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

 

Date:                      

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Thursday, 19 November 2015

3.30pm

Council Chamber
Henderson Civic Centre
6 Henderson Valley Road
Henderson

 

Henderson-Massey Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Vanessa Neeson, JP

 

Deputy Chairperson

Shane Henderson

 

Members

Brenda Brady, JP

 

 

Peter Chan, JP

 

 

Warren Flaunty, QSM

 

 

Will Flavell

 

 

Tracy Kirkley

 

 

Luke Wilson

 

 

(Quorum 4 members)

 

 

 

Busola Martins

Local Board Democracy Advisor

 

13 November 2015

 

Contact Telephone: (09)  440 7323

Email: busola.martins@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

Glenn Boyd

(Relationship Manager)

Local Board Services (West)

 


 

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

19 November 2015

 

 

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7          Item withdrawn                                                                                                              5

8          Item withdrawn                                                                                                              5

9          Item withdrawn                                                                                                              5

10        Extraordinary Business                                                                                                5

11        Notices of Motion                                                                                                          6

12        Te Atatu Peninsula Community Nursery Project                                                      7

13        Scoping report for local dog access rules review 2015/2016                                 21

14        Summary of 2014/2015 Environmental Work Programme delivery                       41

15        Quarterly Performance report-Sept 2015                                                                 79

16        Annual Plan 2016/2017                                                                                              121

17        Correction to 20 August 2015 agenda report information - Te Atatu Pony Club lease options Harbourview-Orangihina                                                                            173  

18        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

19        Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public                                                               175

C1       Special Housing Areas: Tranche 9                                                                          175  

 


1          Welcome

 

2          Apologies

 

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

 

3          Declaration of Interest

 

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

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.

 

The following are declared interests of the members of the Henderson-Massey local board as at 5 November 2015.

           

BOARD MEMBER

ORGANISATION

POSITION

Vanessa Neeson, JP (Chairman)

Ranui Sector Trial

Chair

Shane Henderson (Deputy Chairman)

Waitemata Community Law Centre
Ranui Action Project

Employee
Co-Chairman

Brenda Brady, JP

Safer West Community Trust
District Licensing Committee

Trustee
Member

 Peter Chan, JP

Cantonese Opera Society of NZ
Asian Leaders Forum
NZ-Hong Kong Business Ass.
NZ-China Business Ass.
Auckland Chinese Environment Protection Association (ACEPA)

Member
Member
Member
Member
Advisor

Warren Flaunty, QSM

Westgate Pharmacy
NorSGA Properties
Westgate Pharmacy Ltd
The Trusts Community Foundation Ltd Rodney Local Board
Waitemata District Health Board
Waitakere Licensing Trust
Massey Birdwood Settlers Ass.
Taupaki Residents & Ratepayers Ass.

Contractor
Director
Director
Director
Elected Member
Elected Member
Elected Member
Member
Member

Will Flavell

Rutherford College

Literacy Waitakere Board

Employee

Member

Tracy Kirkley

District Licensing Committee 

Member

Luke Wilson

NZ Police
D.A.R.E. - West

Waitakere Rotary – Board member

Silver Fern Motor Sports - Board

Employee
Member

Board member

Board member

 


 

4          Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 5 November 2015, 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          Item withdrawn

 

8          Item withdrawn

 

9          Item withdrawn

 

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.

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

19 November 2015

 

 

Te Atatu Peninsula Community Nursery Project

 

File No.: CP2015/13785

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To obtain approval for the development and funding of a community nursery at Te Atatu Peninsula Park, and to seek approval by the board to enter into a community lease with Community Waitakere Trust to operate the community nursery on Te Atatu Peninsula park.

Executive Summary

2.       With support of the Community Waitakere Trust it is intended to create a new community nursery at Te Atatu Peninsula Park on an unused piece of the park at rear of the two maintenance sheds (area 350m2).

3.       A current nursery is located at the home of Hone Pene who is working with the Henderson drug court to supervise the community service required of drug court clients. Hone’s home is no longer able to contain the number of plants being produced so a larger area is required.

4.       Development funding of $10,000 is being sought from the Henderson-Massey Local Board to get the nursery infrastructure and operational materials in place for its first year of operation. Approval to enter into a lease for the park for the purpose of operating a community nursery on Te Atatu Peninsula Park is also being sought.

5.       Plants produced will be transferred to a standing out area at Hoani Waititi Marae in Glen Eden when they get big enough.

6.       The plants produced will be made available to community organisations at a reduced cost for various reserve native bush and wetland restoration programmes.

 

Recommendations

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)      Receive the report on the Te Atatu Peninsula Community Nursery project.

b)      Approve the project proposal for the Te Atatu Peninsula Community Nursery.

c)      Delegates to the Manager Local and Sports Parks West the authority to enter into a short term licence, or similar, with Community Waitakere Trust to operate a community nursery on an area of Te Atatu Peninsula Park.  Such licence shall detail the steps needed to reclassify the reserve and to publicly notify a longer term lease.  The licence shall also limit the type of activity/development to ensure occupation of the site can be altered should that be necessary as a result of the lease and reclassification process. 

d)      Approve funding for establishment and a portion of the operational costs of the nursery ($10,000) noting that establishment activity should be able to be changed if needed.  

 

Background

7.       Who and Why

Hone Pene has been working with a range of people within our community to assist in their rehabilitation from drug and alcohol dependencies. This work has been based around propagation and care of native plants at a nursery located at his home in Te Atatu Peninsula. The nursery currently has a capacity of 3,000 plants and has reached maximum capacity.

 

8.       Hone works with approximately 25 individuals per month, mostly men between the age of 35-50 from a range of backgrounds. Some of these people are completing hours that have been handed to them through sentencing from the drug court, while others are taking part through other rehabilitation programmes.

9.       Hone is testament that providing opportunities for engaging in this work can and does make a difference, having once been on the other side of the fence himself. The therapeutic and supportive elements of native plant propagation have played a key role in his life.

10.     Through providing these opportunities Hone hopes to help people through their rehabilitation, while also teaching practical horticulture skills, and providing mentoring and support in a different context.

 

11.       The Project Proposal

Hone’s nursery at his home has reached its capacity, both with plant numbers and participants. Hone is seeking support and funding from the Henderson-Massey Local Board to develop ‘Te Atatu Peninsula Community Nursery at a site in Te Atatu Peninsula Park (Holman Road, Te Atatu Peninsula (see appendix A). The proposed nursery is to be located at the northern end of the park behind the large maintenance shed on an area of 350m2 of reserve not previously used for any recreational or other purpose including an unused storage shed next to the site.

 

12.     This project will allow Hone to increase his capacity for plant production as well as mentoring and support.

13.     The nursery will produce around 10,000 native plants in year one, increasing by 5000 each year of operation to around 20,000 by the end of year three. Exactly how plants are provided to community based initiatives is yet to be determined. All plants propagated will be ecosourced with seed collected from local reserves that still have their original native vegetation.

14.     Seedlings will be propagated onsite with the potential to increase capacity through sourcing seedling trays from Paremoremo Prison in conjunction with Hoani Waititi Marae.

 

15.     Community Waitakere Trust support

Community Waitakere Trust will support Hone through a partnership arrangement. This will allow Hone to utilise Community Waitakere Trust’s legal status as a charitable trust in order to receive funds, and a channel to report social and environmental outcomes. Community Waitakere Trust will also assist in linking Te Atatu Peninsula Community Nursery with other projects and organisations that support this type of mahi (work).

 

16.     Community Waitakere Trust are seeking funding support and will look to phase out over 2-3 years as the nursery becomes self-sufficient through other funding sources and the development of Hone’s own ‘He Tohu Aroha Trust’. The nursery will also have the option of being able to provide some amount of self-funding through plant ‘sales’ once operational.

17.     Te Atatu Peninsula Nursery will initially employ Hone Pene for approximately 20 hours per week, until the operation is self-sustaining. Community Waitakere Trust will be the employer and responsible for Health and Safety and employment matters and will provide a comprehensive operational Health and Safety plan adhering to best practice as part of this project. Hone Pene will manage the nursery and the volunteer programme; Community Waitakere Trust’s role will be to assist in the development and ongoing financial support for the nursery by channeling funding to the operation from its various sponsors.

18.     The number of community based environmental restoration projects will continue to increase, and so too will the demand for eco-sourced native plants. By sourcing these plants from a local initiative that also supports positive change in our communities we hope to gain the best outcomes for the community and environment.

Consideration

19.     Project establishment funding

The nursery area is currently fenced with lockable gates and has a double garage which is in need of repair to bring it up to a reasonable standard as a workplace and storage shed. The two tilting garage doors need to be replaced with roller doors and locks. There is no power fitted and a side door needs to be added to access the garage from the nursery area.

The following items are needed for the community nursery infrastructure in its first year.

Spending priorities – Te Atatu Peninsula Community Nursery

 

Potting Mix

$500

Weed Mat

$900

Turf

$100

H&S Plan

$2,000

Door on shed

$750

Electricity

$2,000

Roller doors

$3,500

Locks

$250

 

 

Total

$10,000

 

20.     The Community Waitakere Trust will continue to actively pursue funding from other sources to ensure that the project is well supported.

Park legal designation and lease viability

21.     The portion of the park where the nursery is to be sited (Lot 89 DP45192) is classified as a Recreation Reserve under the Reserves Act 1977. 

22.     The Te Atatu Peninsula Park Management Plan (2006) is silent on the use of the area of the park behind the maintenance sheds.  The site area is covered with a copse of medium to large trees, many of exotic origin which makes it of no particular use (passive or otherwise) to park users.

23.     The management plan does not anticipate the nursery activity anticipated on the reserve.  A lease would be needed and given this activity is not contemplated in the management plan this lease would be subject public notification (Section 73 (3) of the Reserves Act 1977)

24.     Council’s Community Lease Adviser has also advised that granting of a lease should be on a condition that the portion to be occupied by the community nursery site be reclassified from a recreation reserve to a local purpose (community buildings) as a nursery occupation of this sort is not consistent/appropriate for a recreation reserve.

25.       The public notification leasing process is intended to ensure the Council is being transparent and engaging with the public prior to any longer term/exclusive occupation of public open space.  This helps ensure that Council, in its stewardship of public estate, is always acting in the best interest of the environment and the community and in accordance with the intent for which the land is held.  As such the lease needs to be notified and resolved prior to work starting on site.  However given the readiness of this activity, the existing level of community buy-in and the potential for this activity to be quite “light” on the land it is recommended, in this instance, that a licence to occupy, or similar, be granted that enables this activity to commence.  This licence to occupy would limit the nature of the activity until such time as the lease is resolved which would ensure we have the appropriate security in place should there be a problem through the leasing process. 

Local Board views and implications

26.     The Board supports local environmental initiatives as has stated this in its 2014 Local Board Plan:

The Auckland Plan strongly commits to environmental action and green growth. The way we do this out west is to involve communities in caring for their environment.

“Working alongside community organizations is a key way we work. Community organizations bring knowledge and passion, and connect us with local volunteers.”

The output of the community nursery will also benefit the Harbourview-Orangihina Reserve by producing eco-sourced native plants for restoring plant and animal habitats in the reserve. The nursery will work closely with other volunteer organizations such as Royal Forest and Bird to aim for the best possible outcome for ecological restoration in Te Atatu Peninsula and other areas in the Henderson-Massey Local Board area.

Māori impact statement

27.     Te Kawerau a Maki (Mana Whenua) and other Iwi groups have been consulted and have raised no objection to the project proposal. Support for the project has been expressed by Shane White of Hoani Waititi Marae Trust (see Appendix for all letters of support).

Implementation

28.     The community nursery will be managed and maintained by its volunteers. No maintenance will be carried out by Council. Hone Pene with Community Waitakere Trust (as the umbrella trust for this project) will oversee the implementation of improvement works at the nursery site and will manage all aspects of its ongoing work and the health and safety of volunteers in attendance. The goal is to make the nursery as self-sustainable through the wise management of physical and financial resources so that it becomes as independent as possible.

29.     Development of the nursery will be guided by Council through a memorandum of understanding, ensuring that all development and operational works are overseen and approved by Local and Sports Parks West.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Letter of support - Shane White Hoani Waititi Marae Trust

13

bView

Letter of support - Judge Lisa Tremewan

15

cView

Letter of support - Iris Donaghue, Whau Coastal Walkway Trust

17

dView

Letter of support - Gilbert Brakey, Whau River Catchment Trust

19

eView

Te Atatu Peninsula Park Community Nursery location

21

      

Signatories

Authors

Huw Hill-Male - Volunteer and Biodiversity Coordinator

Authorisers

Jane Aickin - Manager Local and Sports Parks Central

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

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

19 November 2015

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

19 November 2015

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

19 November 2015

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

19 November 2015

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

19 November 2015

 

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

19 November 2015

 

 

Scoping report for local dog access rules review 2015/2016

 

File No.: CP2015/23080

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To determine the timing and scope of the Henderson-Massey Local Board review of local dog access rules in 2015/16.

Executive Summary

2.       In 2012, Auckland Council’s Governing Body made the Dog Management Bylaw and the Policy on Dogs. The governing body delegated the review of the dog access rules on local parks, beach and foreshore areas, to local boards.

3.       The governing body delegation requires local boards to review their beach and foreshore dog access rules. The local board has full discretion on whether to review other local dog access rules, including those on local parks.

4.       The governing body has established a standard process to assist local boards with the review. The current review process started in September 2015 and is due to end in October 2016.

5.       The local board’s decision on the review scope is the first step in determining what aspects of dog access rules are reviewed and consulted on, in 2016.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)   confirm the review of its local dog access rules in 2015/16

b)   confirm the inclusion of the following additional matters within the scope of the review:

i. review of the generic rules

ii. review of local parks adjacent to beach and foreshore areas

iii. review of high-use parks and parks of concern to local board

iv.            desktop study of all local parks within the local board area to identify practical “under control off a leash” parks

c)   delegate to a member to determine local board engagement initiatives for the review of the local dog access rules in (a) within existing local board budgets, and to be the spokesperson for this project during the pre-consultation period.

 

 

 


Comments

Responsibilities

6.       In 2012, the governing body made the Policy on Dogs, and delegated the review of the dog access rules on local beaches, foreshore and parks to local boards. This includes a requirement to review all local beach and foreshore areas by a date determined by the local board (resolution number GB/2012/157).

7.       Responsibility for areas of regional significance (including regional parks) and Tūpuna Maunga are delegated to the Auckland Council Parks, Sport and Recreation Committee and the Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority respectively. The Regulatory and Bylaws Committee has overall responsibility for the Policy on Dogs 2012 and region-wide dog access rules (e.g. council playgrounds, sports surfaces, roads, car and boat parking areas, cemeteries, campgrounds and holiday parks).

Process and funding

8.       In August and September 2013, local boards were consulted on the level of priority for the local board dog access rule review within their local board areas. As a result of this prioritisation, the Henderson-Massey Local Board is scheduled to commence its review of local dog access rules in 2015, with any changes effective from Labour Weekend 2016.

9.       In order to facilitate the local board’s review of their dog access rules and take advantage of economies of scale, a regionally funded ‘standard process’ has been established. The ‘standard process’ timeline is structured around council’s annual dog registration process which takes place in June each year.

10.     The Dog Control Act 1996 requires all dog owners to be notified of any proposed changes to the dog access rules and to follow special consultative procedure under the Local Government Act 2002 (see Attachment B). Therefore, the standard process for this review consists of the following phases and timeline:

·        summer 2015/16: staff will gather information and community views to inform the development of proposed changes

·        April/May 2016: proposed changes will be adopted by the local board

·        June 2016: proposed changes are notified for consultation to align with the dog registration process

·        August and September 2016: public hearings and deliberations will be held and a final decision is made.

11.     The regional funding provides for the review of beach and foreshore dog access rules, generic public notification initiatives and generic signage to implement decisions. These activities include:

·    desktop research

·    site visits (beach and foreshore areas and high-use parks only)

·    on-line survey of beach and foreshore  areas

·    internal stakeholder engagement with staff from parks, animal management, and biodiversity

·    statutory consultation process (which includes public notification, submission collation,  analysis and associated reporting,  staff support at hearings and deliberations).

12.     Local boards are required to resource:

·    any additional external workshops or engagement not included in the standard process outlined above

·    advertisements, media / social media releases not included in the standard process outlined above

·    the organisation and running of hearings

·    funding of non-standard signage.

13.     Further details of the process and funding are provided in Attachment C.

Existing local board rules

14.     The existing dog access rules in the Henderson-Massey Local Board area consist of both local dog access rules and regional dog access rules.

15.     The regional rules were considered as part of the 2012 review of the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs and apply to all local board areas. The regional rules take precedence over any local dog access rule for common public places such as playgrounds, sports fields, roads, car and boat parking areas, cemeteries, campgrounds and holiday parks.   

16.     Within the Henderson-Massey Local Board area, the following local dog access rules apply:

·        default under control off a leash rule

·        under control on a leash in all beach and foreshore areas; Harbourview-Orangihina walkway and coastal area; and picnic areas

·        prohibited on or within 10 metres of any area that contains fitness apparatus.

 

17.     The full list of dog access rules for the Henderson-Massey Local Board area is included as Attachment A.

Options for the local board to consider

18.     The first decision for the local board is to consider when to commence the review of their local dog access rules, that is, in 2015/2016 or 2016/2017.

19.     If the local board resolves to undertake a review of the local dog access rules in 2015/16, the local board then needs to consider what, if any, rules that relate to local parks will be reviewed (in addition to local beach and foreshore areas which is required).       

Start of review

Option A1: Commence the review of the local dog access rules in 2015/16 as scheduled

20.     This option involves commencing the local dog access review in 2015/16 as currently scheduled. Under the delegations to the local board, the local board must review their beach and foreshore areas.

21.     As part of the beach and foreshore areas review, the local board must consider whether or not the regional time and season standard is appropriate to be applied to each beach and foreshore area and the provision of under control off a leash at all times dog access areas.

22.     The benefits of this option are:

·        allows for the implementation of dog access rules that are in keeping with the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012, community preferences, and wildlife considerations by October 2016 as currently scheduled

·        allows for the consideration of access rules that are simpler to follow and enforce on the ground

·        the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 has created an expectation that the local board will consider whether or not the regional ‘time and season standard’ is appropriate to be applied to the beaches and foreshore areas within their jurisdiction.

 

23.     The disadvantages of this option are:

·        local board resource is required to investigate options or undertake formal special consultative process with hearings in 2015/16

·        additional workload for local board members during the 2016 pre-election period. 

Option A2: Defer the review of the local dog access rules until 2016/17

24.     This option involves deferring the local dog access review until 2016/17. Under this option staff will bring a second report to the local board in 2016/17 to consider what will be included within the scope of the local dog access review.

25.     It is noted that while the local board may defer the review of the local dog access rules, it is required by the delegations to undertake a review of their local dog access rules.

26.     The benefits of this option are:

·        no local board resource required to investigate options or undertake formal special consultative process with hearings in 2015/16

·        no additional workload for local board members  during the 2016 pre-election period. 

 

27.     The disadvantages of this option are:

·        resource required by local boards in 2016/17 may conflict with 2017 local board plan reviews

·        confusing or inappropriate dog access rules remain in effect until October 2017

·        there may be unmet expectations of dog owners that the local board will consider whether the regional ‘time and season standard’ is appropriate to be applied to the beaches and foreshore areas within their jurisdiction from the review of the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012.  

Recommendation

28.     Staff recommend that a review of the local dog access rules commence in 2015/16 as scheduled (Option A1), as it allows for the implementation of dog access rules that are in keeping with the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 which are more practical and simpler to understand by the general public.

29.     Furthermore, the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 has created an expectation that the local board will consider whether or not the regional ‘time and season standard’ is appropriate to be applied to the beaches and foreshore areas within their jurisdiction.

Scope of local dog access review

30.     As discussed above, where the local board resolves to undertake a review, the board must review the local beach and foreshore area rules but the board has the discretion as to whether or not the local board considers any rules that relate to local parks.

Option B1: No review of local parks (status quo)

31.     This option involves only reviewing the beach and foreshore areas with no local park rules being considered as part of this review. 

32.     The benefits of this option are:

·        any consultation carried out on the beach and foreshore rules will be simpler with fewer issues for the public to consider

·        any changes or impacts of the changes to the local dog access rules will be limited to the beach and foreshore areas

·        no additional resource required to investigate or assess local parks. 

 

33.     The disadvantages of this option are:

·        retains the general rules relating to picnic and fitness areas that are often confusing and difficult to communicate and enforce

·        does not allow for an integrated approach to be taken between beach and foreshore areas and the adjacent parks and reserves

·        does not allow for a review of high-use parks or areas of potential concern to the local board or the community

·        does not allow for the identification of practical under control off a leash parks within the local board area.

 

Option B2: Targeted review of park rules

34.     Targeted review of park rules includes a review of generic rules on parks (i.e. dog access around picnic areas and fitness apparatus etc.); a review of parks adjacent to beaches and foreshore areas; and a review of all high-use parks and parks with identified concerns.

35.     For the Henderson-Massey Local Board, the generic rules will consider the appropriateness and applicability of the under control on a leash dog access rule near picnic areas and the prohibition of dogs 10 metres from fitness apparatus. These rules are typically difficult to practically define and enforce.

36.     The review of the parks adjacent to beaches ensures an integrated approach to the activities within the coastal environment.

37.     The review of high-use parks and the parks with identified concerns is a targeted review of selected parks to identify conflicting use and the appropriateness of the dog access rules.

38.     The benefits of this option are:

·        allows for an integrated approach to be taken to the review of the dog access rules on the beach and foreshore areas and the adjacent parks and reserves

·        a targeted review of high-use parks and parks with identified issues will limit areas affected by any changes in the dog access rules

·        a targeted review will limit the complexity as compared to a detailed review of all parks (Option B4) 

·        a targeted review allows for resources to be concentrated on areas with the greatest impact on users.

·        removes and replaces confusing rules that are difficult to communicate and enforce

·        will result in generic rules being replaced with site specific rules where appropriate which  will be easier to understand and better provide for public safety and comfort.

 

39.     The disadvantages of this option are:

·        may result in parks adjacent to beach and foreshore areas having different access rules than other local parks

·        may result in high use parks and other local parks having different dog access rules

·        will increase the complexity of the issues considered as part of the review

·        changes to the access rules will affect a number of parks given the general nature of the generic access rule (i.e. picnic and fitness area rules)

·        may be perceived by dog owners as a reduction in dog access in popular or high amenity parks.

 

Option B3: High level review to identify practical ‘under control off a leash’ parks

40.     This option involves a desktop study of all parks to identify the practical under control off leash areas and list them within Schedule 2 of the local dog access rules. The intent behind this option is to be able to provide a list of existing locations where dog owners have the space and access to be able to exercise their dogs under control off-leash. 

41.     This option would allow the local board to consider whether or not the existing default under control off a leash rule is appropriate for the local board area.

42.     The benefits of this option are:

·        identification and listing of “under control off a leash” areas/parks that have characteristics (e.g. size and shape) for undertaking typical under control off a leash activities (e.g. throwing a ball etc.) which will be easier to communicate and understand

·        allow for the consideration of whether or not existing default under control off a leash rule is appropriate for the local board area.

 

43.     The disadvantages of this option are:

·        the inclusion of a number of additional parks within the consultation documents will increase the complexity of the documents

·        it may be perceived by dog owners as (or if the default dog access rule is changed may result in) a reduction in under control off a leash dog access areas

·        is not detailed review of all parks as this option only seeks to identify areas with existing practical under control off a leash areas.

Option B4: Detailed review of all local parks

44.     This option involves a detailed review of all parks (both high and low use) and implements the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012.

45.     This option would involve site visits to all parks with consideration as to what dog access rules are best suited to activities occurring on the park, and a network based approach to the wider provision of dog access.

46.     This option would allow the local board to consider whether or not the existing default under control off a leash rule is appropriate for the local board area.

47.     In contrast to the previous options (B2 and B3) the local board would be required to co-ordinate and fully fund this option.    

48.     The benefits of this option are:

·        allows for a detailed site-specific review of all parks based in  accordance with the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012, community preferences and wildlife considerations

·        allows for an integrated approach to be taken to the review of the dog access rules on all parks and reserves

·        provides greater certainty in all parks and reduces the potential for conflict in these areas

·        removes or replaces confusing rules that are difficult to communicate and enforce.

49.     The disadvantages of this option are:

·        local board will be required to co-ordinate and fund this detailed  review of all parks and reserves which will be resource intensive[1].

·        will increase complexity of the issues to be considered by the local board and the community as part of the consultation on any proposed changes to the dog access rules

·        a detailed review is likely to result in  changes to a larger  number of parks and effect adjacent residents

·        additional local board resources would be used when options B2 and B3 would potentially achieve the same outcome in areas of most interest.

Recommendation

50.     Staff recommend that a review of the local dog access incorporate Options B2 to B3 (i.e. a review of the local dog access to parks adjacent to the beach and foreshore areas, high-use parks, generic rules and practical off a leash areas).

51.     This approach strikes the most appropriate balance between implementing the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012, the complexity and scope of the review and the resource required to undertake that review.   

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

52.     The views of other local boards have not been sought on the scope of this review. During the 2013/14 and 2014/15 reviews, local boards have chosen to review the beach and foreshore areas and adjacent parks, high-use parks, generic rules and dog exercise areas.

53.     Consistency with other local board dog access rules is also factor that the local board may want to take into consideration when determining their specific rules. Staff will provide advice on decisions made by other local boards during the options analysis and deliberations stages of the review.   

Māori impact statement

54.     The views of 23 iwi in relation to dog access were sought as part of hui consulting on a range of bylaws held in October 2013 and in March 2015.

55.     Feedback from the hui related to the ability of iwi to determine dog access on Marae, a focus on control, responsible dog ownership, and ensuring the protection of sensitive ecological areas. The review of areas of protected wildlife is a matter recommended to be included in the review.

Implementation

56.     Staff will work with local board members, engagement advisors and communication advisors to develop a more detailed engagement plan in accordance with the decisions of the local board and existing budgets.

57.     Implementation costs such as updating basic standard signage is expected to be from existing regional budgets.

58.     Potential implementation costs to come from local board budgets include additional research, engagement, public notification initiatives, and any non-standard signage.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Attachment A Henderson Massey Local Board current dog access rules

29

bView

Attachment B Local dog access review decision making framework

33

cView

Attachment C Process and timelines for local dog access review

39

     

Signatories

Authors

Jasmin Kaur - Policy Analyst

Justin Walters - Policy Analyst

Paul Wilson - Team Leader Bylaws

Kimberly Rees - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

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

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

19 November 2015

 

 




Henderson-Massey Local Board

19 November 2015

 

 






Henderson-Massey Local Board

19 November 2015

 

 



Henderson-Massey Local Board

19 November 2015

 

 

Summary of 2014/2015 Environmental Work Programme delivery

 

File No.: CP2015/16424

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To provide the Henderson-Massey Local Board with a summary of outcomes from projects delivered through their 2014/2015 environmental work programme (budget $88,500), by the Infrastructure and Environmental Services Department (I&ES).

Executive Summary

2.       The Henderson-Massey Local Board allocated $88,500 to support the delivery of a local environmental work programme in the financial year 2014/2015.

3.       This work programme consisted of eight projects which were delivered by two community partners, Keep Waitakere Beautiful ($51,500) and EcoMatters Environment Trust ($37,000). A brief summary of outcomes from each project is provided below in Table One.

Table One: Summary of outcomes from environmental work programme for 2014/2015

Keep Waitakere Beautiful Projects - $51,500[2]

Little Sprouts – 740 children and their families were involved in this childhood environmental education project across west Auckland.

Sweet Streets/Sweet Spots – Eight beautification initiatives were undertaken by communities in the board area.

Operation Spring Clean – 16 clean ups were delivered by community groups within the board area. In comparison to the other two western boards, the board had the larger majority of the clean ups occur in their area.

Wars on Weeds – Approximately 15 tonnes of weeds were removed from the board area. The project remains very popular with residents in west Auckland, as the amount of weeds collected was similar to that in previous years.

Ecowise Awards – This annual awards ceremony continues in popularity with a similar number of attendees to previous years. 200 people attended the 14 November 2014 event, which recognises the voluntary work of those in the environment. There were 68 nominations and nine winners.

Reuse Repair Innovation projects – Two workshops were held that were open to residents from across west Auckland: A recycled fabric bunting workshop in Henderson-Massey and a mending/clothing up-cycling workshop in New Lynn.

EcoMatters Environment Trust Projects - $37,000[3]

Sustainable Living Centre – There were a total of 2,539 visitors to the centre and 917 hours were worked by volunteers at the centre. To improve the trusts ability to meet the growing need for people to have access to high quality information and resources about how they can practically make their households, neighbourhoods and lives more sustainable, the centre has undergone a significant refresh.

EcoWest Festival – EcoWest was held in conjunction with Ecofest North, the partner festival to EcoWest running on the north shore and organised by Kaipatiki Trust. 2,500 people attended this month-long festival from 14 March to 12 April 2015.

 

4.       The board also expressed a desire for I&ES to scope the delivery of a kaitiaki project and an environmental action plan. Initial planning for these projects in 2014/2015 has resulted in these being allocated funding for delivery in 2015/2016.

5.       A number of additional environmental projects funded by the board, or with significant local impacts, were delivered by I&ES within the board area in 2014/2015 and their outcomes have also been summarised within this report. These include:

·   Project Twin Streams (the board contributed $677,936.40 and Waitākere Ranges Local Board contributed $466,367.61) Over 19,500 plants were planted, with up to 9,000 volunteers spending 17,000 hours working on restoration

·   Resource Recovery Trial (the board contributed $3,000 and Whau Local Board contributed $7,000) – McLaren Park and Henderson South Community Trust volunteers were able to learn new skills and expertise, such as the ability to upcycle and repair discarded materials.

·   Sustainable Neighbourhoods (funded regionally) – 9.2 tonnes of weeds were removed and 780 native plants planted on private land within the board’s area.

·   Septic Tank Pumpout Programme (the board contributed $41,500 of a total budget of $754,978 shared among Waitākere Ranges and Upper Harbour Local Boards) – 55 properties in the Henderson-Massey Local Board area received septic tank pumpouts in the 2014/15 financial year.

6.       This report summarises the activities undertaken and outcomes for each of these projects.

Recommendation

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)      Notes the outcomes achieved through their local environmental programme for the 2014/2015 financial year.

 

Comments

7.       The Henderson-Massey Local Board has identified an aspiration in their Local Board Plan 2014-2017 that ‘we are an eco-city. To give effect to this aspiration the board allocated $88,500 to support the delivery of a local environmental work programme in the 2014/2015 financial year. 

8.       This included $51,500 to Keep Waitakere Beautiful to deliver six projects and $37,000 to EcoMatters Environment Trust to deliver two projects.

9.       The I&ES department also delivered a number of other projects funded through board budgets including Project Twin Streams, a resource recovery trial and the septic tank pump out programme during 2014/2015. Council also supported sustainable neighbourhoods groups to engage in local restoration activities through regional budgets.

10.     The activities undertaken and outcomes for each of these projects are summarised below.

Keep Waitakere Beautiful Projects – Budget $51,500[4]

11.     The board allocated $51,500 to Keep Waitakere Beautiful to deliver a suite of projects in the 2014/2015 financial year. The key outcomes of these projects are highlighted below. A more comprehensive summary is provided in attachment A.

Little Sprouts

12.     This programme provides environmental education to not-for-profit early-childhood education centres. Children, teachers and their families learn hands on skills including waste minimisation, composting and growing and preparing food.

13.     The programme is delivered across the three western boards, and his year 740 children and their families were involved with Little Sprouts projects across west Auckland.

14.     The following kindergartens in the Henderson-Massey Board area participated in the programme.

·    Te Atatu Village Kindergarten

·    New Ranui Playcentre

·    Massey Playcentre

·    West Harbour Playcentre

·    St Paul's Kindergarten

·    Redhills Community Kindergarten

Sweet Streets and Sweet Spots

15.     This is a community street-pride campaign delivered to help residents clean up and beautify their streets.

16.     This year eight clean up initiatives were undertaken by communities in the board area.

17.     Activities included support for the Sustainable Neighbourhoods Divich Reserve group who, in cleaning up the creek and bushland around Divich Reserve, found a boot load of stolen property they were able to return to the rightful owner.

18.     Over a hundred volunteers, also engaged in a project to give Ranui a facelift with the support of the Helping Hands tidy up project.

Operation Spring Clean

19.     This programme encourages schools, service organisations, sports clubs, churches and community groups, businesses and individuals to take an active role in cleaning up our environment, by equipping individuals, groups, schools and businesses with rubber gloves, bags and jumbo bins to clean up their streets, parks, beaches and reserves.

20.     This programme ran in the spring of 2014 and was completed on 12 October 2014.  Across the three western board areas, approximately 5,000 residents actively volunteered and 39 clean ups took place, with 16 delivered in the Henderson-Massey Local Board area.

War on Weeds

21.     The War on Weeds programme was delivered in March 2015 by WeedFree Trust and Keep Waitakere Beautiful.

22.     Bins which residents can use to dispose of weeds are distributed throughout the three western local board areas. In the 2014/2015 financial year, 15 bins of weed were removed from the Henderson-Massey board area, each bin equates to roughly one tonne.

23.     The amount of weeds collected was similar to that in previous years, indicating that the programme is still popular with property owners throughout the west.

Ecowise Awards

24.     These awards celebrate west Auckland residents who show a commitment to actively care for their environment.

25.     The event was held on 14 November 2014 at the Council Chambers in Henderson.  200 people attended; there were 68 nominations and nine winners. 

26.     The event contributes to raising awareness and community pride by acknowledging the hard working people who contribute to the amazing environmental work that happens throughout the year.

Reuse Repair Innovation projects

27.     Two workshops were held that were open to residents from across west Auckland: A recycled fabric bunting workshop in Henderson-Massey and a mending/clothing up-cycling workshop in New Lynn.

EcoMatters Environment Trust Projects – Budget $37,000[5]

28.     The board allocated $37,000 to EcoMatters Environment Trust in the 2014/2015 financial year. This funding was put towards the trust’s Sustainable Living Centre and the EcoWest Festival. Below is a brief summary of project outcomes. A more detailed summary of the outcomes of the sustainable living centre and EcoWest Festival is provided in EcoMatter’s annual report in attachment B.

Sustainable Living Centre

29.     The Sustainable Living Centre is part of the EcoMatters Environment Trust project hub based in New Lynn. The centre is the community ‘coalface’ for dealing with practical household solutions around environmental issues including climate change and sustainable development.

30.     The board contributed $28,000 towards the Sustainable Living Centre in 2014/2015. This was in collaboration with the Whau and Waitākere Ranges Local Boards, who also provide funding to the centre.

31.     A number of initiatives were run from the centre, in particular workshops with a diverse range of topics that focused on sustainable living. The following is data on the amount of visitors and inquiries to Sustainable living centre was collected in 2014-2015:

·   2593 on foot visitors (includes groups, workshops, delegations and individuals)

·   383 phone inquiries;

·   1079 email inquiries;

·   3273 website sessions and 5620 website page-views

32.     A significant outcome in the 2014/2015 financial year was the relocation of the Sustainable Living Centre to where the EcoMatters Ecohouse is situated. The sustainable living centre has had a significant refresh, repaint and re-design as a result of this. The centre is now an “up-cycled” sustainable office space.

EcoWest Festival 2015

33.     EcoWest Festival is a month-long festival of diverse events aimed at creatively engaging people in environmental action and sustainable lifestyles.

34.     This year, EcoWest was held from Saturday 14 March to Sunday 12 April 2015 (over five weekends). Over 40 events hosted by various community groups were delivered across the three western boards.

35.     The total number of participants exceeded 2,500. 

36.     The largest attendances were for EcoDay 2015, Tunes for Trees, Whau Waka Walk, the ‘Sustainable Infrastructure in an Integrated Development’ tour of Hobsonville Point, the New Lynn Night Market, and West Bike and Sports Festival.

37.     The festival continues to deliver great benefits to Auckland, by increasing knowledge and skills for sustainable living, providing an opportunity for new connections to be made, and catalysing new people to get involved with caring for our environment.

Kaitiaki project with Maori

38.     A key objective of the board, as outlined in their Local Board Plan 2014-2017 is to partner with mana whenua as kaitiaki to express kaitiakitanga aspirations through community environmental leadership and programmes.’

39.     To give effect to this objective, a recommendation for a kaitiaki project to be delivered was included in the board’s environmental work programme at the Henderson-Massey Local Board’s business meeting on 21 August 2014. 

40.     A draft pilot concept was workshopped with the board in December 2014 proposing to source plant material from the existing pa harakeke (flax garden) at Opanuku to allow the establishment of three further pa harakeke sites. 

41.     Subsequently staff engaged in further scoping of the project and identified that changes to the initial project scope were needed, such as further sites for the project were identified, which grew the project.

42.     This meant that project delivery did not take place in 2014/2015. Going forward, the board has committed $9,300 to a larger pa harakeke project to be delivered in 2015/2016. Regular updates on this project will be provided to the board’s Maori and Environmental portfolio holders.

Scoping report to guide the development of a Strategic Environmental Action Plan

43.     Another key objective of the board, as outlined in their Local Board Plan 2014-2017, is ‘we will prepare an Environmental Action Plan for our area to help coordinate environmental activities across a diverse range of community, council and government groups.’

44.     To carry out this objective, this project was added to the work programme at the board’s business meeting on 21 August 2014. 

45.     A workshop with the board was held 21 October 2014 to explore opportunities for this project and a key outcome from this workshop was that a budget line entitled ‘Environmental Action Plan’ was included in the board’s locally driven initiatives for 2015/2016.

46.     The board has since approved the allocation of $10,000 on 18 September 2015 towards furthering this Environmental Action Plan.

Project Twin Streams – CAPEX budget $677,936.40[6]

47.     On 19 June 2014 the board approved the allocation of Project Twin Streams (PTS) CAPEX expenditure of $677,936.40 for the 2014/2015 financial year.

48.     PTS is a 10 year long large-scale catchment-based environmental restoration and stormwater management project funded by a legacy Infrastructure Auckland grant.

49.     As a legacy project, PTS is delivered across two local board areas, Henderson-Massey and Waitākere Ranges. Funding is split between the two local boards proportionate to the percentage of stream length within each local board area.

50.     A report was provided to the board on the 15 October 2015 that described the outcomes of 2014/2015 PTS delivery and the upcoming 2015/2016 PTS work programme.

51.     Key highlights of the 2014/2015 programme included:

·   The community planted over 19,500 plants over financial year 2014/2015, and community organisations held more than 1,000 PTS related events and around 9,000 volunteers spent over 17,000 hours working on PTS restoration work throughout the PTS area.

·   PTS was approached by the Morgan Foundation to enter the 2015 Riverprize national competition and was recently selected as one of four 2015 Morgan Foundation New Zealand Riverprize Finalists.

·   PTS worked with Bruce McLaren Intermediate School to develop a school Art Trail that explores the history of the area, its cultural landscape and the importance of the local stream to local identity. The Art Trail includes seven large art pieces on the school property.

·   PTS worked with Henderson South Primary School to develop an entrance way to their school Nature Trail.

·   PTS coordinated with the local boating community to organize the annual Boatie’s Clean Up on the Henderson Creek. Thirty-three bags of rubbish were collected and removed from the Henderson Creek at this event.

Sustainable Neighbourhoods

52.     The Sustainable Neighbourhoods Programme is facilitated by the I&ES department. Although the board did not contribute any funding to the project in the 2014/2015 financial year, the programme has significant local impacts and so is included in this report.

53.     Some key outcomes within the board area are highlighted below:

·    53 households engaged in the programme

·    9.2 tonnes of weeds removed

·    780 native plants planted on private land

·    818 native plants planted on public land

·    44 working bees held

Resource Recovery Trial[7] - Budget $3,000

54.     The Henderson-Massey Local Boards and Whau Local Boards agreed to collaborate together to develop the Resource Recovery Network in west Auckland and provided $3,000 and $7,000 respectively to enable a local community group to participate in a resource recovery trial at the Waitakere Refuse and Recycling Station.

55.     In June 2014, council entered into an agreement with McLaren Park and Henderson South Community Trust (MPHS) to participate in a six month trial.

56.     The trial generated valuable learnings around the benefits and challenges of partnerships between council and community organisations and provided opportunities for MPHS staff and volunteers to develop skills and expertise, in areas such as customer service, repairing and upcycling discarded materials.

57.     In October 2014, MPHS applied to Auckland Council’s Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund and was awarded $50,000 as a contribution towards a further six month trial.

58.     The second stage of the trial, which started in April 2015, provided public access to the resource recovery area for five days a week including the weekend. It is intended that the area will eventually be operated as a Community Recycling Centre within the Waitakere Refuse and Recycling Station.

59.     The second stage of the trial gives MPHS an opportunity to further develop their skills, deliver their vision and values, and gain an understanding of what is required to operate a financially self-sustaining Community Recycling Centre in the future. Council will also gather vital information which can be used to direct the next phase of the Resource Recovery Network project. 

Septic Tank Pumpout Programme[8]- Budget $41,500

60.     A targeted rate is applied to properties within the boundaries of the former Waitakere City Council for the pumpout and cleaning of on-site wastewater treatment systems including:

·        septic tanks

·        long drops

·        grease traps

·        grey water systems

61.     This targeted rate ensures a triennial pump out by council contractors.  High-Tech systems are excluded and are maintained privately.

62.     The pumpout programme is based around improvements to the environment and public health and safety due to a reduction in the amount of emergency overflows through pumpouts.  The community and environmental benefit is fewer failing septic tank systems and reduced contamination of streams, lagoons and beaches in the area.

63.     Over the 2014/15 financial year 4,369 properties within the legacy Waitakere City Council area paid a targeted rate of $181.50 per septic tank system. 

64.     262 properties within the Henderson-Massey Local Board area were rated for the targeted septic tank programme in the 2014/15 financial year.   

65.     55 properties in the Henderson-Massey Local Board area received pumpouts in the 2014/15 financial year.

66.     A summary of outcomes from the septic tank pumpout programme in 2014/2015 can be read in attachment C.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

67.     This report notes the outcomes achieved through the Henderson-Massey Local Board’s local environmental programme for the 2014/2015 financial year.

Māori impact statement

68.     This report provides information on delivered environmental programmes. It is recognised that environmental management has integral links with the mauri of the environments and concepts of kaitiakitanga. The kaitikai project was developed in consultation with Maori and provisions for mana whenua participation and contribution will be integral to this initiative.

Implementation

69.     There are no further implementation issues arising from this report.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

KWB Annual report 2014/2015

49

bView

EcoMatters SLC annual report 2014/2015

71

cView

Septic Tank Pumpout Programme 2014/2015

75

     

Signatories

Authors

Matthew Foster - Relationship Advisor

Authorisers

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

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

19 November 2015

 

 























Henderson-Massey Local Board

19 November 2015

 

 





Henderson-Massey Local Board

19 November 2015

 

 

 

Onsite Wastewater Pumpout Programme Report 2014/2015  

 

12 August 2015

1.                                                                                                                                                                                    

2.                                                                                                                                                                                    

1.    Summary

 

This report summarises activities related to the Onsite Wastewater Pumpout and Inspection programme for the previous financial year, 2014/2015.

 

A targeted rate is applied to properties within the boundaries of the former Waitakere City Council for the pumpout and cleaning of on-site wastewater treatment systems including:

 

·      septic tanks

·      long drops

·      grease traps

·      grey water systems

 

This targeted rate ensures a triennial pump out by council contractors. High-Tech systems are excluded and are maintained privately.

 

The pumpout programme is based around improvements to the environment and public health and safety due to a reduction in the amount of emergency overflows through pumpouts. The community and environmental benefit is fewer failing septic tank systems and reduced contamination of streams, lagoons and beaches in the area.

 

In conjunction with the pumpout programme, Council is working to verify all property data to ensure targeted rates are fairly and accurately struck.

 

 

2.    Background

 

Auckland Council’s stormwater unit manages the contract for the pumping out and cleaning of on-site wastewater treatment systems including septic tanks, long drops, grease traps and grey water systems within the boundaries of the former Waitakere City. High-Tech systems are excluded as they are maintained privately.

 

There are an estimated 4,369 private on-site wastewater treatment systems that need pumping out and cleaning. These are on a triennial cycle for this service and are spread across various local boards, based on the properties paying the rural sewage rate (RUR).

 

Estimated Number of On Site Wastewater                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Treatment Systems              

Local Board Area

Properties paying RUR

Henderson - Massey

262

Upper Harbour

555

Waitakere Ranges

3,548

Whau*

4

Total

4,369

 

*Reports on Whau area are included in the Waitakere Ranges figures.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.    Scheduled Work summary

 

Below is a summary of works that were undertaken by the contractor.

Please note,

 

·      Scheduled Work Order - Planned triennial pump out of properties.

·      Unscheduled Work Order – Work arising from emergency pump outs due to risk of over flow, early pump outs, rescheduled pump outs etc.

·      Incomplete Work Orders e.g.

¨          Septic tank could not be located – owner advised – pump out to be rescheduled.

¨          Could not access property due to weather conditions – pump out to be rescheduled.

¨          Standard septic tank has been upgraded to a Hi-Tech system.

 

Work Groups

Scheduled WO's

Completed

Incomplete

Jul-14

132

112

20

Aug-14

105

89

17

Sep-14

111

97

14

Oct-14

127

96

31

Nov-14

141

96

45

Dec-14

118

101

17

Jan-15

114

97

17

Feb-15

137

124

13

Mar-15

136

131

5

Apr-15

145

132

13

May-15

125

109

16

Jun-15

147

128

19

TOTAL

1538

1312

227

 

 

Work Groups

Unscheduled WO's

Completed

Incomplete

Jul-14

3

3

0

Aug-14

11

11

0

Sep-14

5

5

0

Oct-14

9

9

0

Nov-14

11

11

0

Dec-14

33

23

10

Jan-15

12

11

1

Feb-15

7

7

0

Mar-15

10

10

0

Apr-15

7

6

1

May-15

5

4

1

Jun-15

4

4

0

TOTAL

117

104

13

 

 

Total number of completed pump-outs across the various local board areas are provided in the table below:

 

Number of Tanks

Local Board Area

Scheduled WO's

Unscheduled WO's

Henderson - Massey

50

5

Upper Harbour

222

17

Waitakere Ranges

1,040

82

 

4.    System Updates and Rates adjustments

 

Below is a summary of Target Annual Rates (TAR) and Geospatial (Eview/GIS) adjustments.

 

This information was sourced from:

 

·      Septic Tank Pumpout contractor carrying out scheduled pump outs.

·      Customer feedback generated by Septic Tank Pumpout notification letters.

·      Internal data auditing in relation to the number and type of on-site wastewater treatment systems

 

Targeted Rate adjustments across the various local boards are provided in the table below:

 

Rate Adjustments

Local Board Area

Standard on-site wastewater treatment systems

Removed

    Added                  

Henderson - Massey

5

8

Upper Harbour

14

29

Waitakere Ranges

20

63

TOTAL:

39

100

 

Explanation Note:

·      Standard on-site wastewater treatment systems:

Removed: Standard on-site wastewater treatment systems have been upgraded to a Hi-Tech System.

Added: Standard on-site wastewater treatment systems located on site.

 

 

Number of location adjustments across the various local boards are provided in the table below:

 

Location Adjustments

Local Board Area

Standard on-site wastewater treatment systems

Location Adjustment

Henderson - Massey

43

Upper Harbour

153

Waitakere Ranges

818

TOTAL:

1,014

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.    Finance

 

Following table summarises the financials:

 

Total budget

 

 $  754,978

Total contract spend

 $  590,035

 

Contract retentions*

 $    50,000

 

Contract engineer cost

 $  109,032

 

Misc (brochures, printing etc)

 $      1,168

 

Total spend 2014-15

 $  750,235

 

Surplus (unspent)

 

 $   4,743

 

Note: *Retentions - are rolled over yearly (till end of contract term) and $50,000 for this purpose is included in the yearly total budget.

 

 

 

 

6.    Innovation and Improvement

 

A number of innovation and improvements have been implemented in the management of the programme in 2014/2015. A brief summary is provided below:

 

I.      Admirable improvement of contract management with respect to contract claims, audits, Quality Assurance to ensure that the quality and contractor’s claims are fair and justifiable.

II.     Efficiency gains –

a.     Good management of day works spend.

b.     Ongoing data capture improvement to avoid costs related to aborted contractor site visits.

c.     Weekly auditing covering quality, H&S and environment and also productivity of contractor.

d.     Location updates on GIS – save costs associated with locating tanks on site and aborted calls (eg. 1,014 asset updates this year).

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

19 November 2015

 

 

Quarterly Performance report-Sept 2015

 

File No.: CP2015/22790

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To update the Henderson Massey Local Board members on progress towards their objectives for the year from 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016, as set out in their Local Board Agreement

Executive Summary

2.       The attached performance report consolidation contains the following this quarter

·   Local board financial performance report

·   Local Community Development, Arts and Culture (CDAC) activity overview

·   Local Libraries overview

·   Parks, Sports and recreation overview

·   Infrastructure and Environmental services overview

 

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)      Approves the Performance Report for the Henderson Massey Local Board for the period ended 30 September 2015.

 

Comments

3.       In consultation with local boards this report has been created to give the elected members a comprehensive and common overview of local activities from council departments and CCO’s. Future reports are expected to include additional departmental and CCO reports as these are developed for inclusion and discussion

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

4.       Local board feedback on the performance report for the period ended 30 June 2015 was sought at a workshop on the 5th November 2015.

Māori impact statement

5.       Maori, as stakeholders in the council, are affected and have an interest in any report of the local board financials.  However, this financial performance report does not impact specific outcomes or activities. As such, the content of this report has no particular benefit to, or adverse effect on Maori

Implementation

6.       The next performance report update will be for the quarter ended December 2015 and presented to the local board at the February business meeting.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Performance report for the period ending 30 September 2015

81

     

Signatories

Authors

David Rose - Lead Financial Advisor

Authorisers

Christine Watson - Manager Financial Advisory Services - Local Boards

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

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

19 November 2015

 

 








































Henderson-Massey Local Board

19 November 2015

 

 

Annual Plan 2016/2017

 

File No.: CP2015/23949

 

  

 

 

Purpose

1.       This report requests that the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)   provides formal feedback on regional issues:

i.          the Uniform Annual General Charge (UAGC)

ii.          the Interim Transport Levy (ITL)

iii.         Māori land rates

iv.        a review of rural rates

b)   agrees key advocacy issues

c)   recommends any local targeted rate proposals

d)   recommends any Business Improvement District (BID) targeted rates.

Executive Summary

2.       Legislation governing the Annual Plan process has changed, and there is no longer the requirement to produce a draft Annual Plan.  Instead,  the council will be producing a consultation document which will cover:

a)   any significant or material changes proposed to the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 (LTP)

b)   content relating to local board agreements.

3.       Consultation on the Annual Plan 2016/2017 will take place in February and March of 2016.

4.       This report seeks input from local boards on a range of annual plan related matters including feedback on regional financial policy issues and advocacy issues, and recommendations as to any local targeted rate or BID targeted rate proposals.  These will be considered by the Governing Body prior to finalising consultation topics.

5.       Local board views on these matters will also be considered in discussions between the local boards and the Governing Body on 27 and 30 November, prior to the Mayoral Proposal.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)      provides any views it may have on regional issues (that is, the UAGC, ITL, Māori land rates and rural rates) for the Governing Body to consider.

b)      agrees key advocacy issues.

c)      recommends local targeted rate proposals (if any) for consultation.

d)      recommends BID targeted rates (if any) for consultation.

 


Comments

Regional issues

6.       At its meeting on 28 October, the Finance and Performance Committee considered information and analysis on potentially changing the UAGC, ITL, Māori land rates and rural rates.  It resolved to recommend that the council should consult on all of these issues, as part of the process for developing the Annual Plan 2016/2017. 

7.       A summary of these issues and the Finance and Performance Committee recommendations is provided in Attachment A. The detailed reports, setting out the information and analysis provided to the Finance and Performance Committee, can be found here:

http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2015/10/FIN_20151028_AGN_6098_AT.PDF

8.       Briefing sessions were held for local board members at the beginning of November.  At these briefings local board members were provided with the detailed reports, and information on the implications of changing the UAGC, ITL, Māori land rates and rural rates.

Advocacy issues

9.       The Local Board may also wish to agree any advocacy priorities for discussion with the Governing Body.

Local targeted rate and BID targeted rate proposals

10.     Any new local targeted rates and/or BIDs must be consulted on before they can be implemented. Local boards are required to agree any new proposals for consultation.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

11.     Local Board feedback is being sought in this report. 

12.     Local Boards will also have further opportunities to provide information and views as council continues through the annual plan process.

Māori impact statement

13.     The detailed reports provided to the Finance and Performance Committee have information and analysis on the impacts on Māori regarding proposed financial policies.

14.     Many local board decisions are of importance to and impact on Māori. Local board agreements and the annual plan are important tools that enable and can demonstrate council’s responsiveness to Māori. Local board plans, which were developed in 2014 through engagement with the community including Māori, form the basis of local priorities.There is a need to continue to build relationships between local boards and iwi, and where relevant the wider Māori community. Ongoing conversations will assist local boards and Māori to understand each other’s priorities and issues. This in turn can influence and encourage Māori participation in council’s decision-making processes.

Implementation

15.     Feedback from the local boards will be summarised and provided in full to:

·    inform the Mayoral Proposal process,

·    the Governing Body for consideration at its meeting on 17 December on consultation topics for the Annual Plan 2016/2017.

16.     The Governing Body will adopt Annual Plan consultation material in early February 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Summary of Regional Issues

125

bView

Finance and Performance Committee Report

131

     

Signatories

Authors

Kate Marsh, Financial Planning Manager – Local Boards

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

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

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

19 November 2015

 

 






Henderson-Massey Local Board

19 November 2015

 

 











































Henderson-Massey Local Board

19 November 2015

 

 

Correction to 20 August 2015 agenda report information - Te Atatu Pony Club lease options Harbourview-Orangihina

 

File No.: CP2015/24365

 

  

 

 

Purpose

1.       To correct erroneous and unclear information contained in the 20 August Henderson-Massey Local Board agenda report item ‘Te Atatu Pony Club lease options Harbourview-Orangihina’

Executive Summary

2.       In the comments section of the 20 August agenda report titled ‘Te Atatu Pony Club lease options Harbourview-Orangihina’, paragraph 8 on p. 63 stated “The Harbourview-Orangihina Open Space Management Plan - January 2003 sets out the objectives and policies for the management of the park.  However, this management plan was not formally adopted, and has no legislative or regulatory status.”

3.       Ms Elizabeth Grimmer presented to the board at the public forum section of the 1 October Henderson-Massey Local Board meeting and identified that the Open Space Management Plan was an attachment to the 20 August agenda report and on its cover it states that it was adopted by the City Development Committee in February 2003.

4.          To clarify, The Harbourview-Orangihina Open Space Management Plan was adopted by the then Waitakere City Council’s City Development Committee in February 2003 and was subsequently received by full Council. Following this the land was to be gazetted and classified to become a reserve under the Reserves Act, however, this has not happened and the reserve remains held in fee simple.
 

Recommendation/s

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

a)      Receives the Correction to 20 August 2015 agenda report information - Te Atatu Pony Club lease options Harbourview-Orangihina report

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Authors

Wendy Kjestrup - Local Board Advisor

Authorisers

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

      

 


Henderson-Massey Local Board

19 November 2015

 

 

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

 

That the Henderson-Massey Local Board:

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

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

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

 

C1       Special Housing Areas: Tranche 9

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

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

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

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

In particular, the report contains commercially sensitive information and information that could potentially give certain parties a commercial advantage if released..

s7(2)(c)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information or information from the same source and it is in the public interest that such information should continue to be supplied.

In particular, the report contains commercially sensitive information and information that could potentially give certain parties a commercial advantage if released..

s48(1)(a)

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

 

   



[1] It is expected that a detailed review would take approximately 3 months at 1 FTE per board.  

[2] The Whau ($51,500) and Waitākere Ranges ($51,000) Local Boards also provided funding to Keep Waitākere Beautiful to deliver these same projects.

[3] The Whau and Waitākere Ranges Local Boards also provided funding of $37,000 each to EcoMatters Environment Trust to deliver these same projects.

[4] The Whau ($51,500) and Waitākere Ranges ($51,000) Local Boards also provided funding to Keep Waitākere Beautiful to deliver these same projects.

[5] The Whau and Waitākere Ranges Local Boards also provided funding of $37,000 each to EcoMatters Environment Trust to deliver these same projects.

[6] The board contributed $677,936.40 and Waitākere Ranges Local Board contributed $466,367.61

[7] The board contributed $3,000 and Whau Local Board contributed $7,000 towards this project

[8] The board contributed $41,500 of a total budget of $754,978 shared among Waitākere Ranges ($612,564) and Upper Harbour Local Boards ($100,914)