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

 

Date:                      

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Monday, 11 July 2016

6.00pm

Howick Local Board Meeting Room
Pakuranga Library Complex
7 Aylesbury Street
Pakuranga

 

Howick Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

David Collings

 

Deputy Chairperson

Adele White

 

Members

Garry Boles

 

 

Katrina Bungard

 

 

Jim Donald

 

 

Lucy Schwaner

 

 

John Spiller

 

 

Steve Udy

 

 

Bob Wichman

 

 

(Quorum 5 members)

 

 

 

Lynda Pearson

Local Board Democracy Advisor

 

1 July 2016

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 572 0151

Email: lynda.pearson@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 

 

 


Howick Local Board

11 July 2016

 

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                        PAGE

1          Welcome                                                                                                                         5

2          Apologies                                                                                                                        5

3          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   5

4          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               5

5          Leave of Absence                                                                                                          5

6          Acknowledgements                                                                                                       5

7          Petitions                                                                                                                          5

8          Deputations                                                                                                                    5

9          Public Forum                                                                                                                  5

10        Extraordinary Business                                                                                                5

11        Notices of Motion                                                                                                          6

12        Chair's Report                                                                                                                7

13        Councillor's Update                                                                                                       9

14        Auckland Transport Update – July 2016                                                                   11

15        Cockle Bay Roundabout Landscaping                                                                     93

16        Approval of 2016/2017 local environment and local development work programme  97

17        New Road Name Approvals and Road Name Extension for the residential subdivisions by Hugh Green Limited at 23 and 45 McQuoids Road, Flat Bush and 64 Thomas Road, Flat Bush                                                                                                                            105

18        New Road Name Approval for new private way at 11 – 13 Grassways Avenue, Pakuranga Heights                                                                                                                        113

19        Housing for Older People Partnering Proposal                                                     117

20        Draft 2016 Elected Members’ Expenses Policy                                                      157

21        Urgent Decisions June 2016                                                                                     177

22        Governance Forward Work Calendar                                                                     181

23        Workshop Notes                                                                                                        185  

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

 

4          Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Howick Local Board:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Monday, 13 June 2016, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

 

 

5          Leave of Absence

 

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

 

6          Acknowledgements

 

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

 

7          Petitions

 

At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.

 

8          Deputations

 

Standing Order 3.20 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are required to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications are approved by the Chairperson of the Howick Local 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 for deputations had been received.

 

9          Public Forum

 

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

 

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

 

10        Extraordinary Business

 

Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

 

“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-

 

(a)        The local authority by resolution so decides; and

 

(b)        The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-

 

(i)         The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and

 

(ii)        The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”

 

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

 

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-

 

(a)        That item may be discussed at that meeting if-

 

(i)         That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

 

(ii)        the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

 

(b)        no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”

 

11        Notices of Motion

 

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

 


Howick Local Board

11 July 2016

 

 

Chair's Report

 

File No.: CP2016/14005

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To provide an opportunity for the Chair to update the meeting on projects and issues which the Board has been involved with since the last meeting.

Executive Summary

2.       An opportunity for the Chair to update the meeting on projects, issues, events, and progress the board has made since the last meeting.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a)      Receive the Chair’s verbal report.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.      

Signatories

Authors

Lynda Pearson - Local Board Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Sue O'Gorman - Relationship Manager

 


Howick Local Board

11 July 2016

 

 

Councillor's Update

 

File No.: CP2016/14006

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       An opportunity for the Ward Councillors to update the Board on regional matters of interest.

Executive Summary

2.       A period of time (10 minutes) has been set aside for the Ward Councillors to update the Board on regional matters.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a)      Receive the verbal report.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Signatories

Authors

Lynda Pearson - Local Board Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Sue O'Gorman - Relationship Manager

 


Howick Local Board

11 July 2016

 

 

Auckland Transport Update – July 2016

 

File No.: CP2016/14025

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       Providing an update on transport matters for the information of the Howick Local Board and a register of transport issues in the Howick Local Board area currently being addressed by Auckland Transport’s Elected Member Relationship Manager (South).

Executive summary

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

3.       In particular, this report provides information on:

·    The Howick Local Board’s transport capital fund

·    New Half Moon Bay pier update

·    East Auckland New Network update

·    Response to Howick Local Board June 2016 resolution.

 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a)      receive the report entitled ‘Auckland Transport Update – July 2016’ and the attached issues register from Auckland Transport’s Elected Member Relationship Manager (South).

 

 

 

Discussion

Howick Items

 

A1. Local board transport capital fund (LBTCF)

4.       The Howick Local Board’s funding allocation under the LBTCF is $871,903 per annum.

5.       The Board’s active projects are included in Table 1 below (NB: ROC = rough order of costs; FEC = firm estimate of cost):

Table 1:

ID#

Project Description

Progress/Current Status

009

Walkway and amenity improvements at Half Moon Bay (HMB) Marina

·      Updated FEC of $477,000

·      $27,000 already received from 2011/12 Local Board Discretionary budget

·      Remaining budget of $450,000 approved from LBTCF

·      On 8-Jun-15, the Board approved the project for construction based on a FEC estimate of $422,000, of which $395,000 would come from the LBTCF.

·      On 16-Nov-15, the Board approved the increased allocation of $450,000 from the LBTCF.

·      Construction began at the start of Apr-16.  The contractor expects that all works except the handrails and roadmarking (weather dependent) will be completed by 1-Jul-16.

·      Work still to be completed is roadmarking (close to the waterfront), signage works, kerb painting, asphalt reinstatement along the recently installed drain channel (in front of BBYC), applying graffiti guard coating to seats/benches and minor berm reshaping.

155

Burswood Business Area enhancements

·      Updated firm estimate of $411,770

·      $104,000 received from Council’s Business Area Planning Unit

·      $307,770 balance required from LBTCF

·      On 10-Nov-14, the Board approved the project for construction.

·      Following project tender, on 16-Nov-15, the Board approved an increased allocation of $307,770 from the LBTCF.

·      Construction is complete with only the installation of bins and seats outstanding – which were out of stock and are being manufactured.

·      Final costs still to be reported but forecasted to be slightly over budget at around $314,000.

217

Pigeon Mountain Road metering signals

·      FEC estimate of $418,000

·      On 20-Apr-15, the Board resolved that AT should proceed to complete detailed design and costing.

·      On 12-Oct-15, the Board approved construction based on the firm estimate of $418,000.

·    Construction began near the end of May-16 and is scheduled to be completed by the end of Jul-16 (weather dependent).

272

Bucklands Beach walkway improvements

·      ROCs for various sections (as per July 2015 concept plans)

A-B = $134,000

B-C = $496,000

C-D = $57,000

D-E = $104,000

E-F = $803,000 or $97,000*

F-G = $324,000 or $115,000*

G-H = $97,000

H-I = $224,000

I-J = $152,000

J-K = $93,000

·      Total ROC = either $2,484,000 or $1,569,000 with *alternate options

·      Cost expended to date from LBTCF - $16,313

·      On 14-Jul-14, the Board approved a Little Bucklands Beach walkway project to progress to detailed design and costing stage.

·      On 8-Jun-15, the Board resolved to expand the scope of the project to include pedestrian improvements along the length of The Parade.

·      On 13-Jul-15, concept plans showing the length of The Parade, itemising proposed pedestrian improvements in various sections and ROCs for each section were presented to the Board.

·      The Board resolved to consult with the public and key stakeholders on the strategic vision for the proposed walkway improvements.

·      A public meeting was held on 16-May-16 and public consultation closed on 30-May-16.  The results of consultation were presented at a Board workshop in Jun-16.

396

Half Moon Bay (HMB) new pier project

·      Up to $2.5m originally allocated towards the initial project cost of $4.3m

·      Revised project cost of $5.9m

·      LBTCF contribution $2.1m in total

·      On 13-Oct-14, the Board allocated up to $2.5m towards a new $4.3m ferry facility at HMB.

·      The project scope was further developed to include landside bus infrastructure enhance-ments as well in-scope enhancements to the ferry pier.  The revised total budget for the project is $5.9m.

·      On 13-Jun-16 the total LBTCF contribution of $2.1m required towards the increased project budget of $5.9m was noted by Board resolution.

·      A progress update is included at item A2 below.

 

6.       The Howick Local Board’s transport capital fund to date is summarised below:

Howick Local Board transport capital fund summary:

Total funding available ($871,903 p.a. across 5 FYs – 2012/13 to 2016/17)

$4,359,515

Actual costs reported for completed projects (3x driver feedback signs; Ti Rakau & Cockle Bay bus shelters; Pedestrian improvements at Meadowlands/Whitford/Millhouse; Crooks Road streetscape improvements; The Parade footpath; Highland Park Adshel double bus shelter; Point View Drive footpath; East Tamaki streetlighting upgrade; Chapel Road pedestrian signals)

-1,057,560

Firm estimates for projects given construction approval (Pigeon Mountain Road metering signals; HMB walkway/amenity improvements; Burswood Business Area enhancements)

-1,175,770

LBTCF funding towards Half Moon Bay ferry pier project

-2,100,000

Costs expended to date on Bucklands Beach walkway improvements

-16,313

Remaining funding available

$9,872

 

A2. New Half Moon Bay pier update

7.       Auckland Transport has awarded the project contract to Downer Construction.

8.       The pre-commencement meeting was completed and site inductions are underway.

9.       The physical works contractor established on site on 16 June, with large equipment brought on site over the following week.

10.     Piling work started on the week commencing 20 June.

11.     Ongoing weekly coordination with other local construction works has commenced (Pigeon Mountain Road metering signals and walkway/amenity improvements at Half Moon Bay).

12.     Detailed design for the landside works is progressing towards draft final completion in early July.

13.     Illustrative panels have been identified for inclusion as artwork/cultural reflectance opportunities.

14.     Mana Whenua engagement continues with regard to other cultural narrative opportunities.

15.     The overall project is progressing with completion now scheduled for November 2016 (wharf) and December 2016 (bus turning area).

16.     The remaining high level programme for Half Moon Bay is:

·    Relocation of eight swing moorings by end August 2016

·    Negotiate/award landside physical works package (Separable portion 1) by early August 2016 for completion December 2016

·    Relocation of ferry service – to be confirmed.

 

Large equipment brought on site for new ferry pier construction

 

A3. East Auckland New Network update

17.     Central and East Auckland New Network bus service proposals were publicly consulted on between 1 October and 14 December 2015.

18.     There were 1171 feedback responses in total for East Auckland, all of which were read and considered by Auckland Transport staff and used to inform the development of the final network.

19.     Auckland Transport officers met with the Howick Local Board on 16 June 2016 to discuss the consultation outcomes and draft recommendations that would be reported to the Auckland Transport Board for endorsement.

20.     The Auckland Transport Board considered the Central and East New Network consultation summary and decisions report at its meeting on 27 June 2016 and endorsed the recommendations contained in the report.  The link to the full report is

https://at.govt.nz/media/1855476/item-102-central-and-east-final-new-network-27-june-2016final.pdf

21.     Included at Attachment A is the New Network for East Auckland Consultation and Decisions Report as considered and endorsed by the Auckland Transport Board.

22.     In summary, Auckland Transport initially proposed a total of 15 services as part of the East Auckland New Network.  As a result of feedback, ten services have had their routes changed, eight services have had hours of operation or frequency changed, two services have been removed, as well as two new services added.  This means that the final network will also have 15 services in total.

23.     Pre and post consultation maps are included in the third and fourth last pages of Attachment A, noting those route variations.  For improved readability over the map size able to be included on this agenda, the website link is:

https://at.govt.nz/projects-roadworks/new-public-transport-network/new-network-for-east-auckland/

24.     Included at Attachment B is Auckland Transport’s letter to the Howick Local Board regarding the final decisions for the East Auckland New Network, summarising the changes made as a result of public consultation and responding to the specific points raised by the Board in its submission.

25.     It is intended that the East Auckland New Network will be implemented in late 2017 subject to the tendering process and the provision of essential infrastructure.

26.     New timetables will be published and a comprehensive public information campaign carried out prior to any services changing.

 

A4. Response to Howick Local Board June 2016 resolution

27.     At its 13 June business meeting, under item 14 “Auckland Transport Update – May 2106”, the Howick Local Board passed the following resolution:

Resolution number HW/2016/247

That the Howick Local Board:

a)   Requests that Auckland Transport and Parks officers to meet with Parks portfolio to discuss the proposed walkway through the park on Minerva Terrace.

 

28.     Auckland Transport is working with Local Board Services to schedule a meeting as requested.

 

A5. Consultation documents on proposed improvements

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

30.     Proposed new bus stops and ‘No Stopping At All Times’ (NSAAT) parking restrictions, Thomas Road, Flat Bush – As part of the Donegal Glen Stage 8 residential subdivision, resource consent has been obtained to provide additional bus stops on Thomas Road.  Two bus stops (comprising bus stop markings, signs and concrete bus stop pads) are therefore proposed on Thomas Road near the Genesis Place intersection and, as a result, the installation of NSAAT parking restrictions in the vicinity of the two stops is also proposed to enable safer and more efficient movement of buses, as shown on the plan at Attachment C.

31.     The Howick Local Board has provided feedback in support of the proposal provided there is consultation with local residents.

32.     Proposed NSAAT parking restrictions, Paparoa Road, Howick – As part of the double decker bus enabling works, Auckland Transport has investigated the bus layover stop by the Howick Cemetery Grounds on Paparoa Road, where buses park to wait for the beginning of scheduled services.  In order to allow the larger buses to use the bus stop, the stop needs to be moved away from the line of mature trees, and three angle parks need to be removed in front of the stop to allow the bus to exit the stop without reversing in the event of a car being parked immediately in front of the stop, as shown on the plan at Attachment D.

33.     The Howick Local Board has provided feedback requesting Auckland Transport to look for an alternative layover site and, if successful, to return the current layover site to angle parking.

34.     Proposed reinstatement of bus stops, Harris Road, East Tamaki – Following recent maintenance work on Harris Road, two pre-existing bus stops outside #80 and #91 Harris Road were not reinstated correctly.  Auckland Transport has ascertained that the bus stops were not previously resolved and, as both stops are required for route 353 of the Southern New Network due to be implemented in October 2016, has initiated the process to formally resolve the two stops, as shown on the plan at Attachment E.

General Information Items

 

B1. Public Transport Patronage

35.     The summary patronage performance for May 2016 is presented below:

 

36.     Auckland public transport patronage totalled 82,689,626 passenger boardings for the 12 months to May 2016, an increase of +0.7 % on the 12 months to April 2016 and an increase of 4,075,548 (5.2%) on the 12 months to May 2015.  May 2016 monthly patronage was 7,847,090, an increase of 535,320 boardings or +7.3% on May 2015, normalised to ~ +4.9% once adjustments are made to take into account special event patronage and the number of business and weekend days in the month.

37.     Rapid and Frequent services totalled 30,867,547 passenger boardings for the 12 months to May 2016, an increase of +0.4% on the 12 months to April 2016.  Rapid and Frequent services patronage for May 2016 was 3,047,344, an increase of 361,541 boardings or +13.5% on May 2015.

38.     Train services totalled 16,567,326 passenger boardings for the 12 months to May 2016, an increase of +2.0% on the 12 months to April 2016 and +21.0% on the 12 months to May 2015.  Patronage for May 2016 was 1,673,676, an increase of 329,414 boardings or +24.5% on May 2015, normalised to ~ +21.7%.

39.     Bus services totalled 60,280,340 passenger boardings for the 12 months to May 2016, an increase of +0.3% on the 12 months to April 2016 and +1.4% on the 12 months to May 2015.  Bus services patronage for May 2016 was 5,700,170, an increase of 165,062 boardings or +3.0% on May 2016, normalised to ~ 0.5%.

40.     Ferry services totalled 5,841,960 passenger boardings for the 12 months to May 2016, an increase of +0.7% on the 12 months to April 2016 and +6.4% on the 12 months to May 2016.  Ferry services patronage for May 2016 was 473,244, an increase of 40,844 boardings or +9.4% on May 2015, normalised to ~ +8.9%.

41.     The proportion of all trips utilising AT HOP was 77.8% in May 2016 (Bus 80.4%, Rail 81.6%, Ferry 31.8%); up from 74.2% in April 2016.

Media Items

 

C1. The build is on for the City Rail Link

42.     On 2 June, Auckland’s top transport priority took a major step forward with the ground-breaking ceremony for the City Rail Link (CRL).  Mayor Len Brown, Auckland Transport chairman Dr Lester Levy, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport officially marked the start of the construction.

43.     When completed the $2.5 billion project will mean more frequent trains across the network and more direct services to the city centre.  Auckland Transport will be able to grow the present rail network to reach an average better than one train every 10 minutes at peak for most stations.  CRL will almost double the number of people on the trains to 30,000 an hour at peak times.

44.     CRL also has transport benefits for large parts of Auckland, including road users, by making public transport a better travel choice that will ease pressure on roads for those who need to use them.

45.     During the past decade, rail patronage has increased from three million trips a year to 16 million but further growth of the rail system, including increases to train frequency, is constrained by its dead end at Britomart, which limits the entire network’s capacity.  The CRL will join up the rail network, allowing trains to run both ways through Britomart doubling the number of trains.

46.     Key CRL facts include:

·    The CRL will use twin 3.4 kilometre long tunnels up to 42 metres below the city streets.  It is estimated to take five and a half years to build at a cost of $2.5 billion when inflated to 2024 costs

·    Two new underground stations at Aotea (11 metres deep) and Karangahape Rd (33 metres) and a re-developed Mount Eden Station

·    Cut and cover construction along Albert Street and at Eden Terrace

·    Most of the twin 3.4 kilometre long tunnels will be built with a 7.5 metre diameter tunnel boring machine (about half the size of the one used at Waterview)

·    About one million cubic metres of spoil – more than Waterview because of station excavations

·    88 subterranean properties affected by tunnels.

47.     Benefits of CRL to the Auckland economy include:

·    A successful Auckland is pivotal to New Zealand’s future economic development, with GDP per capita 30-50% higher than other parts of the country.  Auckland provides about a third of New Zealand’s GDP

·    Improved accessibility, particularly to the city centre is the key to Auckland’s economic growth. By 2041, the city centre will account for 30% of the region’s GDP

·    Transport is critical to shape urban form and lead economic development.  Cities with efficient transport systems are more productive than dispersed places.  Significant economic gains can be made from transport investment that improves access for people into areas of high employment density

·    Cities form and people choose to work in them because they are more productive due to scale and proximity.  The availability of a skilled and educated workforce attracts high value-added businesses

·    There are a number of economic benefits from businesses and a skilled workforce being close together in city centres.  These agglomeration benefits drive higher productivity and wages, making successful city centres increasingly important to a country’s economy

·    Auckland is New Zealand’s commercial capital; home to more than 60% of the top 200 companies.  Auckland accounts for over 34% of NZ jobs, most in the urban areas, while Wellington, Hamilton and Tauranga combined, account for 13% of jobs

·    The city centre is the hub of Auckland’s economy with 1 in 6 employees working there and up to 16,000 employees/km2.  City centre workers earn 27% more than the average for Auckland

·    Major construction projects, such as the CRL, usually create increased economic benefits by employing people and spending with local businesses.

48.     For full details on the CRL see: https://at.govt.nz/projects-roadworks/city-rail-link/

 

Auckland Transport chairman Dr Lester Levy, Mayor Len Brown, Prime Minister John Key and

Transport Minister Simon Bridges mark the beginning of construction on the CRL

 

C2. SuperGold switch to AT HOP

49.     Auckland Transport is pleased with the way SuperGold cardholders have responded to the need to switch to AT HOP cards for their public transport concession.

50.     Auckland Transport has distributed more than 50,000 information packs and its Metro Customer Experience Manager, Peter Paton, said tens of thousands of SuperGold cardholders had responded positively and quickly to a campaign designed to help them make the switch to AT HOP cards.

51.     Most SuperGold cardholders who use public transport have already purchased an AT HOP card with a SuperGold concession loaded and Auckland Transport will continue to help the remainder to do so.

52.     An estimated 90,000 SuperGold cardholders use public transport in Auckland and as at 27 June, 71,428 people already had AT HOP cards with SuperGold concessions loaded and another 14,477 had begun the process.

53.     Following a 2015 Ministry of Transport review of the SuperGold card public transport scheme, SuperGold cardholders will be required to use smartcards where available, such as the AT HOP card in Auckland.  SuperGold cardholders need to buy an AT HOP card and load a SuperGold concession to enjoy the SuperGold public transport concession in Auckland from 1 July 2016.

54.     The AT HOP card costs $10 and a $5 credit must be loaded onto the card at the same time for a total one-off cost of $15.  The $10 card cost is non-refundable.

55.     All SuperGold cardholders in Auckland are due to receive a letter from the Ministry of Social Development in the first week of July reminding them of the change and how to make the switch.

56.     Those seniors who do not yet have an AT HOP card should visit www.at.govt.nz/supergold for more information or call 0800 AT GOLD (0800 28 4653) to request an information pack.

Issues Register

57.     The regular monthly issues register is Attachment F to this report.

Consideration

Local Board Views

58.     The Howick Local Board’s views will be incorporated during consultation on any proposed schemes.

Implementation Issues

59.     All proposed schemes are subject to prioritisation, funding and consultation.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

New Network for East Auckland Consultation and Decisions Report

21

bView

Auckland Transport Letter to Howick Local Board re "Final Decisions - New Network for Public Transport (East Auckland)"

79

cView

Plan of proposed new bus stops and "No Stopping At All Times" parking restrictions, Thomas Road, Flat Bush

85

dView

Plan of proposed "No Stopping At All Times" parking restrictions, Paparoa Road, Howick

87

eView

Plan of proposed reinstatement of bus stops, Harris Road, East Tamaki

89

fView

Issues Register - July 2016

91

     

Signatories

Author

Jenni Wild – Elected Member Relationship Manager (South); Auckland Transport

Authoriser

Jonathan Anyon – Manager Elected Member Relationship Unit, Auckland Transport

 

 


Howick Local Board

11 July 2016

 

 





















































Howick Local Board

11 July 2016

 

 


Howick Local Board

11 July 2016

 

 




Howick Local Board

11 July 2016

 

 


Howick Local Board

11 July 2016

 

 


Howick Local Board

11 July 2016

 

 






Howick Local Board

11 July 2016

 

 


Howick Local Board

11 July 2016

 

 


Howick Local Board

11 July 2016

 

 


Howick Local Board

11 July 2016

 

 



Howick Local Board

11 July 2016

 

 

Cockle Bay Roundabout Landscaping

 

File No.: CP2016/10722

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To seek approval and funding to proceed with the attached landscaping plan at the roundabout on the intersection of Churchill Road, Pah Road and Shelly Beach Parade in Cockle Bay.

Executive summary

2.       In November 2015, local residents of Shelly Beach Parade, Cockle Bay approached the Howick Local Board (HLB) and requested that they investigate the possibility of making the roundabout on the intersection of Churchill Road, Pah Road and Shelly Beach Parade safer and more visually appealing.

3.       Discussions were then held between the HLB and Auckland Transport (AT) and in December 2015, the HLB requested officers from both AT and Local Parks to investigate and consider further options.

4.       AT investigated the road safety aspects of the request whilst Local Parks were asked to investigate a landscape design supported by AT.

5.       This report serves to update the local board on progress of the landscaping plan to date and to agree on the next steps.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a)      Approves funding of $9000 for Local Parks to implement the planting on the Cockle Bay roundabout as detailed in the approved landscaping plan from the board’s Community Response Fund 2016/17.

 

 

Comments

6.       A workshop was held with council officers, AT and the HLB on 2 February 2016 to discuss an initial request from local residents relating to safety aspects and the further beautification of the roundabout at Cockle Bay.

7.       After this workshop further meetings were held between council officers and Auckland Transport and a landscaping plan was developed and presented to the Howick Local Board on 17 May 2016. AT provided input into the plan as it was developed to ensure all safety aspects were fully considered.

8.       This plan is attached, has been fully scoped and as discussed with the local board will cost $9000 to implement.

9.       All AT traffic management requirements have been fully considered and all costs associated with this development of this new garden will be covered if the funding requested is approved.

10.     Road safety was also considered to ensure any species approved would be low growing and meet AT’s requirements in the future.

11.     All species selected are appropriate low growing and coastal type species which will meet the needs of the site. The species have also been selected to cover as much of the ground as possible to try and negate the need for regular maintenance.

12.     Mulching will also be provided to help keep moisture in the ground and give the plants the optimum chance of thriving, it will help to stop any weeds from coming up through the soil profile.

13.     All future maintenance of the new garden including traffic management will be paid for through consequential opex funding.

14.     The garden will be managed by Community Facilities, Local Parks and maintenance will be carried out bi-monthly (6 times per year)

Consideration

Local board views and implications

15.     This was initially discussed with the HLB on 2 February 2016 and then again on 17 May 2016 once a landscaping plan had been developed, scoped and considered.

Māori impact statement

16.     Mana Whenua have not been engaged on this project to date.

Implementation

17.     If funding is approved at the July business meeting then this work will be fully complete by late August.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Cockle Bay landscaping plan

95

     

Signatories

Authors

Gregor Leishman - Parks Advisor - Howick

Authorisers

Mark Bowater - Manager Parks

Sue O'Gorman - Relationship Manager

 


Howick Local Board

11 July 2016

 

 



Howick Local Board

11 July 2016

 

 

Approval of 2016/2017 local environment and local development work programme

 

File No.: CP2016/11360

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To approve the 2016/2017 Howick local environmental ($87,000) and local development work programmes ($3,590,294).

Executive summary

2.       The Howick Local Board (the board) has identified aspirations in their local board plan that ‘we all treasure and enjoy our environment’ and to ensure ‘Howick’s future growth is managed effectively’. 

3.       To give effect to these aspirations, the board has committed $87,000 in total to local environmental development projects in their Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) budget for 2016/2017. This funding includes:

·   $47,000 for weed and pest management programme and education parks and walkways,

·   $20,000 for Industry Pollution Prevention Projects; and 

·   $20,000 for environmental response projects.

4.       The board also has an asset based budget of $3,590,294 for construction of stormwater water quality ponds to support planned future growth at Flat Bush.

5.       To deliver on this budget a proposed work programme has been prepared and discussed at a workshop with the board in May 2016 (Attachment A).

6.       Funding for capacity building of community groups to support the development of resource recovery in the south was agreed at the board’s May 2016 meeting (resolution number HW/2016/235) to be funded from the environmental response projects budget line.

7.       This report recommends that the board approve this local environment and development work programme and associated budgets for 2016/2017.

 

Recommendations

That the Howick Local Board:

a)      approve the allocation of $87,000 for environmental projects to be delivered by the Infrastructure and Environmental Services directorate in 2016/2017 as summarised in the table below;

Project

Budget

Industry Pollution Prevention project – Cascades Road and Ben Lomond Crescent

$20,000

Weed Management Programme

$47,000

Southern Resource Recovery Stage 2

$10,000

Planting on golf course at Musick Point

$10,000

Total budget

$87,000

b)      approve the allocation of $3,590,294 for the construction of the stormwater water quality ponds at Flat Bush.

 

Comments

8.       To deliver local board plan outcomes of ‘we all treasure and enjoy our environment and Howick’s future growth is managed effectively’, the board has allocated $87,000 of its LDI budget to support the delivery of a local environment work programme. The board also has just over $3.5 million of asset based budget available to support the construction of new stormwater ponds in Flat Bush.

9.       Staff met with the board at a workshop in May 2016 to discuss the options for allocation of this local environmental and development budget for 2016/2017. Based on these discussions, five projects are recommended to be delivered by the Infrastructure and Environmental Services directorate (I&ES). A brief description of each of these projects is provided below.

Weed Management Programme ($47,000)

10.     Ongoing control of noxious weeds and pest management including public education programmes is a key initiative in the local board plan. As such, the board has committed $47,000 of its LDI to support weed control programmes. This report recommends continuing a strategic weed control programme in 2016/2017 consisting of two key work streams – raising community awareness and strategic weed control on a high priority reserve.

11.     Table 2 below provides an overview of the recommended weed management programme, with additional detail noted below.

Table 1: Summary of 2016/2017 Weed Management Programme

Weed Management Programme workstream

Project Outcome

Cost

Strategic weed control

·   To undertake weed control on private properties neighbouring reserves of high ecological value (eg Mangemangeroa).

·   Assistance with pest plant control along the Hayley’s Lane extension where budget is limited and ecological value is high due to some of the largest cabbage trees (Cordyline australis) in Auckland.

·   This work will commence in July 2016 with a detailed assessment of weed control requirements, with control being undertaken in summer 2016/2017

$38,000

Community awareness

·   To grow community awareness of the problem of weeds, particularly rhamnus and moth plant, and to encourage the community to control these weeds.This will be undertaken in March and April 2017.

$9,000.

 

12.     Moth plant and rhamnus are widespread in the Howick area on both public and private land. The prevalence of these pest plants pose a significant threat to islands in the inner Hauraki Gulf. As such, the Regional Pest Management Strategy (RPMS) categorises rhamnus as a containment pest plant requiring removal along the Bucklands Beach and Eastern Beach peninsula (see map appended as Attachment B). In Howick, moth plant is listed as a surveillance plant (not requiring removal). However, effective control of both of these pest plants ensures that populations are reduced thus protecting the recreational and ecological values of Auckland.

13.     In the 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 financial years, the board funded weed control on the cliffs at Musick Point. As this work was completed in December 2015, this report recommends the strategic weed control programme focus on Hayley Lane Reserve – another ecologically significant site in Howick.

14.     Hayley Lane Reserve is noted in the Howick ecological prioritisation report as having high biodiversity values, and along with Point View and Mangemangeroa Reserves forms an ecological biodiverse corridor. It is also included as a significant ecological area in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

15.     The current weed control at Hayley Lane is insufficient to achieve sound biodiversity outcomes. The cost of this project would be approximately $10,000, and includes costs for initial scoping to determine the extent of control required, and the control itself. The scoping would be undertaken as soon as funding is confirmed, with actual weed control being undertaken during the summer months. A budget for planting will be determined after the initial survey.

16.     In 2015/2016, approximately $9000 of the board’s weed management budget was spent on raising community awareness of moth plant and rhamnus. Early indications are that the campaign was a success with residents filling two entire skip bins with rhamnus and moth plant a week prior to and at the weed swap event held in early April 2016. Growing community awareness of pest plants requires an ongoing commitment, and as such it is recommended that the board set aside a similar budget to continue the community awareness programme in 2016/2017.

17.     The community campaign will take place in March and April 2017 and consist of the following:

·     weed skip bins for residents to dispose of weeds; in 2015/2016, three skip bins were filled with weeds compared to one the previous year;

·     a weed swap event (whereby residents bring a weed and receive a native plant in exchange);

·     weed billboards to raise public awareness and placed in more locations to cover the wider board area;

·     weed brochures distributed to schools, local community centres and libraries across the whole Howick Local Board area; and

·     articles in local newspapers throughout the board area.

Industry Pollution Prevention Programme ($20,000)

18.     Since April 2014, the board has partnered with the Greater East Tamaki Business Association (GETBA) to deliver a proactive educational programme to address pollution at source through encouraging awareness of good site management practices such as in the Industry Pollution Prevention Programme.

19.     The board funded a similar programme in 2015/2016, which visited a total of 183 businesses and provided recommendations on follow up actions provided to 40 businesses. These recommendations were implemented by 22 businesses. As part of its commitment to the IPPP programme, GETBA supported the purchase of additional blue fish to mark the location of stormwater drains on sites, and the development of a spill response poster.

20.     It is proposed to continue this programme in 2016/2017, with a particular focus on businesses in Ben Lomond Crescent and Cascades Road, Pakuranga.

Resource Recovery ($10,000, from the environmental response fund)

21.     At its meeting in May 2016 (resolution number HW/2016/235), the board resolved to further community resource recovery initiatives in the board area through $10,000 funding for capacity building of the Chinese Conservation and Education Trust. Support for this project aligns with a key initiative in the local board plan to investigate a hub for reusing and recycling rubbish. This project will be funded from the board’s budget for ‘environmental response fund’.

22.     Funding for resource recovery will ensure that local community groups are able to participate in the development of the resource recovery network in the south. Funding is available in the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 to support the development of two resource recovery facilities in the south and is recommended for allocation in this report.

Assessment of options for environmental response fund

23.     Following on from the allocation of $10,000 to fund resource recovery capacity building $10,000 of funding remains in the environmental response fund. Four options for consideration by the board are detailed below along with a recommendation and rationale to fund planting on the Musick Point golf course.

Table 2: Options for environmental response fund

Option

Project

Purpose

Recommendation

A

Musick Point

To undertake planting on the golf course part of Musick Point as this is a prominent headland with significant potential to improve biodiversity.

This is the preferred option as it aligns strongly with the local board aspirations, it complements existing investment and has significant potential to improve biodiversity.

B

Low Carbon Action Plan

To develop a plan which will provide strategic direction for the board to address sustainable low carbon living in its area.

The board is supporting low carbon sustainable living projects through its funding of resource recovery initiatives.

These options have limited alignment to the Howick Local Board Plan and as such, are not recommended.

 

C

Ecobiz

To provide businesses with independent, tailored advice on integrating sustainability into their practices. The service covers energy consumption, water use, waste and pollution impacts.

 

24.     Option A – funding planting on Musick Point- is the preferred option as it most strongly aligns with the local board outcomes. Although restoration has been funded on the golf course through regional funding grants, there is an opportunity to continue this work through local funding. This would complement the investment the board has made in weed control on the Musick Point cliffs over the past two financial years and potentially improve the biodiversity of this significant headland.

25.     Two options to support low carbon sustainable living projects in the Howick area (options b and c) have been explored. The options are to develop a local carbon action plan, or to fund an independent programme providing sustainability advice to small to medium businesses (Ecobiz). These options are not recommended as while worthy from an environmental perspectives they demonstrate less alignment to the local board plan and outcome areas.

Flat Bush Stormwater Ponds

26.     Included in the board’s asset based budget is $3,590,294 to fund land acquisitions and Infrastructure Funding Agreements for the development and construction of stormwater management infrastructure in Flat Bush. These ponds will support the residential and commercial development in that area and enable growth.

27.     The Long-Term Plan 2015-2025 forecast is that the implementation of stormwater infrastructure specific to Flat Bush will be completed by 2022. However, due to various factors outside of council control some land acquisitions may go beyond 2022.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

28.     The projects noted support the board’s work to achieve the priorities of ‘we all treasure and enjoy our environment’ and to ensure ‘Howick’s future growth is managed effectively’. 

29.     A discussion on the entire draft work programme was held with the local board in March 2016. Feedback from this workshop has been incorporated into this report and a request for a breakdown of the weed control workstream costs is addressed in the detailed commentary above.

30.     The options for the Environmental Response Funds was considered on 5th July 2016.

Māori impact statement

31.     This report provides information for environmental and development projects. It is recognised that environmental management, water quality and land management has integral links with the mauri of the environments and concepts of kaitiakitanga.

32.     Some of the identified activities are of interest to Māori and, where appropriate, provisions for mana whenua participation, contribution, and consultation will be incorporated. Table three below highlights how each project in the board’s work programme is expected to contribute to Māori outcomes or which requires consultation and engagement.

Table 3: Maori outcome assessment

Project

Māori outcome assessment

Industry Pollution Prevention Programme

In other board areas, this project has been delivered in collaboration with iwi. No opportunities to collaborate with iwi in this board area have yet been identified.

Feedback from mana whenua as part of other council consultation is supportive of projects that aim to improve water quality.

Resource Recovery

Iwi were consulted as part of the stage one scoping study for resource recovery in the south. While no specific initiatives were identified, there is significant support from iwi and mataawaka groups for resource recovery.

Musick Point restoration planting

The recently signed deed of settlement with Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki recognizes the iwi’s interest in Te Naupata Musick Point. Restoration work may require feedback and input from Ngāi Tai.

Low carbon action plan

No particular impact on Maori.

Ecobiz

No particular impact on Maori.

Implementation

33.     There are no implementation issues arising from this report. Regular reporting on project delivery will be through the I&ES contribution to the board’s quarterly performance report, or as required.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Draft 2016/2017 Howick local environment and local development work programme

103

     

Signatories

Authors

Emma Joyce - Relationship Advisor

Mara Bebich - Stakeholder Liasion Manager

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Sue O'Gorman - Relationship Manager

 


Howick Local Board

11 July 2016

 

 


Howick Local Board

11 July 2016

 

 


Howick Local Board

11 July 2016

 

 

New Road Name Approvals and Road Name Extension for the residential subdivisions by Hugh Green Limited at 23 and 45 McQuoids Road, Flat Bush and 64 Thomas Road, Flat Bush

 

File No.: CP2016/12259

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report is to seek approval from the Howick Local Board, for eight new road names for new roads created by way of subdivision at 23 and 45 McQuoids Road, Flat Bush and 64 Thomas Road, Flat Bush and the extension of the existing Tir Coniall Avenue.

Executive summary

2.       Auckland Council has road naming guidelines that set out the requirements and criteria of the Council for proposed road names.  These requirements and criteria have been applied in this situation to ensure consistency of road naming for the Auckland Council.

3.       Following assessment against the road naming criteria for 23 and 45 McQuoids Road, Flat Bush, the road names ‘Ballinabreen Road’, ‘Lisnoble Road’, ‘Carrygawley Road’ and ‘Kilcadden Road’ (applicant’s preferred road names), were determined to meet the road naming guideline criteria. 

Following assessment against the road naming criteria for 64 Thomas Road, Flat Bush, the road names Greenan Drive’, ‘Cooladawson Drive’, ‘Drumconnell Drive’ and ‘Eunans Close(applicant’s preferred road names), Gurtin’ and ‘Carnowen, were determined to meet the road naming guideline criteria. 

4.       The extension of Tir Coniall Avenue is appropriate to be also called ‘Tir Coniall Avenue’.

5.       Local iwi groups were consulted and there were no objections to the proposed road names.  

6.       The names ‘Ballinabreen Road’, ‘Lisnoble Road’, ‘Carrygawley Road’, ‘Kilcadden Road’, ‘Greenan Drive’, ‘Cooladawson Drive’, ‘Drumconnell Drive’ and ‘Eunans Close’, proposed by the Applicant and the names ‘Gurtin’ and ‘Carnowen’, are considered for approval by the Local Board.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board, pursuant to section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974, considers for approval:

a)      the road names Ballinabreen Road’, ‘Lisnoble Road’, ‘Carrygawley Road’, ‘Kilcadden Road’. Greenan Drive’, ‘Cooladawson Drive’, ‘Drumconnell Drive’ and ‘Eunans Close, proposed by the Applicant, for the eight new road created by way of subdivision at 64 Thomas Road, Flat Bush and 23 and 45 McQuoids Road, Flat Bush  while noting that Gurtin’ and ‘Carnowen, also meet the road naming criteria; and

b)      the road name Tir Coniall Avenue’ for the extension to the existing Tir Coniall Avenue.

 

 

Comments

7.       The Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines allowed that where a new road needs to be named as a result of a subdivision or development, the subdivider/developer shall be given the opportunity of suggesting their preferred new road name for the Local Board’s approval.

8.       The 96 lot fee simple subdivision occurring at 23 and 45 McQuoids Road, Flat Bush, contains four roads to be named. Roads 1 and 4 are proposed to connect to McQuoids Road and Roads 2 and 3 cut through these new roads lengthwise. All roads are relatively short. Consent was granted on 10 February 2016 under resource consent 48266, SP11988.

The 71 lot fee simple subdivision occurring at 64 Thomas Road, Flat Bush, contains four roads to be named. Road 1 extends through the subdivision, connecting it with Thomas Road. Road 2 includes the extension of the existing Tir Conaill Avenue from the West to meet up with Charleston Drive. Road 4 loops from Road 1 then moves parallel with it to extend beyond the subdivision. Road 5 similarly connects to Road 1 and moves in parallel on the opposite side. Road 6 is a short cul-de-sac connected to Road 4. Consent was granted on 12 February 2016 under resource consent 47902, 6926/64.

The Applicant has proposed the following names for consideration for the road created as part of the development at 64 Thomas Road, Flat Bush and 23 and 45 McQuoids Road, Flat Bush. 

 

23 and 45 McQuoids Road, Flat Bush

Road

Proposed New Road Name

Meaning

Road 1

Ballinabreen Road

A common theme of the company’s land developments is the naming of new roads after places and towns from Hugh Green’s native Ireland and more specifically County Donegal in Ireland’s northwest.

It is noted that the adjacent development has continued this same road name theme.

As a professional developer, Hugh Green Group wishes to retain an identity with the land long after it has been constructed and communities have been established.

The land in this instance has been retained and farmed by the Hugh Green Group of companies since 2013.

Road 2

Lisnoble Road

Road 3

Carrygawley Road

Road 4

Kilcadden Road

64 Thomas Road, Flat Bush

Road

Proposed New Road Name

Meaning

Road 1

Greenan Drive

As above.

The land in this instance has been retained and farmed by the Hugh Green Group of companies since 1996.

Road 5

Cooladawson Drive

Road 4

Drumconnell Drive

Road 6

Eunans Close

Extension

Tir Coniall Avenue

Not Applicable

Alternatives

Preference

Proposed New Road Name

Meaning

First Alternative

Carnowen

A common theme of the company’s land developments is the naming of new roads after places and towns from Hugh Green’s native Ireland and more specifically County Donegal in Ireland’s northwest.

Second Alternative

Gurtin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Figure One: Location and Layout of new Roads at 23 and 45 McQuoids Road, Flat Bush


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure Two: Location and Layout of new Roads and extension of Tir Conaill Avenue, at 64 Thomas Road, Flat Bush

 

Decision Making

9.       The Auckland Council, by way of the Auckland Council Long Term Plan (2012 - 2022), allocated the responsibility for the naming of new roads, pursuant to section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974, to Local Boards.

Assessment

10.     The Applicant’s proposed road names have been assessed against the criteria set out in the Auckland Council road naming guidelines;

11.     All names proposed by the Applicant meet the road naming guidelines.

12.     At 23 and 45 McQuoids Road, Roads 1 – 4 do not meet the definition of the suffix “Drive”, as proposed by the applicant, since while a wide roadway, they have two cross-streets within a short distance of each other and with the potential for more in the future. The roads more closely meet the definition of the suffix “Road”.

At 64 Thomas Road, Roads 1, 4 and 5 meet the definition of the suffix “Drive”, as the roads are wide roadways without many cross-streets.

The proposed suffix of “Close” is appropriate for Road 6, as the road is a short enclosed roadway. Other suffixes also meet the definition, being: “Way”, “Court” and “Place”. The applicant’s preference is “Close”.

13.     As the Applicant’s preferred names Ballinabreen Road’, ‘Lisnoble Road’, ‘Carrygawley Road’, ‘Kilcadden Road’, Greenan Drive’, ‘Cooladawson Drive’, ‘Drumconnell Drive’ and ‘Eunans Close’, meet the road naming criteria, they are recommended for consideration for approval while noting that the alternative names proposed ‘Gurtin’ and ‘Carnowen, are also appropriate as they comply with all the criteria of the road naming guidelines.

Consideration

 

Significance of Decision

 

14.     The decision sought from the Howick Local Board for this report does not trigger any significant policy and is not considered to have any immediate impact on the community.

Maori impact statement

15.     The decision sought from the Howick Local Board on this report is linked to the Auckland Plan Outcome, “A Maori identity that is Auckland’s point of difference in the world”. The use of Maori names for roads, buildings and other public places is an opportunity to publicly demonstrate Maori identity.

Consultation

16.     All relevant iwi groups were consulted and given 15 working days to respond. Ngai Tai Tamaki Trust stated that they had no problems with the proposed names. No other responses were received.

17.     New Zealand Post was consulted and indicated that all the names provided are acceptable from their perspective.

Financial and Resourcing Implications

18.     The cost of processing the approval of the proposed new road name and any installation of road name signage is recoverable in accordance with Council’s Administrative Charges.

Legal and Legislative Implications

19.     The decision sought from the Howick Local Board for this report is not considered to have any legal or legislative implications.

Implementation

20.     The Resource Consenting Team is involved in ensuring that appropriate road name signage will be installed accordingly once an approval is obtained for the new road name.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Hugh Green Group Letter

111

     

Signatories

Authors

Virginia Loh - Resource Consents Administrator

Authorisers

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Sue O'Gorman - Relationship Manager

 


Howick Local Board

11 July 2016

 

 


Howick Local Board

11 July 2016

 

 

New Road Name Approval for new private way at 11 – 13 Grassways Avenue, Pakuranga Heights

 

File No.: CP2016/14126

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report is to seek approval from the Howick Local Board, for a name for a new private way created by way of subdivision at  11-13 Grassways Avenue, Pakuranga Heights

Executive summary

2.       Auckland Council has road naming guidelines that set out the requirements and criteria of the Council for proposed road names.  These requirements and criteria have been applied in this situation to ensure consistency of road naming for the Auckland Council.

3.       Following assessment against the road naming criteria, the road names “Goyal Lane” (applicant’s preferred road name), “Neha Lane” and “Aggarwhal Lane” were determined to meet the road naming guideline criteria. 

4.       Eleven local iwi groups were consulted and at time of writing of the report, no formal response had been received.

5.       The name “Goyal Lane”, proposed by the Applicant and the names “Neha Lane” and “Aggarwhal Lane”, are considered for approval by the Local Board.    

 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a)      pursuant to section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974, considers for approval, the road name “Goyal Lane”, proposed by the Applicant, for the new road created by way of subdivision at 11-13 Grassways Avenue, Pakuranga Heights while noting that “Neha Lane” and “Aggarwhal Lane”, also meet the road naming criteria.

 

Comments

 

6.       The Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines allowed that where a new road needs to be named as a result of a subdivision or development, the subdivider/developer shall be given the opportunity of suggesting their preferred new road name for the Local Board’s approval.

7.       The Applicant has proposed the following names for consideration for the road created as part of the development (8 lot fee simple subdivision authorised by consent number 46484) at 11-13 Grassways Avenue, Pakuranga Heights. 


 

Preference

Proposed New Road Name

Meaning

Preferred Name

Goyal Lane

Surname of developer

First Alternative

Neha Avenue

Surname of another developer involved in the site

Second Alternative

Aggarwhal Lane

Family name of developer

 

 

 

Figure One: Location and Layout of new Private way

 

 

Decision Making

8.       The Auckland Council, by way of the Auckland Council Long Term Plan (2012 - 2022), allocated the responsibility for the naming of new roads, pursuant to section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974, to Local Boards.

Assessment

9.       The Applicant’s proposed road names have been assessed against the criteria set out in the Auckland Council road naming guidelines;

10.     All the names proposed by the Applicant meet the road naming guidelines.

11.     The suffix “Lane’ is very appropriate for a private way, The road to be named does not meet the criteria for an Avenue, therefore Avenue was deleted as an option for the road name suffix.  

12.     As the Applicant’s preferred name (Goyal Lane) meets the criteria, it is recommended for consideration for approval while noting that the other names proposed by the iwi (Neha Lane and Aggarwhal Lane) are also appropriate as they comply with all the criteria of the road naming guidelines.

Consideration

 

Significance of Decision

 

13.     The decision sought from the Howick Local Board for this report does not trigger any significant policy and is not considered to have any immediate impact on the community.

Maori impact statement

14.     The decision sought from the Howick Local Board on this report is linked to the Auckland Plan Outcome, “A Maori identity that is Auckland’s point of difference in the world”. The use of Maori names for roads, buildings and other public places is an opportunity to publicly demonstrate Maori identity.

Consultation

15.     Council staff have contacted eleven iwi groups (Ngai Tai ki Tamaki, Te Kawerau Iwi, Ngati Tamaoho, Te Akitai o Waiohua , Makaurau Marae, Ngati Paoa, Ngati Maru, Ngaati Whanaunga, Ngati Tamatera, Tainui and Patukirikiri) in regard to the proposed names.  At the time of writing of this report, no response from Iwi had been received.   It is hoped that, at the point of consideration, by the Local Board that some feed-back may be available.

16.     New Zealand Post have indicated that they have no concerns with the proposed names.

Financial and Resourcing Implications

17.     The cost of processing the approval of the proposed new road name and any installation of road name signage is recoverable in accordance with Council’s Administrative Charges.

Legal and Legislative Implications

18.     The decision sought from the Howick Local Board for this report is not considered to have any legal or legislative implications.

Implementation

19.     The Resource Consenting Team is involved in ensuring that appropriate road name signage will be installed accordingly once an approval is obtained for the new road name.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Authors

Virginia Loh - Resource Consents Administrator

Authorisers

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Sue O'Gorman - Relationship Manager

 


Howick Local Board

11 July 2016

 

 

Housing for Older People Partnering Proposal

 

File No.: CP2016/12058

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       This report seeks feedback on Auckland Council’s Housing for Older People (HfOP) Partnering Proposal.

Executive summary

2.       The council currently owns 1,412 HfOP units spread across 62 sites in the north, south and west of Auckland covering 26 hectares of land. A list of these sites is included in the HfOP Consultation document (Attachment A).

3.       In June 2015 the Auckland Development Committee (ADC) resolved to explore how council could deliver the HfOP service through a partnership approach. In December 2015 the ADC endorsed Panuku Development Auckland (Panuku) to proceed with undertaking feasibility work with a preferred partner on the partnering proposal.

4.       The partnering proposal, in summary, is for the council to:

·        partner with a third-party social housing provider to create a new legal entity in the form of a new community housing provider (CHP).  The CHP will  have control over the portfolio assets, including responsibility for maintenance and tenancy services through a long-term lease, and will seek access to government subsidies

·        delegate to Panuku the authority to work with the third party community housing provider to redevelop the portfolio under a framework arrangement; and

·        adopt a new policy on “Housing for Older People partnering” to apply to all decision-making on the proposal

5.       This proposal allows the council to benefit from external expertise to:

·        improve the quality of housing - the CHP will be able to access the Income-Related Rent Subsidy (IRRS) from central government to help improve and develop the portfolio

·        improve tenant satisfaction – more tenants are dissatisfied with the service the council is currently able to provide. Partnering with a third party social housing provider will bring in new expertise into the operations so we can find new innovative and cost effective ways to lift satisfaction and redevelop the portfolio to improve the quality of housing

6.       As the HfOP portfolio is a strategic asset under both the LGA 2002 and the council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, the proposal to transfer control of the portfolio triggers a statutory requirement to publicly consult on the proposal, and to amend the Long-term Plan (LTP) 2015-2025 through a special consultative procedure, before the council can agree to adopt the proposal.

7.       The Governing Body approved a consultation document at its meeting on 25th May 2016 which will form the basis of this consultation during the month of June 2016.

8.       Local boards are now invited to submit formal feedback on the partnership proposal (Attachment A) and a proposed new policy on HfOP partnering (Attachment B) through business meetings in June and July 2016.


 

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a)      provide feedback on:

i.      the Housing for Older People Partnering Proposal and

ii.     the proposed Housing for Older People Partnering Policy

 

 

Comments

9.       Auckland Council currently owns 1,412 HfOP units spread across 62 sites in the north, south and west of Auckland covering 26 hectares of land. The portfolio is currently operated by Auckland Council’s Arts, Community and Events (ACE) and Community Facilities departments.

10.     In 2013 the government changed how social housing would be delivered in New Zealand by making a number of reforms. This included providing third party social housing providers with an IRRS, which was historically only provided to Housing New Zealand. Councils and council-controlled organisations are still unable to access this subsidy.

11.     In June 2015, the Auckland Development Committee (ADC) resolved to explore changing how the council would deliver the HfOP service. It agreed to explore a partnership approach, where the council would partner with a third party social housing provider in the management of the portfolio and to establish a new community housing provider (CHP).

12.     The council is committed to maintaining 1,412 units within the HfOP portfolio, as a strategic asset, and may seek to increase the number, subject to further council approval on additional funding and any consultation requirements.

13.     In December 2015 the ADC endorsed Panuku Development Auckland (Panuku) to proceed with undertaking feasibility work with the preferred partner on a partnering proposal. Panuku, on behalf of Council, issued a request for proposal and the council currently has a non-binding arrangement with The Selwyn Foundation as the potential third party social housing provider that council may enter into partnership arrangement with.

What Auckland Council is proposing:

14.     The council is proposing that it partner with a third party social housing provider to enter into a management agreement over the council’s 1,412 units and delegate Panuku Development Auckland (Panuku) to act on council’s behalf to develop the portfolio.

15.     Management agreement:

a)   Partner with a third party social housing provider to form a new legal entity, in which the council will have a minority interest. This will be a Community Housing Provider (CHP) to manage the council’s Housing for Older People (HfOP) portfolio.

b)   The legal structure of this CHP will likely be in the form of a limited partnership (NZ registered) between Auckland Council and the third-party social housing provider under a framework arrangement.

c)   The CHP will have control over the portfolio assets, which includes responsibility for maintenance and tenancy services. Legal ownership will remain with the council.

d)   It will include a long-term lease which from an accounting perspective requires a write-off of the assets from the council balance sheet.

e)   The CHP will be structured to be able to receive the government’s Income Related Rent Subsidy (IRRS). We are not able to quantify how much will be received under this scheme as the subsidy, which is paid to the housing provider, is based on a percentage of a tenants income. It will reflect the difference between the income related rent and the market rent. It will also only be paid out for future tenants not current tenants.

f)    The council will provide a $32.5 million capital grant to the CHP, which is equivalent to the current budget for the portfolio renewal maintenance.

16.     Development agreement:

a)   Delegate to Panuku, a council-controlled organisation, the authority to act on behalf of Auckland Council to work with the third-party social housing provider to redevelop the portfolio.

b)   Panuku, as Auckland Council’s development agency, will provide skills and expertise to support the development of HfOP portfolio.

c)   This includes, over time, selling some land and buildings to help fund the improvement of the quality of the HfOP portfolio.

d)   The council will provide a $20 million development loan facility which will support the development until sales proceeds can be realised. The sales proceeds will cover repayment of the facility and any associated interest.

17.     These will be carried out in accordance with the new policy to be adopted. A representation of this is shown in Attachment A.

Why is Auckland Council proposing this?

18.     The proposal allows the council to benefit from external expertise to improve tenant satisfaction and the quality of its social housing. There are a few areas of this portfolio that need improvement.

19.     To improve the quality of housing:

Currently, the HfOP portfolio has many poor quality units.  This is clearly not acceptable for the council or its tenants. By partnering with a third party social housing provider we will be able to ensure over time that:

a)      the portfolio can benefit from new external funding from the government, through access to the IRRS

b)      the portfolio will be upgraded and new housing developed to reflect modern standards

c)      the portfolio will become more connected to public transport and other necessary services.

20.     To improve tenant satisfaction:

More and more tenants are dissatisfied with the service the council is currently able to provide, as shown in Graph 1. This is unlikely to improve without some change to how we provide the service. Partnering with a third party social housing provider will improve our tenant satisfaction by:

a)      adding new expertise into the operations of the service so we can find new innovative, cost effective ways of lifting satisfaction.

b)      redeveloping the portfolio to improve the quality of housing, giving our tenants a better quality of life.

 


Graph 1:        Long-term Plan 2015-2025, Level of Service Measure:
Tenant satisfaction over time

Title: Graph 1: Long-term Plan 2015-25, Level of Service Measure: Tenant satisfaction over time. - Description: This graph shows how this proposal is projected to improve tenant satisfaction over time, as outlined in the council's Long-term Plan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How does the proposal compare with other options?

21.     The council has been developing the HfOP partnership model proposal since April 2015. The options were developed on the basis that the council has opted to continue to provide housing for older people. Three main practical options (including the proposal) are explained in the following table. Other options identified by the council are listed in the Supporting Information but have not been considered as reasonably practical options at this stage.

Option

Service level impact

Rates impact

Debt impact

Achieves the council’s objectives?

Advantages

Disadvantages

Status Quo:

Continue to manage and develop the housing without external support.

Actual tenant satisfaction levels are at 64 per cent which is well under the target average of 75 per cent. This means the council will be increasingly unlikely to meet its targets over time.

No impact – however tenant satisfaction levels are unlikely to be met.

No impact – however tenant satisfaction levels are unlikely to be met.

·   Does not grow the community housing sector.

·   Does not improve quality of housing.

·   Does not access non ratepayer funding.

·   The council retains full control over the assets.

·   No costs associated with change.

·   Does not address the falling tenant satisfaction.

·   Reliant on rates funding.

Sell or gift portfolio to a CHP:

Sell or gift the units and land to an existing CHP with conditions to ensure the provision of social housing remains.

 

Tenant satisfaction will likely decrease, as it will be difficult for the council to control the quality of housing.

Neutral to slightly positive

The sales proceeds would depend on the conditions placed on the sale. Depending on the conditions placed this could significantly reduce the proceeds from the sale.

Slightly positive to negative

The debt impact would depend on whether the council would still provide the capital grant for improvements to the housing, and any other conditions placed on the sale.

Partly. The council is no longer responsible for providing 1,412 housing for older people units. But, this may grow the wider community housing sector.

·   The council no longer has any risk for operating the portfolio.

·   This may grow the wider community housing sector.

·   The council will have no ownership or control over the units.

·   Long term provision of the service is not guaranteed.

·   The council would not own land and buildings as assets.

The proposal (partnering with a third-party housing provider under management and development agreements)

 

 

Tenant satisfaction will increase, as the council will be able to rely on new expertise from the third party social housing provider, unlock access to government funding and can redevelop the portfolio to improve quality.

Negligible to

slightly negative

Negative

(Debt increases by $48.4 million for the management agreement and a further potential $20 million for the development loan facility).

 

Yes. The proposal aims to increase tenant satisfaction to targeted levels.

·   Allows for an improvement of the quality of housing.

·   Unlocks access to government funding.

·   The council will lose some control over the units.

·   Requires monitoring of an external entity.

·   Development could cause disruption for tenants.

 

 

Proposed Housing for Older People Partnering Policy

22.     In order to include this change in the current Long-term Plan (LTP) 2015-2025, a new enabling policy will need to be adopted.

23.     This policy sets key decision making criteria that are designed to ensure that the council will maintain or improve the quality of housing and tenant satisfaction without overly exposing the council to financial impacts and risk, through:

·        general decision making on the council’s HfOP portfolio

·        the management of the HfOP portfolio by the new CHP

·        the arrangements for the possible redevelopment and/or sale of parts of the HfOP portfolio

A copy of the proposed policy is included in Attachment B.

 

Requirement to consult

24.     The HfOP portfolio is considered a strategic asset under both the Local Government Act (LGA) 2002 and the council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Any proposal to transfer control or ownership of a strategic asset(s) triggers a statutory requirement to publicly consult and to provide for it in the long-term plan.

25.     In order to include this in the current Long-term Plan (LTP) 2015-2025, a new enabling policy will need to be adopted.

26.     Public consultation in June and feedback from local boards will inform the Governing Body’s decision on the partnership proposal and the proposed new policy on HfOP partnering.

Public consultation

27.     A consultation document (Attachment A) and supporting information has been approved by the Governing Body and will be used to consult with the public regarding the proposal to transfer control of the HfOP portfolio to a CHP and redevelop the current housing units.

28.     The consultation document lists the advantages and disadvantages of the proposal as well as the two key alternatives in page 8. The assumptions underlying the proposal, including risks and details on the options analysis, are set out in the supporting information in pages 53, 54 and 56.

29.     The consultation document also provides three main options that have been identified for the delivery of the council’s HfOP service, with the preferred option being the partnership proposal.

30.     The public consultation period is 1 June 2016 – 1 July 2016.

31.     The consultation document was delivered to 1,412 units, local board offices, service centres and libraries before 1 June 2016.

32.     The consultation document includes a feedback form which is expected to be the primary mechanism Aucklanders will use to provide their feedback on this consultation.  The feedback form is also made available online, in local board offices, service centres and libraries. Feedback forms can be submitted via freepost, email or completed online.

33.     There are various Have Your Say (HYS) events planned across the region. The locations were picked so that they are easily accessible for HfOP tenants to attend. These events are listed below for your perusal:

Venue

Date

Time

Takapuna Library

7 June 2016 (Tuesday)

9am – 1pm

Devonport Library

8 June 2016 (Wednesday)

9am – 1pm

Northcote Library

9 June 2016 (Thursday)

11am – 3pm

Glenfield Library

10 June 2016 (Friday)

10am – 11am

New Lynn War Memorial Library

14 June 2016 (Tuesday)

9am – 1pm

Titirangi Library

15 June 2016 (Wednesday)

11am – 3pm

Waitakere Central Library

16 June 2016 (Thursday)

9am – 1pm

Te Atatu Peninsula Community Centre

17 June 2016 (Friday)

2pm – 3pm

Mangere Town Centre Library

21 June 2016 (Tuesday)

9am – 1pm

Sir Edmund Hillary Library, Papakura

22 June 2016 (Wednesday)

9am – 1pm

Pukekohe Library

23 June 2016 (Thursday)

9am – 11am

Waiuku Library

23 June 2016 (Thursday)

12pm – 2pm

Otara Senior Citizens’ Club

24 June 2016 (Friday)

10am – 11am

34.     Public feedback will also be collected at HYS events scheduled from 7 to 24 June 2016. The primary purpose of these events is for elected members or delegates to listen to the views of Aucklanders.  Staff will ensure public feedback is accurately recorded.

35.     The role of elected members (and delegates) at these events is to listen and to provide members of the public with an opportunity to provide their views verbally. 

36.     Staff recommend that delegations are made to councillors, local board members and staff to hear feedback. This is to ensure there is a sufficient number of people able to have spoken interaction with public.

37.     Staff will be in contact with tenants to coordinate logistics to ensure that they have the opportunity to attend the HYS events.

38.     The ShapeAuckland website will be the digital hub for the HfOP communications and engagement campaign. There are a variety of ways in which digital and social media channels will be used to support the communications campaign.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

39.     Local board members have received updates through quarterly performance reports, on the region-wide initiative led by Panuku to investigate options to partner with community housing providers to manage and develop the HfOP portfolio.

40.     A briefing for local board members was held on this initiative on 30 November 2015.

41.     Local board members were updated in May 2016 through a memo outlining the consultation process as well as invitations to attend Have Your Say events to hear public feedback.

42.     Local boards are now invited to submit formal feedback through business meetings in June and July 2016.

43.     The report to be presented to the Governing Body at its meeting on 28 July 2016 will include all feedback received from local boards. Feedback from the local boards will inform the Governing Body decision on this matter.

Māori impact statement

44.     The new CHP will have a role in giving effect to outcomes directed by the council’s Māori Responsiveness Framework. This includes recognition and protection of Māori rights and interests within Tāmaki Makaurau and addressing and contributing to the needs and aspirations of Māori. In order to do this, throughout the development of this proposal various Māori groups have been consulted with. To progress this engagement Panuku has established a Mana Whenua Governance Group comprising four senior representatives of Mana Whenua, plus senior representatives of Panuku and the preferred partner.

Implementation

45.     A report containing consultation feedback and advice on adopting the HfOP Partnering Policy to amend the LTP 2015-2025 and a delegation to Panuku to carry out the partnering arrangement will be presented to the Governing Body at the meeting on 28 July 2016.

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Consultation document

125

bView

Housing for Older People Partnering Policy

153

     

Signatories

Authors

Kat Teirney - Team Leader – Community Facilities, South

Authorisers

Graham Bodman - General Manager Arts, Community and Events

Sue O'Gorman - Relationship Manager

 


Howick Local Board

11 July 2016

 

 





























Howick Local Board

11 July 2016

 

 




Howick Local Board

11 July 2016

 

 

Draft 2016 Elected Members’ Expenses Policy

 

File No.: CP2016/12056

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To seek the views of the Manurewa Local Board on the draft 2016 Auckland Council Elected Members’ Expenses Policy.

Executive summary

2.       Each electoral term, the Remuneration Authority requires all councils to adopt an expenses policy and forward the adopted policy to the Remuneration Authority for its approval.

3.       The expense policy provides the rules for elected members’ reimbursement for expenses they incur whilst performing their duties.

4.       The governing body last adopted an expenses policy in July 2014. The Remuneration Authority has requested the council’s policy for July 2016 – June 2019. The governing body will be asked to adopt the 2016 policy at their 21July Finance and Performance Committee meeting.

5.       Staff have reviewed the operation of the current policy and have updated the policy to:

·    have clear principles of what is considered appropriate elected member expenditure

·    remove the duplication of Remuneration Authority allowance tables

·    replace complicated travel, development and conference attendance  approvals with a ‘one up’ approach that requires senior elected member or senior staff approval.

6.       The amended policy is attached.  In addition to the substantive changes, the language and presentation of the policy have been updated to make it more accessible.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a)      provides comments on the draft 2016 Elected Members’ Expense Policy to the governing body.

 

 

Comments

7.       The Remuneration Authority (the Authority) sets remuneration for elected positions in local government annually. It also sets the rules for reimbursement of costs met by members in undertaking their duties.

8.       In its determination, the Authority details some work-related expenses for elected members:

·        the maximum allowances payable by councils to elected members for certain activities, such as transport and communications

·        The criteria for and amounts payable to, elected members sitting on resource consent hearings.

9.       Additionally, the Authority determines the nature of reimbursements made to elected members for costs undertaken on council business.

10.     The Authority requires each council to adopt an expenses policy. The current policy was last approved in July 2014.  It is necessary to review and update the policy prior to sending it to the Authority for approval.

11.     The Auckland Council Elected Members’ Expenses Policy (the policy) sets out the council’s rules under which elected members may be reimbursed or paid allowances for personal costs that arise in the course of council business.

12.     In the draft policy, general travel, accommodation and insurance claim rules have been retained. The continued requirement for a business case for international travel and the publication of all elected member expenditure will ensure transparency. Staff will continue to support the elected members with the required paperwork. The proposed changes relate to the authorisation of expenditure and the introduction of the council’s Elected Member Development Programme.

 

Substantive changes

Professional development and attendance at conferences

13.     The new policy includes provisions related to the 2016-2019 Elected Member Development Programme. Professional development included in the core professional development programme will be pre-authorised. This means that elected members will not be required to provide a business case for development or attendance at conferences that are covered by the development programme.

14.     Pre-authorisation is subject to the principles of the policy. The funds must be budgeted for and authorised by the appropriate senior manager.

15.     If elected members want to undertake development activities outside the elected members’ core development programme, a written request must be made to the Manager Democracy Service or the Manager Local Board Services.

 

Domestic travel approval

16.     Changes have been made to approvals. The draft policy reflects a ‘one up’ approach that requires senior elected member or senior staff approval.

17.     Currently elected members are required to seek authorisation from a senior staff member and either the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor, the chair of a committee of the whole or the chair of their local board.

18.     To make authorisations more efficient the draft policy has been amended to allow the Governance Director or the Manager Democracy Services to authorise travel and sundry expense claims for governing body members.

19.     For local board members, the draft policy has been amended with the Governance Director proposed as the approver for local board members and chairpersons.

 

International travel approval

20.     For international travel for the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor, in addition to the Chief Executive, the Chair of the Finance and Performance Committee has been added as an approver. This gives additional flexibility for approval if the Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee is not available at that time.

21.     For all other elected members the draft policy proposes that the Mayor or Deputy Mayor or the Chair of the Risk and Audit Committee or the Chair of the Finance and Performance Committee and the Chief Executive or the Governance Director are the approvers.

22.     For sundry expense claims following international travel, the draft policy has been amended to allow the Chief Executive or the Governance Director to authorise the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor claims; the Governance Director or Manager Democracy Services to authorise governing body member claims; and the Governance Director or the Manager Local Board Services to authorise local board member claims.  

23.     The probity check to this approach is threefold:

·    the trip must meet the principles of the policy

·    it must be authorised by a senior elected member or senior staff member (a ‘one up’ authorisation) and

·    all expenditure incurred by elected members on council business continues to be published.

 

24.     The new approvals are in the table below. Changes are underlined.

Table 1. Changes to approvals

Item

Proposed

Previous term

Approvals for domestic travel outside of Auckland – Mayor

No change

·    The Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee

·    or the Chair of the Finance and Performance Committee

Approvals for domestic travel outside of Auckland – Deputy Mayor

·    The Mayor or

·    The Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee or the Chair of the Finance and Performance

 

·    The Mayor

·    or the Chair of a Committee of the Whole

Approvals for domestic travel outside of Auckland – councillors

The Governance Director or the Manager Democracy Services

·    The Deputy Mayor

·    or the Chair of a Committee of the Whole

Approvals for domestic travel outside of Auckland – local board Chair

The Governance Director or the Manager Local Board Services

·    Governance Director

·    and report to business  meeting

Approvals for domestic travel outside of Auckland – local board members

The Governance Director or the Manager Local Board Services

·    The Local Board Chair

·    and report to business  meeting

Approvals for international travel - Mayor

·    A business case and both:

·    The Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee or the Chair of the Finance and Performance Committee

·    And the Chief Executive

A business case and both:

·    the Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee

·    and the Chief Executive

Approvals for international travel– Deputy Mayor

·    A business case and both:

·    The Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee or the Chair of the Finance and Performance Committee

·   And the Chief Executive

A business case and

 

Both:

·    the Mayor or the Chair of a Committee of the Whole

·    and the Chief Executive

Approvals for international travel – Governing Body members

·    A business case and both:

·    The Mayor or the Deputy Mayor or the Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee or the Chair of the Finance and Performance Committee

·   And the Chief Executive or Governance Director

A business case and

 

Both:

·    the Mayor or the Deputy Mayor

·    and the Chief Executive or the Director Governance

Approvals for international travel – local board members

·    A business case and both:

·    The Mayor or the Deputy Mayor or the Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee or the Chair of the Finance and Performance Committee

·   And the Chief Executive or Governance Director

A business case and

 

Both:

·    Endorsement by the Local Board

·    then approval by the Chief Executive or the Director Governance

 

If urgent approval is needed:

·    Endorsement by the Chair

·    then approval by the Chief Executive or the Director Governance

·    then retrospective endorsement by the Local Board

Development programmes and conferences

Pre-approved, subject to the cost falling within the annual professional development budget

Various authorisation depending on the role of the requester

Hosting official visitors

If necessary, budget holder approval

Personal expenditure can be reimbursed

 

25.     Other changes have been made throughout the policy to update, clarify or align the policy with current good practice. In addition the language and presentation of the policy have been updated to make it more accessible.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

26.     This report is seeking local board views.

Māori impact statement

27.     This policy is a requirement of the Remuneration Authority. It is for internal use and does not have specific implications for Māori.

Implementation

28.     The Elected Members’ Expenses Policy will come into force once approved by the Remuneration Authority. This is expected to be in July 2016.

 

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Draft Auckland Council Elected Members’ Expense Policy 2016

163

     

Signatories

Authors

Jo Iles, Business Hub Manager, Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - Manager Democracy Services

Lou Lennane - Acting Manager Local Board Services

Rex Hewitt – Relationship Manager

 


Howick Local Board

11 July 2016

 

 















Howick Local Board

11 July 2016

 

 

Urgent Decisions June 2016

 

File No.: CP2016/14043

 

  

 

 

Purpose

1.       This report is to bring to the Board any urgent decisions made outside of the business meetings.

Executive Summary

2.       On 9th December 2013, the Howick Local Board agreed an urgent decision process where it was not practical to call the full board together and meet the requirement of a quorum.  The process delegates authority to the Chair and Deputy Chair to make an urgent decision on behalf of the local board.  The process requires any urgent decisions made to be reported to the full board at the next ordinary business meeting. This report is to bring before the Board those decisions made under that process during June 2016.

3.       At the 13th June 2016 Howick Local Board business meeting resolution HW/2016/265 was passed delegating authority to the Chair and Deputy Chair to approve distribution of unallocated funding from the locally driven initiatives fund prior to 30th June 2016.  An additional community grant application round was held, which was presented to a full board workshop on 28th June 2016.  The attached urgent decision details that resolution together with details of funds granted or declined to the applications received. 

 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a)      Note the urgent decision made on 30th June 2016 to allocate a portion of the unallocated locally driven initiatives fund to an additional community grant application round as detailed in project numbers #1 to #17 in attachment A. 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Urgent Decision 30th June 2016

179

     

Signatories

Authors

Lynda Pearson - Local Board Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Sue O'Gorman - Relationship Manager

 


Howick Local Board

11 July 2016

 

 



Howick Local Board

11 July 2016

 

 

Governance Forward Work Calendar

 

File No.: CP2016/14017

 

  

 

 

Purpose

1.       To present the Howick Local Board with its updated governance forward work calendar.

 

Executive Summary

2.       The governance forward work calendar for the Howick Local Board is in Attachment A. The calendar is updated monthly, reported to business meetings and distributed to council staff.

 

3.       The governance forward work calendars were introduced in 2016 as part of Auckland Council’s quality advice programme and aim to support local boards’ governance role by:

·    ensuring advice on meeting agendas is driven by local board priorities

·    clarifying what advice is expected and when

·    clarifying the rationale for reports.

 

4.       The calendar also aims to provide guidance for staff supporting local boards and greater transparency for the public.

 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a)      Note the Howick Local Board Governance Forward Work Calendar.

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Governance Forward Work Calendar

183

     

Signatories

Authors

Lynda Pearson - Local Board Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Sue O'Gorman - Relationship Manager

 


Howick Local Board

11 July 2016

 

 


Howick Local Board

11 July 2016

 

 

Workshop Notes

 

File No.: CP2016/14007

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       This report attaches the workshop notes taken for the period stated below.

Executive Summary

2.       Under Standing Order 1.4.2 and 2.15 workshops convened by the Board shall be closed to the public, however, the proceedings of a workshop shall record the names of members attending and a statement summarising the nature of the information received and nature of matters discussed.  No resolutions are passed or decisions reached, but are solely for the provision of information and discussion.  This report attaches the workshop notes for the period stated below.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Howick Local Board:

a)      Receives the workshop notes for workshops held on 26th and 31st May, 2nd, 7th, 9th, 14th, 16th, 21st, 23rd and 28th June 2016.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Workshop Notes

187

     

Signatories

Authors

Lynda Pearson - Local Board Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Sue O'Gorman - Relationship Manager

 


Howick Local Board

11 July 2016