraising or grant

 

 

 

3.3

Interpret sites of significance to Maori along the Hillary trail

Led by iwi, in collaboration with AC and land owners

To be considered by Regional Parks and DoC

 

 

 

 


 

Visitor Management and Parks - Our goals for the area

 

What could we do?

Who may be involved?

How would it happen?

Do you agree?

(y/n)

 

Priority?

Number 1 (highest) to 5

Your ideas and comments

1.         A wild, remote place, home to a hospitable community

1.1

The area is not actively promoted by the Council or its CCOs as a tourism destination (add a mention on the Regional Parks webpage that “It is a geographically contained area with constrained vehicle access and limited parking capacity” as for Karekare?)

Implemented by AC and ATEED

Advocated and monitored by the Local Board

 

 

 

1.2

Accommodation options in the area are listed on the Hillary trail webpage of Auckland Council.

 

Led by individual businesses on the Hillary trail

Web page already in place, contact Regional Parks

 

 

 

1.3

A campground within the Regional Park providing a low-cost, low impact accommodation option.

Regional and Specialist Parks

Planned in the next 2-5 years, about 1 hour walk from Lake Wainamu

 

 

 

2.         Visitors recognise and respect the unique natural features of the area, and places treasured by the local community and iwi

2.1

Review the dog rules at Te Henga/Bethells Beach to better accommodate wildlife, visitors and dog owners’ needs, and ways to better educate people about the rules

Community consultation through LAP, wildlife management plan for the beach led by Local Parks

Implemented through Dog Access bylaw review

 

 

 

2.2

Increase awareness of “no dogs” rule at Lake Wainamu (Summer Ranger or other paid person at the entrance on busy days?), also at Cascade Kauri Park

Led by AC Regional and Local Parks, supported by local community

Operational plan of Regional and Local Parks

 

 

 

2.3

Review the opportunities in the area for alternative off-leash dog walking places, e.g. the Waitakere Quarry site

Community consultation on quarry use and concept plan

Decision by Local Board

 

 

 

2.4

Increase awareness of “no machinery or pollutants” rule around and within Lake Wainamu to reduce the impact of water sliding and similar recreational activities (Summer Ranger or other paid person at the entrance on busy days?)

Led by AC Regional and Local Parks, supported by community

Operational plan of Regional and Local Parks

 

 

 

2.5

Investigate options for a kiosk, designed to fit the character of the place, to be placed at the beach entrance with essential information on the natural and cultural heritage treasures of the area, dog rules and safety messages, reducing the need for signs as much as possible.  See related proposed action #1.1 in Cultural Heritage

Led by Local Parks.  Local skilled people and iwi involved in the design and making

Local Board decision through annual plan

 

 

 

2.6

Place markers or signage to direct people along the Hillary trail as required, to avoid them getting lost (e.g. around Lake Wainamu)

Regional Parks with input from community and land owners

Operational plan of Regional Parks

 

 

 

2.7

Signage at Waitoru Reserve and other significant areas (e.g. names of the river and streams at bridges)

Regional Parks, Local Parks, AT with design input from community and iwi

Operational plan of Regional Parks, Local Parks and AT

 

 

 

3.         The community contributes to making the area safe and welcoming

3.1

Use a uniquely Te Henga/Bethells Beach design element/theme for public infrastructure.  Skilled people in the community input into the design, and whenever possible contribute to the making of new infrastructure (e.g. structures, signs, seating, play equipment, etc)

See also proposed related action #1.3 in Roads and Walkways

Local skilled people identified, resourced and involved in design

Considered for renewals of existing infrastructure and new infrastructure

 

 

 

3.2

Local residents, Council, Rural Fire Force and Surf Club work together to monitor visitor impact on the area and address issues (annual debrief before/after the summer season?)

Led by Council in collaboration with local stakeholders

Could be put in place for summer

 

 

 

3.3

Enhance water safety facilities: emergency communication equipment, flotation device at Lake Wainamu

Led by community and Surf Club

May require funding support through Local Board

 

 

 

3.4

Investigate opportunities for local contracts for the maintenance of local services (e.g. cleaning and locking of facilities, mowing, weed control, water quality monitoring)

See also related proposed action #5.3 below

Local Parks with input from community

Operational plan of Local Parks and relevant units

 

 

 

4.         Local parks cater for the social and recreational needs of the community, including its children and young people, while remaining low key and maintaining the rural and natural character of the area

4.1

Review the Concept Plan for Te Henga Park, considering options for new planting and a natural playscape catering for different age groups

Concept Plan led by Local Parks or the community

Approval of Concept Plan by Local Board. Funding through annual plan, fundraising or community grants

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.2

Prepare and implement a Reserve Concept Plan for the Waitakere Quarry land, considering:

-               returning the land  to bush and wetland

-               providing for informal recreation, including walking tracks and viewing points

-               investigating other uses, including:

§   mountain biking

§   rock climbing

§   dog walking tracks

§   film set

§   native plant nursery

§   swimming hole or lake

§   grassed area for play including picnic tables, toilets and a playground area

Concept Plan led by Local Parks, with input from the community and other stakeholders

Need clarification on availability of funds.  Possibility of clean-fill operation for a few years to re-contour the site.

 

 

 

5.         Public services are maintained to a high level and are sufficiently flexible to adapt to the fluctuating visitor demand

5.1

Provide a recycling facility linked with the Bethells Café operation

Local Parks  in collaboration with Bethells Café owners

Operational plan of Local Parks

 

 

 

5.2

Provide temporary additional rubbish bins at the beach on busy days

Local Parks 

Operational plan of Local Parks

 

 

 

5.3

Review the operation of the gate and toilet block at the beach to better cater for visitor needs.  Consider employing local people to lock the facilities

Local Parks  in collaboration with community and Bethells Café owners

Operational plan of Local Parks

 

 

 

5.4

Manage vegetation to improve safety in the car parking areas

Local Parks 

Operational plan of Local Parks

 

 

 

5.5

Continue to employ Summer Rangers to manage operational issues at the beach and at Lake Wainamu during the summer holidays and week-ends

Local Parks

Operational plan of Local Parks

 

 

 

5.6

Continue Operation Speedo (Rangers + Police + Emergency services + Surf Club) to improve safety and security in the summer period

AC, NZ Police, Surf Club, Fire Brigade

Already in place

 

 

 

6.         New infrastructure is designed in harmony with this wild and remote environment.  We are cautious about providing new infrastructure to meet increasing visitor demand and will collaborate to monitor impacts and find other solutions

6.1

Make efficient use of existing areas of car-parking (no increase): better signage to alternative parking areas, better design, maintenance and operation of car parking areas, better operation of over-flow parking areas, drop off area.

Regional Parks, Local Parks and AT

Operational plan of Local Parks, Regional Parks, AT

 

 

 

6.2

Implement a package of measures to manage peak visitor demand:

-               Provide temporary traffic management services on busy days around the Lake Wainamu parking area (Summer Ranger or another paid person?)

-               Encourage visitors to turn away when the car parks are full on busy days:  temporary signs at the intersections of Scenic Drive/Te Henga Road, Waitakere Road/Bethells Road or Te Henga Road/Bethells Road. 

-               Investigate a web-based application to inform people of parking conditions.

See also related proposed action #1.1 in Roads and Walkways

Local Parks, Summer Rangers, Fire Brigade, AT

Operational plan of Local Parks, Regional Parks and AT

 

 

 


 


 

Community and economic development  - Our goals for the area

 

What could we do?

Who may be involved?

How would it happen?

Do you agree?

 

 

Priority?

Number 1 (highest) to 5

Your ideas and comments

1.         A hub of low key economic activity, that includes small local businesses, farming, food production, filming, arts and creative industries

1.1

Continue to enable low key economic activities in the Unitary Plan while controlling their effects on the environment.

 

Auckland Council (as consent authority)

Rules in the Unitary Plan

 

 

 

1.2

Promote sustainable farming and food production practices, develop the market for local produce

(See also related proposed action #2.1 in Ecology and Ecosystems)

 

Local land-based businesses

May attract Local Board support through annual plan or community grant

 

 

 

1.3

Help showcase the creative talent of local artists and grow the market for local art work. Reinstate Open Art Studio events. Community Day pop-up gallery.

 

Led by local artists, AC Art and Events teams

Local Board support for events through annual plan

 

 

 

1.4

Support managed access to filming locations in the area

Auckland Council (as consent authority)

Rules in the Unitary Plan and Regional Parks Management Plan, wildlife management plan at the beach

 

 

 

1.5

Support small scale renewable energy generation

Auckland Council (as consent authority)

Rules in the Unitary Plan

 

 

 

 

 

1.6

Promote business networking, with a list of local businesses on the community website and access to local business support services and business advice

Led by the community and businesses

Web site development under way, information on business support services from AC/ATEED

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.         Well connected area with adequate telecommunication and transport infrastructure

2.1

Advocate for fibre optic cable extension to the Tasman View Rd cabinet for improved broadband services

Led by the community, with support from Local Board and AC

Advocacy, possibly fund raising

 

 

 

2.2

Advocate for community consultation to be undertaken across the area for any proposal to install new cellular/wireless network infrastructure

Led by the community, with support from Local Board

Advocacy, rules in Unitary Plan

 

 

 

2.3

Advocate for improved park and ride facilities at Swanson Station

 

Led by Local Board

New park and ride planned for construction in 14/15

 

 

 

2.4

Promote car-pooling.  Advocate for dedicated car-pooling spaces at the park and ride at Swanson Station

Led by the community and Local Board

Use website to facilitate car-pooling. Advocacy to Auckland Transport

 

 

 

2.5

Advocate for continued bus service between Waitakere Station and Swanson Station

 

Led by Local Board

Advocacy to Auckland Transport

 

 

 

2.6

Advocate to maintain capability of Swanson/Waitakere rail line for potential future reinstatement of service

Led by Local Board

Advocacy to Auckland Transport

 

 

 

2.7

Investigate support for residents’ use of school buses for transport between Te Henga (Bethells Beach) and Waitakere/Swanson in morning and afternoon.  Advocate if appropriate.

Led by the community with support from Local Board

Advocacy to Auckland Transport and Ministry of Education

 

 

 

2.8

Explore options for a community-based shuttle service for residents and visitors between Bethells Beach and Swanson station.

 

 

Led by the community with support from Local Board

Requires a business case before the scheme is considered by AT for funding support

 

 

 

3.         A community with tools to communicate and network effectively across the area and engage with its youth and children

3.1

Foster a thriving community by strengthening leadership, skills and capacity; enabling resident and community led action.

 

Led by the community, with support from AC Community Development if required

Capacity building, community grants if required for projects

 

 

 

3.2

Maintain a community web-site with access to information of relevance to the community

 

Led by the community

Website already in preparation

 

 

 

3.3

Maintain a community social media site for sharing information, trading goods, discussing local issues

Led by the community

Bethells Bongo and Talking Sticks Facebook pages already in place

 

 

 

3.4

Prepare a Community Response Plan for emergency management

Led by the community, with support from AC Civil Defence

Community Response Plan already in preparation

 

 

 

4.         The community and iwi nurture good relationships and cooperate to exercise kaitiakitanga and stewardship of the area

4.1

Use Community Day, local events and local projects as opportunities to strengthen relationships between the community and iwi.

 

 

 

 

Led by the community and iwi

Facilitated and supported by AC as required

 

 

 

5.         Well-informed and involved community that works productively with the council

5.1

Assess progress in the implementation of the LAP on a regular basis.

 

Led by the Local Board, in collaboration with the community

Annual progress report

 

 

 

5.2

Keep the community web-site up to date with Council information

Led by the community, in collaboration with AC

On-going communications

 

 

 

5.3

Investigate opportunities for increased  collaboration with and support to Waitakere Primary School through Enviro-school programme, Trees for Survival programme, water safety (upgrades of the school pool) 

Led by the community, with support from Local Board

Environmental Services programmes, Facilities Partnership Fund

 

 

 


 

Roads and Walkways  - Our goals for the area

 

What could we do?

Who may be involved?

How would it happen?

Do you agree?

 

 

Priority?

Number 1 (highest) to 5

Your ideas and comments

1.         Our winding and narrow rural roads become safer for vehicles, pedestrian, cyclists and horse riders  

1.1

Parking at Lake Wainamu and Bethells Beach along Bethells Road is managed so that safe vehicle and pedestrian access is maintained at all times.  Trial and assess no-parking lines and temporary traffic management measures in Summer period of 2014/15

See related proposed action #6.3 in the Visitor Management and Parks section.

Local Parks, Summer Rangers, Fire Brigade, AT

Consultation on no-parking lines underway.

Operational plans of Local Parks and AT

 

 

 

1.2

Undertake a safety assessment and report to the community on possible improvements:

-               intersections of side roads (Te Aute Ridge Road (East and West), Long Rd, Falls Rd, Erangi Place) with Bethells Road – ways to improve sightlines or reduce speed/raise awareness along Bethells Rd

-               chevron signs at Miti Point: visual  impact on some people (blinding) at night

-               Weiti Bridge (should the giveway sign be moved to the other side of the bridge?)

-               Sight distances when approaching the bridges near Pae-o-te-rangi

-               double yellow lines (changes required in some portions)

 

Auckland Transport

Request for investigation through the Local Board

 

 

 

1.3

Signs (designed by skilled local residents) placed along the road to acknowledge other road users including pedestrians, horses and cyclists.

Led by the community, in collaboration with Auckland Transport

Funding support through AT or  Local Board Transport fund

 

 

 

1.4

Advocate a reduced speed limit for the whole length of Te Henga Rd and Bethells Rd (70km/h?)

Led by the community

Underway, advocacy to NZTA and Auckland Transport

 

 

 

1.5

Retain vegetation on the sides of the road to create a  sense of enclosure and narrowness and promote low speeds

Auckland Transport and community

Operational plans and contracts

 

 

 

1.6

Investigate improvements required on Te Henga Rd and Bethells Rd to create walkable berms on the roadside.

 

The priority is the creation of a berm between Mosquito Lane and Weiti Bridge (not to be used for parking)

Led by the community with technical support from AT

Working bees, funding support through AT or Local Board Transport fund

 

 

 

1.7

Monitor and remedy portions of Bethells Rd near the wetland where subsidence is creating a safety issue.

Auckland Transport

Road maintenance and safety improvements

 

 

 

2.         We are cautious about providing new infrastructure and will collaborate to find other solutions where possible.  New infrastructure will be designed in harmony with this wild and remote environment

2.1

Undertake community engagement whenever new infrastructure or change to services is planned. 

Auckland Transport

Engagement plans for new projects/services

 

 

 

3.         Off-road tracks create connections across the area

3.1

Investigate opportunities for off-road walkway connections in the valley from Te Aute Ridge to the beach and along the Waitakere River/Te Henga wetland (possibly linked with the route of the old steam hauler/tramline). 

 

As a priority, investigate a walkway from Weiti Bridge to the beach along an unformed paper road and the old Bethells Rd track (would require an additional footbridge) 

Investigation led by the community, with technical support from AC

Working bees, funding support through Annual Plan, incentives to land owners

 

 

 

 

 

Ecology and Ecosystems  - Our goals for the area

 

What could we do?

Who may be involved?

How would it happen?

Do you agree?

 

 

Priority?

Number 1 (highest) to 5

Your ideas and comments

1.         The biodiversity of the area is enhanced.  Its different ecosystems (forests, farmland, river, streams, lake, wetland, dunes and beach), linked by ecological corridors, provide a sanctuary for endangered and rare native wild life. 

1.1

Increase community knowledge of the ecological values of the area, and of tools for ecological management on private land: raise awareness of rare and endangered species, environmental weeds and animal pests, provide information on best practice (through community and other web-sites, workshops, Council and local resource people, Waitakere Primary School)

Skilled local people involved in restoration and agri-ecological practices, AC

Some activities may require funding through Annual Plan process, Environmental Initiatives Fund or community grants

 

 

 

1.2

Continue practical work by landowners and community groups, Council and other agencies, aimed at increasing the viability of existing habitats by increasing the safety (e.g. from predation), health/resilience (e.g. improving habitat structure) and connectivity (e.g. through extending or linking through ecological corridors)

Land owners, community groups, AC, AT, Watercare, DoC

Land owners resources, operational plans of AC, AT, Watercare, agencies

 

 

 

1.3

Continue to support the initiatives of land owners and community groups (such as Waitakere Rivercare, Bethells Beach Care, Habitat Te Henga, Ark in the Park) that enhance the ecology of the area.

AC and other support agencies

Programmes, grants, technical advice

 

 

 

 

1.4

Plan and coordinate restoration activities in the catchment to make them more effective. 

Organise a quarterly/six-monthly/annual? meeting of community groups, land owners, land-based businesses, Auckland Council and CCO’s to assess the progress made, discuss problems and coordinate future work.

Connect to the Waitakere Ranges Conservation Network.

Led by community groups or AC

Underway as part of the LAP process.

 

 

 

1.5

Organise an annual symposium on the ecology of the area to exchange information on current research, monitoring and best practice, bringing together the community, Auckland Council, university researchers, Department of Conservation and other organisations.

Led by community or AC in collaboration with residents, land-based businesses, community groups, universities

May require resourcing through Annual Plan process (venue and facilitation)

 

 

 

1.6

Promote land owners, land-based businesses and community groups monitoring of the ecology of the area, recording ecological restoration activities  (e.g. through Nature Space web-site) and recording observations of species (e.g. through Nature Watch web-site)

 

 

Led by community

Can be done now through existing web-sites

 

 

 

2.         Local farms, orchards and food producing businesses continue to contribute to the rich ecological systems and functional landscapes of the area.

2.1

Promote the sustainable management of the land and landscape in a way that enhances its food-producing and life-sustaining capacity and also its contribution to people’s wellbeing and creativity

See also related proposed action #1.2 in Community and Economic Development

Led by land owners and land-based businesses, in collaboration with AC and other partners

Promote best practice for land management, technical advice by AC and skilled people in the community

 

 

 

2.2

Encourage and support land owners undertaking land management practices that protect or enhance the ecology of the area. 

Led by land owners with support/incentives from AC

AC grants, land management support, covenants, rate rebates? (a policy is being developed by Auckland Council)

 

 

 

 

Principles for weed management:  Weed management within the area’s public spaces will be aligned with the objectives in Auckland Council’s Weed Management Policy for Parks and Open Spaces 2013, which include:

1.             take an integrated approach to weed management and vegetation control

2.             ensure best practice in weed management and vegetation control

3.             minimise agrichemical use

4.             minimise non-target effects of agrichemical use

5.             ensure public health and safety

6.             protect and enhance the environment

7.             empower the community to manage weeds in accordance with the policy

8.             deliver weed management which is value for money

 

 


 

Other ideas for the Local Area Plan, or comments about this discussion document?



[1] The governing body decision of 22 August 2013 (GB/2013/86) included a number of areas that were previously identified as local park areas that are now amalgamated into the Waitakere Ranges Regional Park (areas of regional significance). As such these areas will be excluded from any local board dog access rules and the rules of the Waitakere Regional Park apply. The review of areas of regional significance is scheduled for 2016/2017.

 

[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

[7] Refer to Governing Body Agenda Item12, 22 November 2012 (GB/2012/157)

[8] See Auckland Council Dog Access Rule Change Procedure in referenced documents for complete schedule.