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

 

Date:                      

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Thursday, 14 July 2016

6.30pm

Waitakere Ranges Local Board Office
39 Glenmall Place
Glen Eden

 

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Sandra Coney, QSO

 

Deputy Chairperson

Denise Yates, JP

 

Members

Neil Henderson

 

 

Greg Presland

 

 

Steve Tollestrup

 

 

Saffron Toms

 

 

(Quorum 3 members)

 

 

 

Glenn Boyd

(Relationship Manager)

Local Board Services (West)

 

Tua Viliamu

Democracy Advisor

 

8 July 2016

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 813 9478

Email: Tua.Viliamu@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 

 

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

14 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          Update from Ward Councillors                                                                                    5

8          Deputations                                                                                                                    5

8.1     ZEAL update report                                                                                             5

8.2     Waitakere Valley Trails Group                                                                            6

9          Public Forum                                                                                                                  6

10        Extraordinary Business                                                                                                6

11        Notices of Motion                                                                                                          7

12        Huia Domain Erosion Management                                                                             9

13        Waitākere Ranges Local Board Community Facilities Renewals Work Programme 2016/2017                                                                                                                    109

14        Proposed local environment work programme 2016/2017                                   113

15        Building in the Bush Design Guide - design principles                                        125

16        Chairperson's report - July 2016                                                                             155

17        Portfolio update:  Member Sandra Coney                                                              159  

18        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

 

 


1          Welcome

 

2          Apologies

 

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

 

3          Declaration of Interest

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

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

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

Register

 

Board Member

Organisation / Position

Sandra Coney

·       Waitemata District Health Board – Elected Member

·       Women’s Health Action Trust – Patron

·       New Zealand Society of Genealogists - Member

·       New Zealand Military Defence Society - Member

·       Cartwright Collective - Member

·       Titirangi RSA - Member

Neil Henderson

·       Portage Trust – Elected Member

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

·       EcoMatters Environment Trust  – Employee

Greg Presland

·       Portage Trust – Elected Member

·       Lopdell House Development Trust – Trustee

·       Titirangi Residents & Ratepayers Group – Committee Member 

·       Whau Coastal Walkway Environmental Trust – Trustee

·       Combined Youth Services Trust - Trustee

Steve Tollestrup

·       Waitakere Licensing Trust – Elected Member

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

·       Waitakere Task force on Family Violence – Appointee

Saffron Toms

       NIL

Denise Yates

·       Friends of Arataki Incorporated – Committee member

·       EcoMatters Environment Trust – Trustee

·       Charlotte Museum Trust – Trustee

 


Member appointments

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

                                              

Board Member

Organisation / Position

Sandra Coney

·       Friends of Arataki Incorporated – Trustee

Neil Henderson

·       Friends of Arataki Incorporated – Trustee

·       Living Cell Technologies Animal Ethics Committee – Member

·       Rural Advisory Panel - Member

Saffron Toms

·       Ark in the Park – Governance Group Member

 

4          Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 23 June 2016, as a true and correct record.

 

5          Leave of Absence

 

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

 

6          Acknowledgements

 

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

 

7          Update from Ward Councillors

 

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

 

8          Deputations

 

Standing Order 3.20 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are required to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications are approved by the Chairperson of the Waitākere Ranges 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.

 

8.1       ZEAL update report

Purpose

Hadleigh Pouesi from Zeal has asked for an opportunity to provide an update on youth week activities that was held in May 2016 in West Auckland.

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a)      Receive the Zeal Update report.

Attachments

a          Youth Week report............................................................................... 167

 

 

8.2       Waitakere Valley Trails Group

Purpose

Jenny MacDonald from the Waitakere Valley Trails Group has asked for an opportunity to introduce this group and explain the objectives of group activities:

 

This group was set up at an inaugural meeting on 5 April 2016.  The agreed purpose of the group is to work towards creating trails within the Waitakere Valley, and to places beyond the valley, thereby connecting people safely with their community, other places and the environment and providing opportunities to share our history and stories.

 

They have identified their first priority to create a walkway/off-road cycle trail from the surf club to Mosquito Alley and organised a site visit on 29 May and following our next meeting on 14 June decided to focus our efforts in the first instance on the stretch from the Waiti Bridge to Mosquito Alley.

The purpose of delegation to the Waitakere Ranges Local Board is to:

1.       Let the Local Board know about our project and seek their support in principle for it

2.       Seek the Local Board’s financial support for the next step (the land survey, initial design and ball-park costings of the Waiti Bridge to Mosquito Alley section)

3.       Seek the support of the Local Board for our group to organise a meeting with AT to discuss the project.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a)      Receive the deputation from Waitakere Valley Trails Group.

 

9          Public Forum

 

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

 

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

 

10        Extraordinary Business

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

11        Notices of Motion

 

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

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

14 July 2016

 

 

Huia Domain Erosion Management

 

File No.: CP2016/10487

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To seek approval from the Waitākere Ranges Local Board of the recommended design to manage erosion along the shoreline of Huia Domain (option 4), for the purposes of applying for resource consents. The design is presented in Attachment A and includes maintenance of the existing seawall, provision for two groyne control structures and beach replenishment.

Executive summary

2.       Beach levels alongside Huia Domain have lowered significantly since 2010, and are continuing to lower during coastal storm events coupled with higher than average tides. This has affected the structural integrity of the seawall presenting health and safety issues to users of the reserve area.

3.       Temporary maintenance and repairs have been undertaken since 2013, but the extent of progressive erosion and larger scale seawall failure now requires a longer term solution in order to manage the erosion along the coastline of Huia Domain.

4.       Three high level management options were initially presented to the local board at their 9th July 2015 business meeting:

•        Option 1: repair and extend the seawall.

•        Option 2: managed beach realignment.

•        Option 3: extended new seawall.

5.       Subsequent consultation with the local community and various stakeholders, confirmed that  these options (when considered in isolation) were not acceptable when applying the relevant provisions of the regulatory framework, potential impact on coastal processes, mana whenua values, local community and stakeholder values and available budget.

6.       In an effort to progress and agree on an acceptable management solution, council staff recommended to the Waitākere Ranges Local Board (WRLB) that a working group be established that comprised of an independent facilitator, specialist council staff, coastal engineers and community representatives.

7.       The working group subsequently developed five design principles during a series of workshops to help guide a suitable coastal management response for Huia Domain. These were: 

•        Preserve the domain and related open space.

•        Work with coastal processes (satisfy technical considerations).

•        Produce a response that can be adapted in the future (climate change and sea level rise provisions).

•        Meet the regulatory framework (satisfy policy direction and resource consent considerations).

•        Provide for mana whenua values.

8.       Using the above design principles, an additional management response was collectively developed (option 4). This combination of management responses included:

•        Maintenance of the current seawall and rock revetment (as required) which essentially provides ‘backstop’ protection to Huia Domain.

•        Physically transfer sand that has accumulated within the intertidal area of Huia Bay, to the area immediately adjacent to the existing seawall, and retain via the provision of two rock groynes.

•     Restoration of an area of dry high tide beach which provides an improved storm buffer to the reserve whilst enabling improved pedestrian access, recreation potential and amenity.  

•     Repair the boat ramp and raise the crest of the seawall by the eastern car park.

9.       An initial cost estimate for option 4, including physical works, detailed design, resource consent preparation, professional services and a 30% contingency is $1,097,100.

10.     The wider Huia community were subsequently engaged, by way of a public open day at Huia Domain and an online survey. The majority of submitters agreed that the revised option 4 satisfied the design principles determined by the working group, with 32% agreeing it met the principles very well and 52% that is met them well.

11.     Throughout the community engagement process it has also become clear there is a desire for a plan to be developed for Huia Domain, to ensure a holistic approach to any future development of the reserve.

12.     Te Kawerau a Maki, have noted that they can support the community and council with option 4, but want to formally acknowledge a cultural design approach, the importance of Huia and any works within the Coastal Marine Area (CMA).

13.     Funding of $720,297 is available in the 2016/2017 financial year through the asset renewal programme. The additional $376,803 that is required to complete this project will need to be planned for in the renewal programme for the 2017/2018 financial year.

14.     Following approval from the WRLB to proceed with option 4, detailed design can be completed, through continued engagement with the working group and Te Kawerau a Maki, for the purposes of applying for resource consents.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a)      approve the recommended design to manage erosion along the shoreline of Huia Domain (option 4), for the purposes of applying for resource consents. Option 4 is presented in Attachment A and includes maintenance of the existing seawall, provision for two groyne control structures and beach replenishment, to manage the related effects of progressive erosion along the shoreline of Huia Domain.

b)      support the development of a concept plan for Huia Domain, with reference to future use and potential impacts of climate change and sea level rise.

 

Comments

Background

15.     Beach levels alongside Huia Domain have lowered significantly since 2010, and are continuing to lower during coastal storm events coupled with higher than average tides.

16.     This has resulted in damage to the existing grouted seawall which has been progressively undermined, resulting in wash out of competent material from behind the seawall and the formation of voids in the reserve area immediately adjacent. The structural integrity of the wall has been compromised and is presenting health and safety issues to users of the reserve area.

17.     Temporary maintenance and repairs have been carried out since 2013, but the extent of progressive erosion and larger scale seawall failure, now require a longer term solution to manage the erosion along the coastline of Huia Domain.

18.     Three high level management options were initially presented to the local board at their 9th July  2015 business meeting:

•        Option 1: repair and extend the seawall.

•        Option 2: managed beach realignment.

•        Option 3: extended new seawall.

19.     Subsequent consultation with the local community and various stakeholders (including public meetings), confirmed that  these options (when considered in isolation) were not acceptable when applying the relevant provisions of the regulatory framework, potential impact on coastal processes, mana whenua values,  local community and stakeholder values and available budget.

20.     The Waitākere Ranges Local Board resolved (WTK/2015/124) on 9th July  2015 that:

the Manager Local and Sports Parks West continues to engage with submitters as required;

a report back be presented to the Waitākere Ranges Local Board for a decision in October 2015.

Community workshop process

21.     In an effort to progress and agree on an acceptable management solution, council staff recommended to the WRLB that a working group which comprised of an independent facilitator, specialist council staff, coastal engineers and community representatives be established:

•        An independent facilitator:

-   Weave Social and Community Development.

•        Three representatives from each of the following community groups :

-   Huia Domain Protection Group.

-   Huia-Cornwallis Ratepayers and Residents Association.

-   Option 3 submission group.

•        Council representatives:

-   Local Parks.

-   Coastal Management Services.

-   Local Board Services.

-   Natural Resources and Specialist Input (attended one workshop).

•        Coastal Engineers:

-   Tonkin and Taylor Ltd.

 

22.     A series of workshops were held in Huia with the above working group. A set of design principles were developed in the workshops that could be used to design a suitable erosion mitigation solution. These agreed principles were: 

•        Preserve the domain and related open space.

•        Work with coastal processes (satisfy technical considerations).

•        Produce a response that can be adapted in the future (climate change and sea level rise provisions).

•        Meet the regulatory framework (satisfy policy direction and resource consent considerations).

•        Provide for mana whenua values.

Option 4

23.     Using the above design principles, an additional management response was collectively developed (option 4). This combination of management responses included:

•        Maintenance of the current seawall and rock revetment (as required) which essentially provides ‘backstop’ protection to Huia Domain.

•        Physically transfer sand that has accumulated within the intertidal area of Huia Bay, to the area immediately adjacent to the existing seawall, and retain via the provision of two rock groynes.

•        Restoration of an area of dry high tide beach which provides an improved storm buffer to the reserve whilst enabling improved pedestrian access, recreation potential and amenity.  

•        Repair the boat ramp and raise the crest of the seawall by the eastern car park.

24.     A report by Tonkin and Taylor Ltd, included as Attachment A, provides the context and supporting rational for option 4, including plan drawings presented in Appendix B.

25.     The proposed design is an integrated solution which considers a combination of complementary coastal engineering responses to achieve the agreed design principles.

26.     Each of the design elements is further described below.

Beach replenishment

27.     The primary outcomes of the beach replenishment are to:

•        Provide a wider and higher beach area which will dissipate more wave energy as it approaches the beach, providing greater protection for the ‘back stop’ seawall and rock revetment from wave action.

•        Provide a dry high tide beach area in front of the seawall that provides for improved amenity and recreation opportunities.

28.     Sand sampling has been undertaken in a number of locations within the intertidal area of Huia Bay to determine if this material was a suitable source for beach nourishment. These tests have indicated a good supply of typically fine grained sand on a shoal in the intertidal area in front of Huia Domain (proposed “Borrow Area” in Attachment A, Appendix B) that is similar in appearance and grading to sand on the beach.

29.     Excavation of up to 300mm of surface material is therefore proposed from within the Borrow Area. This material will be excavated and transported by machinery (motor scraper/digger) to the beach and placed to reflect finished contours indicated in Attachment A, Appendix B.

30.     Studies have been undertaken as part of Tonkin and Taylor Ltds report, to see if the proposed works (reduction in the height of the shoal) will affect existing coastal processes. The results suggest that modification of this shoal may change wave behaviour and orientation, thereby reducing the rate of alongshore sediment transport. Consequently, it is envisaged that this may reduce beach erosion in combination with the provision of groyne structures (discussed below).

31.     Studies have also been undertaken by Tonkin and Taylor Ltd to investigate the potential environmental and ecological impacts. The results indicate the impacts will be low in respect of the ecology of Huia Bay, however working with Auckland Council’s biodiversity team will be essential throughout the detailed design phase. 

Groyne structures

32.     The primary outcomes of the proposed groynes are to maintain a wider sandy beach at Huia Bay by:

•        Retaining sand replenishment that is placed on the beach.

•        Assisting with the trapping of sand being transported along the beach and intertidal area from east to west, thereby minimising the requirement for on-going maintenance and top-up of beach nourishment levels.

33.     The proposed groynes are approximately 40m in length, extending at right angles to the existing shoreline. The majority of the groyne is designed to be buried below the beach level. The core of these structures is typically engineered rock fill with provision of a geotextile liner and the external surfacing designed to provide a more natural form.

34.     A number of surfacing options exist.  However, due to the volcanic rocky exposures in the hills surrounding Huia, the natural consideration for surfacing could be angular volcanic rock armour.

35.     Options were investigated for installing either two or three groynes as part of option 4. There were some advantages to installing three groynes, such as slightly less sand movement between the groynes, and the groynes would be slightly shorter in length.  But on balance, the two groyne structure is preferred for the following reasons:

•        Minimising the number of structures on the beach, the area of beach occupation and visual impact.

•        Lower cost to achieve essentially the same outcome (cost to construct three groynes option is approximately $1,293,100, including physical works, consent requirements, professional services and a 30% contingency).

•        Lower volumes of sand required for initial nourishment (and potential maintenance recharge).

•        More sensitive to the natural environment and in keeping with the policy direction, regulatory framework and mana whenua values.

36.     For reference, Figure 1 and 2 show an example of where the 2 groyne and beach replenishment approach has been successfully used in Torpedo Bay, Devonport.

 

Figure 1: Aerial view of Torpedo Bay in 2006, prior to installation of the groynes and supplementary beach nourishment.

 

Figure 2: Aerial of Torpedo Bay in 2010 following installation of two groynes control structures. Note: increased width of upper beach area.

 

Car park and boat ramp

37.     The existing seawall crest level adjacent to the car park at the eastern end of Huia Beach is to be raised between 0.3m and 0.5m to reduce wave overtopping. Resurfacing of the existing boat ramp adjacent to this car park is also proposed.

Cost estimate

38.     An initial cost estimate for option 4, including physical works, consent requirements, professional services and a 30% contingency is $1,097,100.

39.     The works will afford lower and less frequent on-going maintenance costs as the design is sensitive to driving coastal processes.

Community Consultation

40.     The three community groups represented in the working group provided letters of support for the proposed option 4 prior to taking it to the wider community for feedback.

41.     Option 3 Submission group noted:

“It is great to know there is sufficient sand available locally for beach replenishment, and we are keen to be involved in the next stage of detailed design and master planning for the Domain. We seek to work together with the council on the most cost-effective method of sand replenishment/groynes/beach access. We would be delighted if the most cost-effective solution allowed sufficient budget for controlled fill of the Domain, in order to raise its height and mitigate the long-term effects of sea level rise”.

42.     Huia-Cornwallis Ratepayers and Residents Association noted:

“This approach to preserve the domain, prevent deterioration and erosion of the current seawall is amenable to us. We look forward to being actively involved with strategies and plans pertaining to the practical and aesthetic design of the “managed advance” beach area forward of the existing seawall. Taking a longer term view, we urge the importance of being involved in the process of integrating the seawall solution with future development of the Huia domain area for public use. We see the seawall solution and future development of the domain area as intrinsically linked and these must complement each other”.

 

43.     Huia Domain Protection Group noted:

I am writing to confirm that the HDPG support in principle the investigation of this proposal. Our stance has always been to Save the Huia Domain, so we will work with Council on any proposal seaward of the wall. As per a consensus reached during our meetings we are keen to play an active role in the design aspects of the project and look forward to the production of a Master Plan for the entire Domain area”.

 

44.     A public consultation event was held at Huia Domain on Sunday May 15th, where option 4 was presented to interested members of the community, with the opportunity to ask questions of council staff and technical advisors and provide feedback on the day. The working group kindly assisted with the running of the consultation day and talking to the local community about option 4 both on the day, through their websites, and in their own community meetings.

45.     Feedback was sought via a survey on the consultation day, as well as online at the Shape Auckland website.

46.     The public were asked how important each of the design principles were to them, how well option 4 fitted with the design principles and if they preferred two or three groynes.

Community survey results

47.     A full record of the feedback is provided as Attachment B.

48.     The majority of submitters agreed that each of the design principles were either very important or important to them when determining a suitable solution.

49.     Preserving the domain and related open space appeared to be the most important design principle, with 92% of submitters noting this was very important to them.

Table 1: The results of question 1 in the community engagement survey.

  How important are each of these design principles to you? 

 

Preserve the domain
and related open space

Work with coastal
processes (satisfy technical considerations)

Produce a response that can be adapted in the future

Meet the regulatory framework (satisfy resource consent considerations)

Provide for mana whenua values

Very Important

92%

47%

63%

27%

37%

Important

6%

39%

24%

29%

18%

Neutral

0%

12%

6%

33%

24%

Unimportant

2%

2%

6%

12%

14%

Very Un-Important

0%

0%

0%

0%

6%

 

50.     The majority of submitters also agreed that the preferred option 4 satisfies the design principles as determined by the working group, with 32% that the design met the principles very well and 52% thought they met them well.

Table 2: The results of question 2a in the community engagement survey.

Overall, how well do you think the groynes and beach replenishment option
meets the five design principles?

Very Well

32%

Well

52%

Neutral

10%

Not Well

4%

Not at all

2%

 

51.     The comments were mostly in favour of protecting the domain and noted option 4 seemed like a good way to achieve this as well as restoring the beach at Huia Domain.

52.     Other general comments noted:

•        Concern about the on-going maintenance requirements of groynes.

•        Future sea level rise and how the domain will be adapted.

•        Ensuring the groynes are going to be designed to fit in with the landscape.

•        Concern about the on-going armouring and modification of the coast.

•        Requests to use the sand that has built up under the bridge to return some of the popular swimming area.

•        Concerns in respect of impacts to the intertidal ecology as a result of proposed works.

53.     Two groynes were preferred by most submitters; with 72% favouring two groynes, 13% favouring three groynes and 15% didn’t know or didn’t have an opinion. The comments outlining the reasons for the two groyne preference were:

•        Less visual impact on the bay.

•        Less cost.

•        More sensitive to the environment.

•        Recommended by the engineers and two groynes has worked previously in Torpedo Bay.

54.     It became clear through the engagement process that a plan for Huia Domain is also desired by the community to ensure the Domain is developed in a holistic way and to ensure the community continues to be involved with decisions relating to the Domains development. Through a concept plan, some of the items raised can be addressed, such as options for adapting the domain to the related effects of climate change and sea level rise.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

55.     The WRLB currently hold the budget to renew the Huia Domain seawall.

56.     Option 4 is considered to provide a balanced management response, where Huia Domain is afforded a level of coastal protection in the medium term, whilst providing for enhanced recreation potential, pedestrian access and amenity via creation of an area of dry high tide beach. 

57.     The proposed option 4, using groyne control structure and beach replenishment has successfully been employed elsewhere in New Zealand and Auckland, e.g. Torpedo Bay in Devonport (Images 1 and 2), having been determined to be consistent with national and regional policy direction and the overarching regulatory framework.

Māori impact statement

58.     Te Kawerau a Maki (TKaM) have previously met with the WRLB and council staff to provide their views on the Huia Domain erosion mitigation options. These views were outlined in the WRLB 09th July business report and were the basis behind the “mana whenua values” design principles used to develop option 4.

59.     TKaM were asked to comment on the option 4 draft design and are undertaking a Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA) to provide a formal position on this approach.

60.     TKaM provided initial feedback on option 4 for the purposes of this report noting that they:

•        can work to support the community and council on this, but want to formally acknowledge a cultural design approach, the importance of Huia and any works within the Coastal Marine Area (CMA).

•        In practical terms, TKaM would want:

-   to work with Council on the refined design and its implementation

-   to be able to undertake a start and closing of works ceremony

-   to have a cultural monitor present for all earthworks

-   to explore the opportunity as part of the works to design and install a cultural interpretation board discussing the cultural history of Huia and role of TKaM”.

61.     Council staff will continue to engage with mana whenua to form a partnership that enables the above points, and those raised in the CIA to be delivered where appropriate.

Implementation

62.     It is becoming increasingly urgent to implement a longer term management response as the wall is further undermined. Continued targeted maintenance has provided time to undertake the extensive consultation and design to date, but a longer term solution is now vital to avoid rising costs required for more extensive, regular maintenance repairs as the wall continues to fail.  

63.     Council staff are committed to continuing to work with the community working group and TKaM, throughout this project. 

64.     Funding of $720,297 is available in the 2016-2017 financial year through the asset renewal programme. An additional $376,803 is required to complete this project and will need to be planned for in the 2017-2018 financial year renewal programme.

65.     Following approval of option 4 by the WRLB, detailed design can be developed, through continued engagement with the working group and TKaM.

66.     Physical works can be progressed following completion of detailed design and receipt of the required resource consents.


 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Tonkin and Taylor Report- Huia Domain Beach Nourishment Feasability Study

19

bView

Public Engagement Feedback Results

103

      

Signatories

Authors

Kaitlyn  White - Parks Advisor - Waitakere Ranges

Authorisers

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

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

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

14 July 2016

 

 











































































Waitākere Ranges Local Board

14 July 2016

 

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

14 July 2016

 

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

14 July 2016

 

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

14 July 2016

 

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

14 July 2016

 

 



Waitākere Ranges Local Board

14 July 2016

 

 





Waitākere Ranges Local Board

14 July 2016

 

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

14 July 2016

 

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

14 July 2016

 

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

14 July 2016

 

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

14 July 2016

 

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

14 July 2016

 

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

14 July 2016

 

 

Waitākere Ranges Local Board Community Facilities Renewals Work Programme 2016/2017

 

File No.: CP2016/12164

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To approve the Waitākere Ranges Local Board 2016/2017 work programme for Community Facilities renewals for the Local Parks, Sports and Recreation activity.

Executive summary

2.       Renewals funding is identified at a high level through the long-term plan and a capital works programme is prepared for approval annually. The programme ensures that each council facility can operate to the current level of service articulated in the relevant asset management plan.

3.       Attachment A provides the proposed 2016/2017 work programme for Community Facilities, Local Parks, Sports and Recreation, renewals for local board approval.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a)      approve the 2016/2017 work programme for Waitākere Ranges Local Board Parks, Sports and Recreation Renewals

b)      note that the 2016/2017 funding envelope is indicative to deliver this programme of work and any budget variances (within scope) will be managed within the total region-wide renewals funding envelope.

 

 

Comments

4.       Community facilities are an important part of realising the vision of Auckland to become the world’s most liveable city. They contribute to building strong, healthy, and vibrant communities by providing spaces where Aucklanders can connect, socialise, learn, and participate in a wide range of social, cultural, art, and recreational activities. These activities foster improved lifestyles and a sense of belonging and pride among residents.

5.       Investment in this renewals programme will ensure that council facilities remain valuable, well-maintained community assets that continue to meet user expectations. Not undertaking timely renewals will have an undesirable impact on the customer experience and put asset performance at risk, and ultimately increase the cost to maintain the facility.

6.       The renewals programme process ensures that the proposed Community Facility renewals work programme (Attachment A) has received extensive input and assessment from business owners, facility users, and Community Facilities staff.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

7.       Council staff will report quarterly to the local board on how the programme is tracking, and discuss with the local board any arising key risks and notify the local board when projects are completed.

Māori impact statement

8.       The Waitākere Ranges Local Board Community Facility renewals work programme 2016/17 will ensure that all facilities continue to be well-maintained community assets benefiting the local community, including Māori. Parks and open spaces, as well as sport and recreation activity contributes significantly to Māori well-being, values, culture and traditions. Where any aspects of the proposed work programme are anticipated to have a significant impact on sites of importance to Tangata Whenua appropriate consultation will follow.

Implementation

9.       This work programme will be implemented as part of Community Facilities’ usual business practice.

10.     Work programme implementation will be reported quarterly to the local board. The first-quarter report will outline the programme’s delivery schedule.

11.     The 2016/2017 Community Facilities renewals work programme for the Local Community Services activity was presented for approval at the June business meeting.  

12.     Where bundles of assets are presented as projects over multiple years, the assets (listed within each project line) will be renewed in order of priority with as many singular assets being renewed, within the allocated budget, as possible.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Waitakere Ranges Local Board Community Facilities Renewals

111

     

Signatories

Authors

Hannah Alleyne - Senior Programme Planner

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

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

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

14 July 2016

 

 



Waitākere Ranges Local Board

14 July 2016

 

 

Proposed local environment work programme 2016/2017

 

File No.: CP2016/11191

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To approve the proposed 2016/2017 local environment work programme, totaling $961,868.

Executive summary

2.       The Waitākere Ranges Local Board has identified an aspiration in their Local Board Plan 2014-2017 to achieve ‘our unique natural environments are healthy and restored,’ in their board area.

3.       To give effect to this aspiration the local board has committed $359,000 in total to local environment projects in their locally driven initiatives (LDI) budget and $602,868 in total from their asset based services (ABS) operational budget for 2016/2017.

4.       Funding for these local activity budgets was adopted by the board at its meeting on 09 June 2016 (Resolution WTK/2016/64).

5.       To deliver on these budgets a proposed work programme has been prepared and discussed at a workshop with the board on 19 May 2016 (attachment A), where the following projects are recommended to be delivered in 2016/2017:

·        Manukau Harbour Forum ($8,000)

·        Climbing asparagus weed management project ($100,000)

·        Coastal and marine environment project ($50,000)

·        Septic tank subsidy scheme ($50,000)

·        Kauri dieback coordinator ($48,000)

·        EcoMatters Environment Trust funding ($103,000)

o   EcoMatters Environment Centre and Sustainability Hub ($35,000)

o   EcoWest Festival ($10,000)

o   Love Your Place ($10,000)

o   Project HomeWise ($5,000)

o   Community nursery ($10,000)

o   Love your place awards ($5,000)

o   Plastic bag campaign ($5,000)

o   War on Weeds ($23,000)

·        Septic tank pump-out programme ($602,868)

6.       With the septic tank subsidy scheme project, it is recommended that the scheme is run again in 2016/2017 with the following  changes:

·        Property owners in the lagoon catchments can apply for a subsidy for 50 per cent of the cost of any significant improvement of their septic system, up to a maximum of $5,000.  The definition of ‘significant upgrade’ should be consistent with those developed for the voluntary targeted rate pilot to replace or upgrade failing septic tank systems (resolution number GB/2016/1).

·        the subsidy should only be open until 30 November 2016.  This will create time pressure for people to take up the offer, should encourage upgrades of systems before the summer swimming season and will allow plenty of time to reallocate the funding if uptake is low.

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

 

Recommendations

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a)      approve the allocation of $961,868 for environment projects to be delivered by the Infrastructure and Environmental Services directorate in 2016/2017 as detailed in this report and summarised in the table below

Project

Budget

Manukau Harbour Forum

$8,000

Climbing asparagus weed management project

$100,000

Coastal and marine environment project

$50,000

Septic tank subsidy scheme

$50,000

Kauri dieback coordinator

$48,000

EcoMatters Environment Trust funding

$103,000

Septic tank pump-out programme

$602,868

Total budget

$961,868

 

b)      approve the septic tank subsidy scheme to allow property owners in the west coast lagoon catchments to apply for a subsidy for 50 per cent of the cost of any significant improvement of their septic system, up to a maximum of $5,000, and that this subsidy will only be open until 30 November 2016. 

c)      note that with the funding of $103,000 EcoMatters Environment Trust will deliver the following projects:

o   EcoMatters Environment Centre and Sustainability Hub ($35,000)

o   EcoWest Festival ($10,000)

o   Love Your Place ($10,000)

o   Project HomeWise ($5,000)

o   Community Nursery ($10,000)

o   Love your place awards ($5,000)

o   Plastic bag campaign ($5,000)

o   War on Weeds ($23,000)

d)      note that the Manukau Harbour Forum project will support year three of the forum’s work programme as agreed by the board at its 24 March 2016 meeting.

e)      note that the Kauri dieback coordinator work programme for 2016/2017 was previously approved by the board at its 12 May 2016 meeting.

Comments

8.       To deliver the local board plan outcome of ‘our unique natural environments are healthy and restored,’ the board allocated $359,000 of its locally driven initiatives (LDI) budget and $602,868 of its asset based services (ABS) budget to support the delivery of a local environment work programme in 2016/2017.

9.       Staff met with the board at a workshop on 19 May 2016 to discuss the options for allocation of this local environment budget and to develop a work programme for 2016/2017.

10.     Based on these discussions, it is recommended that 14 projects be delivered as part of the board’s local environment work programme in 2016/2017. A brief description and key deliverables of each of these projects is provided below.

Manukau Harbour Forum ($8,000)

11.     The board is one of nine boards who make up the Manukau Harbour Forum and identifies the key initiative ‘protecting and restoring our natural habitats and biodiversity’ in its local board plan.

12.     As part of its commitment to the forum, the board endorsed year three of the forum’s work programme, including a funding commitment of $8,000, at its meeting on 24 March 2016 (resolution number WTK/2016/2).

13.     Deliverables for 2016/2017 will focus on building up awareness of the Manukau Harbour issues by continuing the external communications work through regular newsletters and attendance at events, a second symposium, and a flagship sites programme.

Climbing asparagus weed management project ($100,000)

14.     The 2014-2017 Local Board Plan identifies that ‘native biodiversity flourishes in our forests, coasts, streams and marine areas’.  It specifically identifies the need to take ‘an integrated approach to the control of weeds and pests.’

15.     In addition to this, the local board commissioned a weed plan to guide weed management in the area. This plan outlined strategic priorities, such as the need for control of climbing asparagus on privately owned land in priority sites like Piha and Huia, but identified that there is currently little detailed data available about the spread of weeds in these areas.

16.     To support these aspirations the local board funded $46,000 in 2014-2015 and $104,000 in 2015-2016 towards a weed management project with a focus on control of climbing asparagus on privately owned property in Huia and Piha.

17.     To date approximately 400 individual properties have been engaged with during the project, 93 per cent of these are currently actively involved in the project.

18.     We recommend that this project is continued for a third year and the deliverables for this project in 2016/2017 are highlighted in Table One below, with indicative budget:

Table One: Deliverables for climbing asparagus weed management project 2016/2017

Activity and Budget

Deliverables

Engagement $40,000

Contractors will undertake a number of techniques to involve the community and raise awareness of the management of climbing asparagus. These include:

·   mail-outs

·   door knocking

·   phone calls

·   emailing

· 477 properties will be engaged with (175 properties in Huia and 302 properties in Piha).

· Commencement of community engagement in Karekare (number of properties to be decided).

· Two weeding bees to be held. One in Huia and one in Piha.

 

Survey $25,000

With the approval of landowners, contractors will conduct surveys to establish the presence of climbing asparagus on their land.

· Number of properties that are surveyed is to be provided

· A map showing the presence of climbing asparagus will be provided to all landowners who approve for their land to be surveyed.

Control $35,000

Contractors will undertake a follow-up round of weed control on properties as required and will also control properties that have identified climbing asparagus as a result of the survey work.

· Number of properties controlled is to be provided

· Number of hectares controlled is to be provided.

 

19.     Budget is also available through the regional strategic weed initiative budget of up to $45,000, which will also be committed in 2016/2017 to progress control of climbing asparagus on specific larger properties in Huia, Karekare and Piha.

Coastal and Marine Environment project ($50,000)

20.     The 2014 Local Board Plan identifies ‘the Manukau Harbour is recognised and valued as a significant cultural, ecological and economic asset, and through integrated management has a rich and diverse marine and terrestrial environment that is able to be enjoyed by all.’ 

21.     The Local Board Plan also notes that ‘native biodiversity flourishes in our forests, coasts, streams and marine areas’.  It specifically identifies the need to improve the water quality in our west coast lagoons and Manukau Harbour, as well as the particular threat to the Maui’s Dolphin population – the world’s rarest. 

22.     In addition to this, the local area faces a number of issues in relation to the quality of the marine environment, in coastal, shore, near-shore and off-shore zones, and the local board has, through consultation on the Local Board Agreement, 2016-2017, identified that it would like to place greater emphasis on the local marine environment. 

23.     To support this, the board has recommended that an information report which sets out the current state of the Waitākere Ranges marine and coastal environments is developed in 2016/2017.

24.     The final report is intended to be completed by the end of March 2017 and is to include:

·        Existing information on the current state of the coastal and marine environment, including executive summary

·        Gaps in this information

·        Causes of degradation

·        Current community actions in place

·        Gaps in appropriate interventions

·        Human safety and recreational aspects

·        The report is to be presented using complementary infographics and visual images

Septic tank subsidy scheme ($50,000)

25.     The local board plan notes that ‘native biodiversity flourishes in our forests, coasts, streams and marine areas’.  It specifically identifies the need to improve the water quality in our west coast lagoons and the Manukau Harbour.

26.     To deliver on these aspirations, the board funded a ‘west coast lagoons septic tank upgrade subsidy’ scheme with a total budget of $50,000 to be delivered in the 2015/2016 financial year, meaning that any eligible home owner living in the catchments of the Karekare, Piha, North Piha and Te Henga (Bethells) lagoons and wishing to upgrade their septic tank could apply for a subsidy of up to $2,500 (increased to $5,000 on 10 March 2016, resolution WTK/2016/18).

27.     There were six successful applications in 2015/2016.  There was one application from Karekare, one from Piha, one from North Piha and three from Bethells.  The proposed upgrades will see two long drops and four old septic tanks replaced with new high-tech wastewater systems.

28.     Despite the relatively low uptake of the subsidy this year, we recommend that the $50,000 grant fund to encourage septic tank owners to upgrade their systems be continued in 2016/2017. We believe that the further 20 free system inspections that were completed in June 2016 may encourage more people to upgrade. It is also expected that there will be more council inspections of high risk systems in the coming months, which could require more people to upgrade. The start of the voluntary targeted rate trial (where owners can borrow the cost of upgrading their septic system and pay it back through their rates) may also generate further interest.

29.     We recommend that the subsidy scheme is run again in 2016/2017 with the following  changes:

·        Property owners in the lagoon catchments can apply for a subsidy for 50 per cent of the cost of any significant improvement of their septic system, up to a maximum of $5,000.  The definition of ‘significant upgrade’ should be consistent with those developed for the voluntary targeted rate pilot. 

·        the subsidy should only be open until 30 November 2016.  This will create time pressure for people to take up the offer, should encourage upgrades of systems before the summer swimming season and will allow plenty of time to reallocate the funding if uptake is low.

30.     We note that there were some unexpected issues in the current year where several applicants were undertaking major renovations that may have required them to upgrade their septic systems.  The current criteria are silent on this matter.  We propose to leave this criterion as it is as those who are required by a notice to fix are still eligible for the subsidy.

31.     If the full budget of $50,000 is not expended by the end of 30 November 2016, it will be discussed with the board in December 2016 on what could be delivered with any underspend. An option could be to extend the area of eligible home owners for the subsidy to other parts within the board’s area or the board may wish to reallocate this budget to other projects.

Kauri dieback coordinator ($48,000)

32.     In the Waitākere Ranges Local Board Plan, the board stated a key outcome that ‘our unique natural environments are healthy and restored: Native biodiversity flourishes in our forests, coasts, streams and marine areas.’ In addition the board also identified an aspiration that ‘our kauri forests are protected from the threat of kauri dieback.’

33.     To achieve this, the board identified employing a kauri dieback coordinator as a key initiative which they would commit $45,000 annually (adjusted for inflation) to over the life of the plan from 2014-2017.

34.     The Kauri dieback coordinator work programme ($48,000) for 2016/2017 has been previously approved by the board at its 12 May 2016 meeting, resolution WTK/2016/42.

EcoMatters Environment Trust Funding ($103,000)

35.     A key initiative in the board’s plan is partnering with community organisations.’ To achieve this initiative, the board has a relationship with the community organisation EcoMatters Environment Trust to deliver a number of environmental projects in the board area. These projects are listed in Table Two, with a brief description and the key deliverables the trust will provide for these projects in 2016/2017.

Table Two: Key deliverables for projects delivered by EcoMatters Environment Trust

Description of Project

Deliverables

EcoMatters Environment Centre and Sustainability Hub ($35,000)

Funding will support the operation of EcoMatters Environment Centre, including staffing and associated education programmes.

 

·   Centre is open for at least 30 hours per week

·   Provide an-e waste drop off service and recycling for plastics and other items

·   Up to date and valid advice, information and support is available via phone, email, website and visits

·   Evaluations of activities indicates 80 per cent satisfaction with service

·   Provide an outline of upcoming seminars and educational opportunities every quarter

·   The Waitākere Ranges Local Board’s support will be acknowledged at public events, in press releases, on signage and flyers, in accordance with council’s media policy and brand & style guidelines

EcoWest Festival ($10,000)

Funding to support the running of EcoWest festival which will run from March-April 2017.

·   Deliver EcoWest Festival by May 2017 with a minimum of 15 events in the Waitākere Ranges Local Board area

·   Sustainability practices are demonstrated in all aspects of the organisation and delivery of the festival

·   These events raise the profile of sustainable living within the community by showcasing existing environmental action and initiatives and enabling the community to participate in these.

·   EcoWest Festivals demonstrate what they preach by providing information about sustainable transport options for every event, and minimising waste by using compostable or reusable food receptacles

·   Local Board support will be acknowledged at public events, in press releases, on signage and flyers, in accordance with council’s brand & style guidelines

Love Your Place ($10,000)

Provide rapid response assistance up to a value of $500 to support volunteer-driven practical environmental initiatives, this includes not for profit preschools.

·    A minimum of 16 assistance requests supported

·    Waitākere Ranges Local Board support will be acknowledged in the provision of the rapid response assistance

·    Response to rapid response assistance applications will occur within the first week of each monthly period in which assistance is available

The following information to be provided at completion of project:

·   Number of requests for assistance received, and number supported

·   Value of assistance requested and assistance provided

·   Number and description of requests received that could not be responded to and rationale for non-response.

Project HomeWise ($5,000)

Workshops, targeted at ethnic communities, and vulnerable households to be provided on topics such as:

·    Waste minimisation

·    Water saving

·    Energy efficiency

·    Sustainable living

·    A minimum of three workshops will be delivered.

·    Evaluations of workshops  indicates 80 per cent satisfaction with service

The following information to be provided at completion of project:

·    Amount of money saved by workshop participants as a result of behavioural changes

·   Three most popular actions taken by workshop participants as a result of advice

·   Number of households provided with products to enhance sustainable living

·   Number of people engaged

·   Number of groups engaged

War on Weeds (23,000)

A campaign to be run during the month of March 2017, where jumbo bins are provided at key sites in the local board area for community disposal of weeds.

·    Weed bins continuously available at 12 locations in Waitākere Ranges Local Board throughout March 2017 (includes the six permanent weed bin locations).

The following information to be provided at completion of project:

·   Weight of weeds collected

·   Number of bin turnovers

Plastic bag campaign ($5,000)

Engage and support individuals, businesses, schools, and community groups to adopt alternatives to plastic bags.

Work cooperatively with existing community initiatives

·   Increased community awareness about the issues relating to the use of plastic bags

·   A discernable “plastic bag-free” campaign brand for the Waitakere Ranges Local Board area.

Love your place awards ($5,000)

Funding to support environmental champion recognition awards that will specifically be for board constituents. The awards will recognise volunteer work in the environment.

·    Event delivered in September 2016

·    Local board support will be acknowledged in press releases, on signage and flyers, in accordance with council’s brand & style guidelines

The following information to be provided at completion of project:

·   Number of nominations of acceptable quality received for each award category

·   Number of invitees that attended

·   Funding and or support from other sources received for the awards event.

Community Nursery ($10,000)

Establishment of community nurseries is supported and advice is provided to the community on how best to establish and maintain these.

·    Minimum of 2,000 native plants germinated and potted on for future planting.

·    Minimum of 1,500 native plants available for community planting projects within the Waitākere Ranges Local Board area (plants generated from this initiative in the 2015/2016 financial year).

·    Provision of nursery advice to community groups and interested parties to assist projects to establish new nurseries.

 

Septic tank pump-out programme ($602,868)

36.     This programme manages the triennial pumpout of septic tanks within the former Waitākere City Council area.

37.     Within the local board area, there are an estimated 3,548 households that pay a targeted rate for maintenance of rural sewage systems. These households are visited regularly (every three years) to have their tanks pumped out and cleaned.

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

Consideration

Local board views and implications

39.     The projects noted above align with the local board plan outcome ‘our unique natural environments are healthy and restored.’

40.     The draft environment work programme was discussed with the board at a workshop on 19 May 2016 and feedback has been incorporated into this report.

Māori impact statement

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

42.     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 three: local environment projects and Māori Outcome Assessment

Project

Māori Outcome Assessment

Manukau Harbour Forum

 

The Manukau Harbour Forum hosts up to three hui per year with mana whenua to receive feedback on its work programme. Mana whenua will be asked to participate in the development of the next three year work programme, noting the forum will need to be reconstituted after the 2016 local elections.

Climbing asparagus weed management project

Specific consultation and engagement with mana whenua has not been carried out for this project. However, it is recognised that management of weeds in the Waitākere Ranges is of significance to mana whenua in their role as kaitiaki of natural environments.

Coastal and Marine Environment project

No direct engagement or consultation with Māori is required for the delivery of this programme, however, it is recognised that improving the health and mauri of marine and coastal areas is of key importance to mana whenua in their role as kaitiaki of Auckland’s natural environment.

Septic Tank Subsidy Scheme

 

It is recognised that improving the health and mauri of waterways is of key importance to mana whenua in their role as kaitiaki of Auckland’s natural environment. Te Kawerau a Maki and other iwi have regularly expressed the importance they place on healthy waterways and, in particular, the need to prevent them being contaminated with human waste. 

Te Kawerau a Maki are represented on the steering group for the west coast lagoons project and have endorsed the draft action plan to clean up the lagoons, which includes this subsidy proposed by the board.

Kauri dieback coordinator

As an iconic native New Zealand tree the survival of kauri is of key importance to mana whenua in their role as kaitiaki. Mana whenua are engaged in the national kauri dieback programme and are working directly with council on the regional kauri dieback management strategy. The kauri dieback co-ordinator will support delivery of this work by council staff.

EcoMatters Environment Trust funding

The funding provided to Ecomatters by the local board has an impact on Māori wellbeing and building capacity for Māori. Ecomatters regularly hold traditional Māori weaving workshops as part of their seminar and workshop education programme.

There is potential for the HomeWise initiative to contribute to Māori well-being through educating Māori groups about energy, water and waste, which may result in financial savings and home livability improvements.

Ecomatters provides support to build the capacity of other organisations involved in developing and delivering environmental initiatives.

With the Love Your Place assistance, EcoMatters provide support for community environmental action, which has the potential to contribute to the development of Māori capacity through supporting applications for this assistance from Māori organisations.

Ecomatters also acts as an umbrella organisation to enable developing organisations without established financial systems and processes to apply for grants. This has included acting as an umbrella organisation for He Tohu Aroha Co-op for a $50,000 grant towards a resource recovery centre trial in west Auckland.

Septic Tank Pumpout Programme

No direct engagement or consultation with Māori is required for the delivery of this programme. However, It is recognised that improving the health and mauri of waterways is of key importance to mana whenua in their role as kaitiaki of Auckland’s natural environment.

 

Implementation

43.     If approved, the septic tank subsidy scheme will only be open until 30 November 2016.  If the full $50,000 is not expended by this time, we will discuss with the board options of how they would like to reallocate this budget.

44.     It is not anticipated that there will be implementation issues with the remaining projects as they will be delivered within the 2016/2017 financial year. Regular reporting on all project delivery will be through the quarterly report from I&ES, or as required.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

I&ES work programme 2016/2017

123

     

Signatories

Authors

Matthew Foster - Relationship Advisor

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

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

 



Waitākere Ranges Local Board

14 July 2016

 

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

14 July 2016

 

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

14 July 2016

 

 

Building in the Bush Design Guide - design principles

 

File No.: CP2016/12855

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To seek the Waitakere Ranges Local Board’s approval for the public release of the building design guidance information within the draft Building in the Bush Design Guide (June 2016).  The completed Building in the Bush Design Guide will not be completed until after the Auckland Unitary Plan decisions and appeals are known, as this will allow the current and relevant planning information to be correctly referenced within the Design Guide document.

Executive summary

2.       The development of the Building in the Bush Design Guide (Design Guide) is identified as a key initiative in the Waitakere Ranges Local Board Plan 2014 which supports the outcome “the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area is protected”.

3.       The Design Guide illustrates the importance of good building location and sympathetic design in all aspects of residential development when building or redeveloping a site in the bush clad areas of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area (WRHA).  This will help protect the heritage features which make the area a place of regional and national significance. It is a companion document to the Waitakere Ranges Foothills Design Guide, relevant for the rural parts of the WRHA.

4.       The completion of the Building in the Bush Design Guide needs to be deferred until the decisions and appeals on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan are known.  For the Design Guide to be useful for new residential development and/or redevelopment there will be references to  Auckland Unitary Plan  provisions relevant to  the WRHA .  This information cannot be included until the operative provisions from the Auckland Unitary Plan are known.  To make use of the specific building design guidance that has already been developed, it is intended to publish extracts of this information. This extract will eventually be replaced by the complete Building in the Bush Design Guide, which is not likely to be finalised until early 2017.

 

Recommendations

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a)      approve the building design guidance information (Attachment A) that has been extracted from the Draft Building in the Bush Design Guide, June 2016; and enable this information to be made publically available by September 2016

b)      note the completed Building in the Bush Design Guide will not be finalised until after the Auckland Unitary Plan decisions and appeals are known later in 2016.

c)      note the completed Building in the Bush Design Guide will be reported back to the Waitakere Ranges Local Board for approval, which is likely to be in early 2017.

 

Comments

5.       The Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008 (WRHAA) established the WRHA  in recognition of the area’s national and regional significance, and identifies heritage features (see Attachment B) which individually and collectively provide a special sense of place.

6.       The WRHAA identifies heritage features in the WRHA  and includes in this context:: 

·        the subservience of the built environment to the area’s natural landscape, which is reflected in —

(i)      the individual identity and character of the coastal villages and their distinctive scale, containment, intensity, and amenity; and

(ii)      the distinctive harmony, pleasantness, and coherence of the low-density residential and urban areas that are located in regenerating (and increasingly dominant) forest setting.

7.       The Waitākere Ranges includes almost 40 percent of native vegetation in the region, and is the second largest block of continuous vegetation on the mainland in Auckland, after the Hunua Ranges. A significant residential population lives in the WRHA, mostly in forest-dominated urban, rural, or coastal communities. The 2013 census showed 20,439 people living in the WRHA within the local board area, with 7,305 occupied dwellings and 891 unoccupied. A 2012 GIS desktop study called the Capacity for Growth Study identified 575 vacant lots in the forested areas of the WRHA, with the theoretical potential for 386 new lots from subdivision.

8.       The WRHA Monitoring Report 2013 found that generally the objectives of the WRHAA were generally being met, although future vulnerability remains (page 13, Volume 2):

The most significant pressure affecting these [bush-living] landscape units is that of subdivision for residential activity with its associated earthworks and or vegetation removal posing a threat to existing character and heritage features. Some of the more recent (and one or two older) subdivisions within the bush living landscape units clearly display a number of characteristics which undermine the landscape character of those units. These include the use of urban/suburban elements, mostly on public land, such as kerb and channelling, street lighting, retaining walls, concrete paths and other infrastructure.

Similarly, if the trend towards the creation of flat sections to accommodate concrete floor slabs were to spread into the bush living landscape units, the landscape character would be undermined still further by the extensive earthworks, retaining and vegetation removal required. However, if earthworks and vegetation removal are minimised, the bush-clad areas of the bush living units clearly demonstrate they are able to accommodate reasonable densities with only minor effects on landscape character.

9.       The Design Guide is intended to assist land owners and developers to design buildings so that the development assists in meeting the objectives and respects the heritage features of the WRHA.  The design guidance will help landowners to respond to the environment when planning new buildings on undeveloped sites, or with changes to existing buildings and/or site layout. The Design Guide has an emphasis on quality of design, and is intended for landowners, design professionals, and as an advocacy tool for council staff, such as resource consent planners

10.     Whilst the Design Guide provides “building design guidance”, it is also intended to reference the planning provisions that are relevant for the WRHA.  In order to do this, completion of the Building in the Bush Design Guide needs to be deferred until the decisions and appeals on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan are known.  In the interim, to make use of the specific building design guidance that has already been developed, it is intended to extract this information, allowing it to be publically available earlier. This will eventually be replaced by the completed Building in the Bush Design Guide; which is not likely to be finalised until early 2017.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

11.     The Waitakere Ranges Local Board Plan 2014 identified the development of a Building in the Bush Design Guide as a key initiative, and the Local Board allocated funding for it as part of the WRHA work programme in 2014/2015 and 2015/2016. 

12.     The Local Board has provided direction through workshops held in November 2014, June 2015, and June 2016 to help develop the content within the Design Guide.  At the 16 June 2016 workshop, the Local Board requested the “building design guidance” information be made available within the current term.  Whilst it was acknowledged the appropriate planning information was important to include in the Design Guide, given that there is useful and informative design guidance already developed, this should be made available to the public as soon as possible.  It was still supported to complete the Building in the Bush Design Guide once the regulatory information was known and understood.

Māori impact statement

13.     Te Kawerau a Maki, Ngāti Whātua Nga Rima o Kaipara and Ngāti Whātua o Orakei have not been consulted specifically on this report. Regular consultation and engagement does however take place on a range of individual projects and activities described in this report, and on matters of mutual interest in the Waitākere Ranges local board area.  Development of processes that support stronger engagement with tangata whenua in decision-making in the WRHA is identified as a key work stream.

Implementation

14.     Once approved by the local board, the “building design guidance” parts from the Draft Building in the Bush Design Guide will be published on the Auckland Council website so that it is available to the public and council staff. This is likely to be available by September 2016.  It is noted the information that has been extracted from the Design guide will include a limited number of photographs and illustrations.  There is the opportunity when the Design Guide is completed to include additional photographs from other sources.

15.     The Independent Hearing Panel will make recommendations on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan to council on 22 July 2016, and Auckland Council will notify its decision in week ending 19 August 2016.  This is followed by an appeals period which concludes towards end of September 2016.

16.     It is anticipated that the Building in the Bush Design Guide, complete with planning context, will be reported back to the Local Board for approval in the early part of 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Building in the Bush Design Guide - design principles

129

bView

WRHA Act 2008 - Heritage Features

153

     

Signatories

Authors

Vanita Ranchhod - Principal Planner

Brett Lane - Local Board Advisor

Authorisers

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

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

14 July 2016

 

 

Identify and Analyse the Wider Context


Careful consideration of the wider context and the site’s place within it can ensure a good fit with surrounding bush areas. This involves identifying and analysing the notable features and characteristics of the wider area, and the characteristics of existing residential properties that are successfully integrated into the landscape. The main factors to consider are:

·      Notable features and characteristics of the wider area, including:

–         landscapes and landforms (slopes, ridgelines, valleys, coastal cliffs etc.);

–         significant views and visibility of different parts of the site;

–         significant public views of the site;

–         Local and Regional Parks in close proximity;

–         orientation and aspect;

–         wind direction and other climatic conditions;

–         vegetation character and patterning;

–         hydrological systems such as wetlands, streams, rivers, overland flowpaths and tidal areas;

–         heritage and cultural features; and

–         distinctive architectural styles that contribute positively to the identity of the area.

·      Characteristics of existing residential properties that are essential to ensuring successful integration into the local bush living area, including:

–         the scale, form, colour and appearance of buildings and other structures such as garaging, retaining walls and the lack of fencing and gateway treatments;

–         how buildings relate to the topography of their site;

–         how buildings relate to the vegetation patterning of their site and the wider context;

–         how outdoor living areas such as decks and paved areas fit with the setting; and

–         how garden plantings fit with the wider vegetation patterns.

Analyse the Site

Recognising that each site will have its own characteristics, a Site Analysis allows the identification of both constraints and opportunities, and the development of an appropriate design response. A Site Analysis Plan should be prepared for the property showing the defining attributes and features of the site, which may include:

·      fence lines and boundaries;

·      infrastructure and access to roads;

·      hazards including relevant geotechnical and flooding information;

·      ground contamination;

·      topography and landforms, particularly where the landform is recognised as a sensitive ridgeline in the District Plan;

·      streams, riparian areas, wetlands and stormwater (or overland flow path) patterns;

·      groundwater levels;

·      native vegetation features (e.g. areas of native bush, significant trees (that are not scheduled) or wetland);

·      native fauna features (e.g. bird or skink habitat);

·      weed and pest problems (e.g. areas of weed infestation or problems with rats and possums etc.);

·      heritage features, including those that are identified for protection in the District Plan (e.g. archaeological features, heritage trees, waahi tapu, heritage structures);

·      high quality landscape views and vantage points;

·      unattractive views and vantage points;

·      visibility of parts of the property from other places, particularly public places (e.g. roads, Local and Regional Parks) and neighbouring dwellings;

·     
existing buildings, other structures and paved areas/decking;

·      solar orientation;

·      wind and climatic considerations;

·      local sources of noise, dust, odour, vibration; and

·      the unique character and amenity of the site and immediate area.

 


 

Benefits of this Approach

Identifying these elements early and responding to site constraints, opportunities, and characteristics:

·      enables responsive designs to be created;

·      identifies and accommodates natural and cultural elements in and around the site, retaining or creating a unique identity;

·      enables the subdivision or building to be integrated into its surrounding bush setting;

·      identifies issues “up-front” before spending time and money on problematic responses;

·      enables innovative design that avoids “over development” and the unnecessary loss of landform and natural features; and

·      promotes building projects that retain the appearance of the dominant landform and bush setting and that visually link with the surrounding landscape.


Win-Win outcomes:

·      Well-designed proposals are more likely to receive resource consent in a timely and cost effective manner.

·      Residential development is accommodated while protecting the key natural features for which the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area is valued.

·      Vegetation clearance and earthworks are minimised, which contributes towards the overall amenity of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area being maintained for future generations to enjoy.

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

14 July 2016

 

 

Step 3 : Building Design

Core Design Principles

The core design principles provide a quick reference guide to best practice for building projects. They respond to the key issues and opportunities that need to be addressed in the design of building projects which significantly influence the quality of bush-clad areas.

Create                   suitable site layouts. Some landscapes and locations have greater ability to absorb development than others. Residential development in bush areas should complement the local identity of the area and respond to landform and other site and surrounding characteristics. Site layouts should respond to views, aspect, shelter and visual integration within bush-clad landscapes. (Section 3.1)

Integrate               natural elements, patterns in the landscape, ecological systems and processes such as vegetation, landforms and water bodies into the site layout to enhance the existing landscape character, create identity, maintain and enhance valued and established natural ecosystems. (Section 3.2)

Avoid                     unnecessary earthworks, and minimise unavoidable earthworks to maintain the natural landform. Design the layout and location of access and building platforms to follow the shape of the land, avoiding steep slopes and adverse effects on aquatic environments and other natural systems. (Section 3.3)

Preserve              heritage features including waahi tapu sites, heritage buildings and structures, natural areas and topographic features for future generations. This can be achieved in a manner that adds value and uniqueness to building projects. (Section 3.4)

Reduce                 the impact of infrastructure to help maintain the long-term quality of bush-clad environments and create communities that are more resilient and self-reliant. Consider the scale, materials and detailing appropriate for building in the bush when designing buildings and driveways. Promote the use of low-impact water supply, waste, grey and stormwater treatment options, solar, insulation and building materials. (Section 3.5)

Complement        the “low-key” and “green” character of bush-clad environments in the design and location of structures including buildings, water tanks, retaining structures, and paving etc. The style and exterior colour of these structures has the potential to undermine a bush-clad environment’s character if it is borrowed from an urban or suburban context. (Section 3.6)

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

14 July 2016

 

 

3.1 CREATE Suitable Site Layouts


When designing lot layouts in bush areas, the aim is to ensure that new development appears visually integrated and sympathetic with its surrounding landscape, rather than imposed upon it. The aim is to achieve an outcome in which built development remains subservient to the natural landscape for which the area is so highly valued. It is possible to construct a building that not only contributes to the character of the landscape, but which sets high standards in terms of siting, location, and design. Some sites will be less sensitive to change and not all the siting issues will be relevant.

Text Box: Good bush coverage along road frontageText Box: Ridgeline building sympathetically located and designed to follow the contour and use dark coloursText Box: Good privacy between neighbouring dwellings despite their proximity

HOW to create a suitable site layout:

·      Locate the building where natural features or the presence of trees and mature planting will minimise the visual impact of a building in the landscape.

·      Use any already cleared areas on the site for buildings and driveways. Consider shorter and narrower driveways (e.g. 2.5m width) to minimise earthworks and vegetation clearance.

·     

Driveway runs straight up the contour necessitating earthworks

 

O

 

 

Driveway designed to wind around the contours and vegetation

 

P

 

 
Avoid breaking the skyline or being seen against water when the building is viewed from roads, public places such as the coast or reserves, and neighbouring properties.

·      Locate buildings to respect the privacy of neighbours and minimise obstruction of their views.

·      Ensure buildings are located and orientated to maximise passive solar heating gains and minimise exposure to prevailing winds.

·     

Building location obstructs view from neighbouring dwelling

 

O

 

 

Buildings sited to retain views from neighbouring dwelling

 

P

 

 

O

 

 

Good planting between neighbouring dwellings

 

Lack of privacy between neighbouring dwellings

 

P

 

 
Make allowance for the growth of trees, especially those close to the house. Contact with vegetation causes damage to buildings, through reduced ventilation, blocked spouting, prolonged dampness and abrasion of coatings. Tree roots can interfere with foundations.

·      Site the house so you won’t have to continually prune vegetation to retain solar access and keep spouting unblocked. Consider the use of a gutter-guard type product.

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

14 July 2016

 

 

3.2 INTEGRATE Natural Elements, Landscape Patterns and Natural Processes


 

 
Integrating natural elements such as vegetation, landforms and water bodies will help to maintain the character of the bush areas and should provide a framework for buildings that helps to ensure that they sit comfortably within a bush setting. It will also provide benefits in terms of maintaining and enhancing established natural ecosystems.

HOW to integrate natural elements, landscape patterns and natural processes:

·      Retain existing vegetation, including native plantings and mature exotic vegetation to provide a context for development. Where possible, completely avoid existing significant trees (including their driplines).

·     
Remove pest plants.

·      Consider building close to the road to minimise the extent of vegetation clearance and earthworks (although at a distance that still enables some screen or buffer vegetation between buildings and the road).

·      Analyse the surrounding vegetation patterns and consider extending / reinforcing and enhancing existing groups of trees and areas of bush, so buildings and structures appear nestled into a cohesive bush setting.

·      Make the most of opportunities to retain and restore watercourses, streams and wetlands by planting stream banks and wetlands in locally appropriate, eco-sourced indigenous species (and fencing from stock if appropriate). Seek the assistance of an ecologist or talk with the Council to identify the most appropriate method to restore a stream or wetland.

 

 

 

 

 
 


Use native species in new garden and boundary plantings. The Auckland Council Biodiversity Team (part of the Environmental Services Unit) can assist with advice. Another helpful reference is   the “Native to the West” planting guide for advice on which species to plant on your site – see:  http://www.whauriver.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/NativeToThe-West-Pt1.pdf and http://www.whauriver.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Native-to-the-West-Pt2.pdf

·      Use planting to connect areas / remnants of native bush, and enhance watercourses and wetlands to form wildlife corridors.

·      Use vegetation to control erosion and aid stability on steeper slopes.

·      Consider the implications of your development in terms of kauri dieback disease. For example, avoid bringing soil into kauri areas and require construction staff to clean footwear, tyres and equipment. For more information see: http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/environmentwaste/biosecurity/Pages/kauridieback.aspx#protect

·      Design the site layout (buildings, driveway and outdoor living area) around vegetation, topography, solar orientation and views. Avoid encroaching on important ecological systems.

·      Where driveways need to pass through the dripline of existing vegetation, consider the use of timber bridges, gravel laid over a geotextile membrane, or permeable paving laid on a sand base to protect tree roots.

·      Locate native privacy (or screen) planting between buildings and the road, to reinforce the bush character of the local roading network.

·      Eradicate invasive environmental weeds from the site and avoid using them in proposed plantings. The Auckland Council Biosecurity Team (part of the Environmental Services Unit) can assist with advice as to which plants are invasive.  Another helpful reference is   the Regional Pest Management Strategy (RPMS) – see: http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/environmentwaste/pestsdiseases/Documents/rpms20072012.pdf)

·      Seek to minimise “edge” areas by minimising overall vegetation clearance, as weeds often invade “edge” areas.

 

 


 

3.3 AVOID Unnecessary Earthworks

Earthworks for subdivision and development can have substantial and cumulative effects on the environment including the look and feel of the landscape, silting streams and estuaries, and altering catchments. They can significantly alter topography and result in the loss of vegetation, which would otherwise enhance the character and identity of the area. Earthworks in sensitive areas that are easily eroded (such as steep slopes) and on visually prominent sites are of particular concern. Very careful consideration should be given to locating building platforms and driveways in these environments.

Earthworks and retaining structures can be expensive (e.g. construction costs and disposal to cleanfill costs) and can have adverse effects on the environment if poorly managed. Best practice design solutions limit the extent of earthworks, reduce opportunities for erosion and sedimentation and retain and emphasise the site’s natural features.

Text Box: Car parking 'deck'
HOW
to reduce the adverse impact of earthworks:

·      Avoid unnecessary earthworks and limit earthworks (volume and area).

·      Identify naturally occurring shelves or the gentlest part of a slope to locate building platforms.

·      Design the layout and location of driveways, building platforms and outdoor living areas to follow the lie of the land.

·      Consider the use of a parking platform near the road on steep sites to reduce earthworks requirements.

·      On steeply sloping land consider split-level building designs that reduce the building footprint and provide elevated living areas for better daylight and sunlight access.

Text Box: Low key driveway
Text Box: Large scale retaining wall that requires screening

·      Consider the impact building foundations will have on the site’s topography (and vegetation features). Timber pile foundations or pole houses are typically more suited to steep bush sites because they need smaller earthworks. Consider not using a concrete floor slab unless it is needed for passive solar design (see Building Design).

·     

Single level building on sloping site necessitates substantial earthworks

 

O

 

 

Building stepped to follow the contour on sloping site, reducing the need for earthworks

 

P

 

 

Inappropriately scaled retaining wall with no planting

 

Appropriately scaled, stepped retaining wall integrated with planting

 

O

 

 

P

 

 
Where cuts and fills are required, batter slopes should be shaped to integrate with the surrounding natural landform.

·     
Consider the use of planting on the batter slopes to assist their integration with the surrounding vegetation patterns. Generally a slope profile of maximum 1:3 will allow the successful establishment of vegetation, as topsoil will not be washed off.

·      Where retaining structures are unavoidable, use visually recessive materials, such as timber, that are sympathetic to the bush setting. It is generally preferable to locate retaining near buildings to minimise effects.

·      Avoid carrying out earthworks in proximity to watercourses, by following the landform and creating a buffer between earthworks and natural watercourses.

·      Retain the site’s topsoil for use in any new planting areas.

·      Before construction, think about minimising disturbance from material storage areas and machinery access. Install protective fencing around the dripline of vegetation features to prevent damage to root systems and consider the practicality of your construction methodology.


 

 

 

 

 

 
 


3.4 PRESERVE Cultural Heritage


Sites may have important heritage features or historical associations which should be preserved. Identify and locate these sites before beginning the design process. Maximise opportunities to preserve and enhance cultural heritage – waahi tapu sites, heritage buildings / structures, ecological, geological and archaeological sites, and significant trees or vegetation groups; e.g. traditional and contemporary food collection areas, trade routes and timber milling remnants, trees and other vegetation.


HOW
to preserve the cultural heritage of the site

·      Access the heritage register in the District Plan and the Cultural Heritage Inventory from Council to help identify specific cultural heritage sites.

·      Libraries often have valuable resources for research into the history of a site and its surroundings.

·      Consult with the local iwi and Council officers to help identify sites of cultural importance and to determine the best ways to preserve each site.

·      Locate new development so it does not dominate nearby heritage sites, and so it does not compromise the setting or the historic landscape connections of sites of cultural heritage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


3.5 REDUCE the Effects of Infrastructure


Built development in bush areas may require the provision of on-site water supply and wastewater treatment and disposal systems. Above-ground services such as telecommunication and electricity lines can introduce urban clutter into the landscape and draw attention to development. Secondary structures such as water tanks are common features within bush-clad environments, they can become dominant if not located sensitively in a bush setting.


HOW to reduce the adverse impacts of infrastructure:

·      Facilitate on-site infiltration of stormwater from roads and other impermeable surfaces through swales and raingardens. Avoid the use of kerb and channel where practicably possible.

·      Avoid direct piping of stormwater discharges to streams.

·      Consider the design of the site layout to minimise the impermeable footprint and the integration of water reuse systems within the building design to minimise stormwater volumes. Use impermeable paving materials where possible.

·      Locate any services such as power, water, wastewater and phone lines underground. To minimise disturbance to root zones it is often best to locate water pipes and power/phone lines along the driveway access.

·      Consider locating wastewater irrigation fields throughout newly planted areas to assist plant survival during the drier summer months and plant growth generally. Avoid laying irrigation fields within the driplines of established trees (as the increased moisture and nutrients can cause a shock to the tree) and tree species that prefer dry feet.

·      Ideally locate water storage tanks underground, at the edge of cleared areas or under the house. Where this is not feasible, locate tanks to integrate with the overall design of the house and minimise vegetation clearance. Use planting (or buildings) to screen the tank from views outside of the site. Consider the practicality of the location in terms of initial placement and future maintenance.


 

 

·      Consider the use of water-saving devices such as dual flush toilets, low-flow shower heads and grey water systems to reduce water and wastewater requirements.

·      Consider solar hot water and energy provision.

·      Air conditioning or heating structures should be integrated within the building envelope and should not be obtrusive in views from outside of the site.

·      Gas bottles and rubbish bins should be screened from views outside of the site.

·      Consider on-site green waste composting.

·      Talk to Council’s Eco Design Advisor to discuss other ways you may be able to reduce infrastructure impacts – see: (http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/en/ratesbuildingproperty/ sustainablehomes/pages/ecodesignadvice.aspx)

 



3.6 COMPLEMENT the Bush Setting

Building Design

The design and location of buildings and ancillary structures can have a considerable impact on the bush landscape. In cities, buildings are the focus of attention. In bush living areas, however, it is the land and vegetation forms which should dominate. Intricate or large-scale building designs may be appropriate in urban or suburban streets full of buildings, but will often look out of place in a bush landscape where simple and clean building lines tend to be more appropriate.

There are a number of techniques by which buildings can be made more sympathetic to their surroundings. For example, pitched roofs, verandahs and lean-tos tend to help sit the building into the landscape and darker colours tend to help buildings blend into a bush setting.

Buildings are more likely to reflect elements and patterns of the surrounding natural character, through the use of local natural materials.

A bush environment also presents a number of challenges for building design, particularly in terms of light, sun, warmth and dampness. Modern building design suggests a wide range of innovative solutions that can successfully address such issues.


 

HOW to complement the bush character in the design of buildings:

 

 
Siting

·     


·      Wherever possible, building location should take advantage of existing established planting to break the “straight lines” of constructed elements.

·      Design and locate buildings to maintain a low profile, avoiding prominent locations such as the tops of ridges. Where it is unavoidable to break the skyline, use foreground and background planting to break up straight constructed building lines and provide a more natural visual backdrop in views from outside the site.

·     

Poorly sited building necessitates the need for substantial earthworks and vegetation removals

 

P

 

 

O

 

 

Building sited to optimise the screening effect of existing vegetation

 
Position buildings to enable privacy (or screen) planting between the road and building to maintain the perception of a bush setting in views from the road.

1.              

·     
Align buildings with the contour of the land, not the boundary fence.

·      Align driveways to follow the natural contours of the land and to blend with the natural setting, curving around landform and vegetation features and avoiding straight lines.

·      Orient garaging so that it does not dominate the view from the road into the property.

·      Positon buildings and accessways to minimise the need for earthworks and retaining structures.


 

Form and scale

·     


·     

Single level

 

Stepped building form responds to sloping nature of site

 

O

 

 

O

 

 

Bulky form and light colours inappropriate in bush setting

 

Articulation of elevation and varied roof profile reduces building scale

 

P

 

 

P

 

 

Suburban style inappropriate in bush setting

 

O

 

 

Building massing responds to the bush setting

 

P

 

 
Design buildings of an appropriate form, scale and style to complement the bush environment and avoid importing a suburban style of building (and garden).

2.              

·     
On flatter sites, design buildings with a horizontal emphasis, minimising two-storey elements.

·      Building size should be in scale with its surroundings. The mass should relate proportionately to the landscape setting and site size. Large buildings are usually incompatible within a small site.

·      Consider the articulation of building elevations to avoid the perception of a large-scale or bulky building. The use of a coordinated range of materials in combination with a stepped building footprint, deep window reveals and generous overhangs can reduce the perceived scale of a large building.

·     

Garage dominates the view of the property

 

Garage located discretely behind the house

 

O

 

 

P

 

 
Where garages are attached to the house, make them subservient to the scale of the rest of the building.

3.              


 

 

·      On steeply sloping sites, a collection of smaller building forms arranged to step down the landform (and also potentially, around vegetation), is a more sympathetic solution than a single large-scale level platform. Staggering forms down the landform will also avoid the perception of a single tall building form.

·     

Exposed pole foundations

 

Pole foundations screened by cladding and plantings

 

O

 

 

P

 

 
On steeply sloping sites, consider the “look” of the pile or pole foundation component of the building from outside of the site. Ideally deck and building soffits should be screened from external view. Usually the careful siting of the building means that existing vegetation can achieve this screening effect. Where this is not possible, consider planting to mitigate, or close the area in so that it reads as an integrated part of the building.

4.              


Building Layout and Design

·      Configure indoor and outdoor living areas in the north-facing parts of the platform to maximise sunlight penetration.

·      Consider the use of clerestory windows and double-glazed skylights to maximise light penetration on heavily vegetated sites. Skylights should be small-scale to reduce heat loss; and consider their potential for overheating during the summer months if there are no shade trees nearby.

·      I

Skylights and clerestory windows improve solar access

 
nsulate walls, roofs and underfloors to minimise heat loss, overheating and dampness, particularly in houses with a reduced foundation mass (i.e. pole or pile foundations, rather than a concrete slab foundation). Insulate the building to the highest practicable R-value. Consider the use of double glazing (particularly on south facing windows) and close fitting drapes. All extractor fans should be vented to the outside.

·      Design buildings for passive solar gain and explore opportunities for environmentally friendly technologies.


 


Roofline

·      Broken forms or roof configurations which diminish the apparent extent of roof are encouraged unless they introduce unneeded complexity or angularity.

·      Pitched roofs tend to sit a building into the landform. On sloping sites, pitched roof ridgelines should generally be parallel with the counter lines.

·      On sloping sites, mono pitch roofs tend to be more successful where they follow the landform and vegetation patterns.

·      Consider the use of green roofs, which assist visual integration as well as insulation and stormwater management.

·      Consider the requirements for potable water supply in the choice of roof form, pitch and material selection.

·      Integrate solar panels so that they read as an integrated part of the roof design.

 

 

Chimneys and Rooftop Structures

·      Chimneys and rooftop structures should be considered as part of the building’s overall massing and proportions.

·      Avoid locating antennae, aerials and satellite dishes so that they can be seen from outside of the site.


 

Appearance

·     


·      Use natural colours and materials, and materials associated with the bush environment such as weathered timber, timber with a stain or darker paint finish, darker coloured corrugated iron, darker coloured precast and in situ concrete finishes, rammed earth, darker coloured plaster finishes, and stone.

·      Avoid elaborate, urban-type designs and materials. Source materials locally where possible (e.g. local aggregates, timber and stone).

·      Use a similar design approach to the form and materials of garaging and any ancillary structures so that they read as an integrated part of the overall development.

 

 

 

 

Use permeable “paving” materials (gravels, grass, dark coloured permeable pavers) to replace impermeable materials (concrete, asphalt).

·      Timber decking is often an appropriate solution for outdoor living areas in the bush environment, as it minimises ground and vegetation disturbance, is visually appropriate and can be designed to enable an outlook over the bush setting.

 

 

 


Reflectivity

·     


·      Use building materials, in particular roofs that complement the bush character in terms of texture and colour, and do not clause glare and excessive reflectance.

·      Make use of materials and colours of lower reflectivity to aid in the ability for built elements to be absorbed into the landscape, for example, unstained timber and natural materials.

·      For materials with a coloured finish, use a reflectivity level of between 0 to 40% for exterior walls and 0 to 25% for roofs.

·      Consider the ways in which colour can be the expression of individuality, but can also affect how recessive or dominant the building is in the landscape. Generally the use of brighter painted finishes should be limited to the accenting of defined architectural elements and should constitute no more than one third of an elevation.

 


 

Glazing

·      Use double glazing with a low reflectance value.

·      Focus larger expanses of glazing on north-facing aspects for optimal passive solar heating.

·      Consider generous building overhangs to cast shading over large expanses of glazing to reduce their prominence in views from outside of the site.

·      Avoid highly reflective materials such as mirror glazing.

·      Ornate fenestration and multiple glazing bars with numerous small panes of glass are generally discouraged.

Lighting

·      Consider the influence of interior and exterior lighting on the night sky.

·      Minimise exterior lighting by avoiding general area illumination, wall washing and unshaded light sources that shine onto neighbouring properties or the road.

·      Orient exterior lights towards the ground and back into the site.

·      Keep exterior decorative lighting, such as uplighting of trees, to a minimum and out of sight of neighbours and road users.

·      Use drapes, blinds or shutters to minimise interior light spill and protect the night sky.

 

 

 


Boundary treatments

·     


·      Generally (and where required), planting is the preferred method to delineate boundaries of residential lots.

·      Where fencing is required, it should comprise a simple low-key post and wire style that is visually recessive within a bush context and does not disrupt ecological linkages.

·     

Inappropriate suburban style boundary fencing

 

Low key post and wire fencing enables continuity of planting

 

P

 

 

O

 

 
Should a less permeable solution be required to control pets etc., low wire mesh fencing within a native hedging/planting is encouraged to avoid the perception of a suburban fencing character. Electronic methods for animal control should also be considered by landowners in the bush living areas.

·     
Timber close board type fencing and stone/masonry walls should be avoided.

·      Set gates and fencing back from the road edge so that they blend with the surrounds and do not dominate the roadscape.

·      Avoid elaborate gates, letterboxes and entranceway statements, as these are more urban elements.

 


 

 

 

 



Waitākere Ranges Local Board

14 July 2016

 

 



Waitākere Ranges Local Board

14 July 2016

 

 

Chairperson's report - July 2016

 

File No.: CP2016/14263

 

  

 

Annual Budget

1.       The Governing Body has made decisions about the Annual Budget. Some are of particular interest to Waitakere Ranges Local Board:

·        Decision to inaugurate a loan scheme/targeted rate for loans septic tank replacement that can be paid off through rates. The pilot applies to Waitakere Ranges and Onetangi.

·        The general rate differential for farm and lifestyle properties remains at 80% of urban residential rate. There was a proposal to shift some of the farm rate onto all residential property owners, which was not supported by the Board.

·        The Governing Body decided to stay with the transport levy of $113.85 for residential ratepayers and $182.85 for business ratepayers. There was a proposal to increase the proportion that was paid by businesses and this was supported by the Board.

·        The UAGC stays at $394 for 2016/17, which was supported by the Board.

·        The overall general rate increase is 2.4%, an increase of 2.5% for residential ratepayers and 1.9% for business ratepayers.

2.       Having completed the Annual Budget, we have been busy wrapping up uncompleted projects where we can, and scoping and contracting new projects.

 

Glen Eden Library project

3.       We are pleased that work is about to start on the landscaping improvements outside Glen Eden Library. These will provide better spaces for activities and comfortable seating for people to gather. The landscape theme echoes the railways identity of Glen Eden and the horticultural and orcharding past of the area.

4.       We have asked the landscape architects working on this to design a palate for any future public works in Glen Eden, such as the proposed public square at Glen Mall, proposed work at the top of Captain Scott Road (unfunded as yet) and walkways. This sets materials, colours, surfaces, and plants for the whole of Glen Eden.

 

Mountain Road Walkway and Oratia Shared Path

5.       We are about to unveil the Mountain Road walkway which is the first completed project under the small amount of transport capex we have available each year. The walkway suggestion goes back to the beginning of last term, when residents of Henderson Valley came to us in public forum with their request for safe roadside walking. A long time coming, but we hope it will be greatly appreciated.

6.       The walkway has some concrete on steeper parts – a necessity for wear and tear - but gravel on most of it, in keeping with the rural character of this area.

7.       The planning is well advanced for our next transport project, a shared pathway from Oratia Hall to the West Coast Road roundabout by Parr’s Park. We are hoping we have enough funding to get it across the road into Parr’s Park, then cyclists and walkers will be able to continue walking through the park to Sunnyvale Railway Station on existing paths. It will also make it safer for children attending the kura kaupapa who must cross the road. We hope to continue the shared path on this route as more funds become available.


West Coast Lagoons project

8.       Our grants scheme for Septic Tanks in catchments contributing to poor water quality in West Coast lagoons, saw 6 people take up with offer by the end of the financial year – these were 3 in Te Henga, and one each at Karekare, Piha and North Piha. Still a very long way to go with this project, which aims to clean up the lagoons.

9.       Water quality results have been poor throughout the summer. This is an area where the whole community needs to take responsibility as we know the problem is caused by septic tanks systems.

10.     There are about 1000 properties in the lagoon catchments of Te Henga, North Piha, Piha and Karekare and it is thought about 65% have low tech systems that could usefully be upgraded. About 7% of properties rely on longdrops and these should be number priority for replacement.

11.     There is also a trend of people converting family sleep-outs to “Book a Bach” accommodation, and there is a real question about whether the existing septic system can cope.

12.     The Board has made $50,000 available for the next year from 1 July.

13.     We are sorry to say good bye to Phil Brown of the Stormwater team who has been such a strong advocate for this project. We are pleased that the loan scheme was supported by the Governing Body during the Annual Budget round.

 

Neighbours’ Day

14.     There was very good uptake on this day with the Board offering supermarket vouchers to organisers of these street get-togethers

15.     An estimated 800 residents from 17 neighbourhoods participated. Each neighbourhood received supermarket vouchers of a value ranging between $50 and $200 as a contribution towards the organisation of community events. The total value of supermarket vouchers distributed was $2,650.

16.     The events were organised to socialise with neighbours, but also for other purposes.  Examples included:

·        celebrate working bees and achievements

·        discuss safety concerns

·        community fund-raising garage sale

·        community art exhibition opening

·        sports’ activities.

17.  We requested a few lines of report on the event from all applicants and received responses from 15 of them (out of 17).  The feedback on the initiative was overwhelming positive and the applicants expressed their appreciation of the grant that they received.  Impacts from the events were noted in the feedback:

introduction of new neighbours, catch-up on “life events”, perception of a safer community by getting to know your neighbours

sharing of information between neighbours

closer link with neighbouring streets with similar interests: e.g. neighbourhood support and emergency planning

new initiatives discussed: e.g. ecological restoration, future get-togethers, fund raising, events, park improvements

“Things we love about Fairmount Rd” board

exposure to community art gallery and craft activities 

18.  Clearly a big success for quite a small amount of money. The Board has set aside $4000 for the next year.


Other activities

19.     Other external meetings and events I have attended in addition to those discussed in my portfolio reports are:

·        Pest Free Laingholm meeting at Woodlands Park School

·        Waitakere Ranges Conservation Network event

·        Oratia R&R AGM

·        Parau R&R AGM

·        Dame Dorothy Winstone dinner

·        Piha Bowling Club AGM

·        Love Your Place workshop on water on Piha

·        Swanson Heritage Survey launch at St Mark’s church, Swanson

·        75 years of women policing at Henderson Police Station

·        North Shore Forest and Bird address on parks

 

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a)      receives the Chairperson’s report.

 

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Authors

Tua Viliamu - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

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

 


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

14 July 2016

 

 

Portfolio update:  Member Sandra Coney

 

File No.: CP2016/14264

 

   

 

Purpose

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

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

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

 

Heritage Portfolio

Waikumete Cemetery book

4.       The Board was pleased to hear of great progress with the Friends of Waikumete project to record the history of the military parts of Waikumete Cemetery as a WW1 commemoration. The Board gave a grant of $10,000 towards this important project. The soldiers’ burial area is the largest of any cemetery in New Zealand and the cemetery is the last resting place of soldiers from WW1 to the present day. There are also military personnel buried throughout the cemetery, including those that go back to the Boer War, and various naval personnel who go back to the 19th century. The cemetery contains the remains of those who died in the Leander during WW2 and was the first resting place of Americans stationed here during WW2 who went down at Whenuapai in the crashes of the B-17 Flying Fortress Texas Tornado, and the Consolidated C-87 Liberator Express.

5.       The Friends of Waikumete took on historian Lisa Truttman to research and write the history of the military cemetery, and that has been completed. The Friends has now contracted David Blocksidge to edit and design the manuscript into a book. Hard choices will have to be made about what’s in and what’s not as such a rich source of material has been uncovered.

Heritage Conference

6.       Planning is well underway for the Heritage Conference, called New Stories of the Old West. A small advisory group has been set up to assist with developing the programme. Recently we put out the call for papers focused on West Auckland’s history.

7.       The one-day conference will take place Sunday 2 October, 9am – 5pm at Titirangi War Memorial Hall, South Titirangi Road, Titirangi. It will be part of the larger, region-wide Auckland Heritage Festival, which runs from 24 September to 9 October 2016.

8.       There will be keynote presentations to the whole conference as well as shorter break-out workshops.

9.       We have invited genealogists, historians, authors, academics or anyone who has done original research about the history of West Auckland to submit their work to be considered for inclusion in the day’s programme. Submissions close Friday 22 July.

10.     Research can be about anywhere in West Auckland and can be a work in progress. You don’t have to have completed the research by the time of the conference.

11.     Most papers/presentations will be given within workshops with each presentation being about 20-30 minutes long, including questions. Some keynote presentations/papers will be selected from those submitted to be presented to the whole conference. These generally will be 30-40 minutes long including questions.

12.     At the conclusion of the conference, the local board will publish the conference papers. We are also looking at an opening event on the Saturday night, possibly an evening of old film.

War memorials

13.     The Board has recently funded small clean-up and repair jobs on the important WW1 memorials in our local schools. These are the WW1 memorial at Glen Eden Primary School, and the WW1 and WW2 memorial gates at Oratia Primary School. The Oratia gates contain the names of men from the district who served in both wars, and there are many familiar names, such as Shaw, Levy and Vella. A very famous name is that of Reginald Stanley Judson, a former pupil of the school who won a VC during WW1.

Swanson Heritage Survey

14.     The first meeting with the local Swanson community took place on Wednesday 29 June at St Marks Chruch.  This was the first chance for locals to meet the team that the Board has employed to put together a heritage survey of Swanson.

15.     The team includes Jane Matthews, senior conservation and heritage architect (Matthews and Matthews Architects),  Lisa Truttman, historian, Lisa Mein, principal/urban designer (Boffa Miskell), Eynon Delamere, senior cultural heritage advisor (Boffa Miskell), and Jose Rodriguez, senior urban designer (Boffa Miskell).

16.     The idea of the survey is to identify heritage sites for protection and determine the character elements of Swanson for a design guide to be used for future development in the area.

Waikumete Cemetery Open Day

17.     The Board has received a report on this first cemetery open day, held on 29 February.

18.     The day was well received by the 2-3000 people who attended, with a variety of activities on the day. There were lots of learnings on how to improve the day, with challenges created by the sheer scale of the cemetery. It is planned to repeat the day in two years, but probably on a November date, so probably November 2017.

19.     During publicity for the Open Day, I was interviewed on Radio NZ by Kim Hill. I was then approached by Jane Reeves of Maori TV and was interviewed for her doco, The New Zealand Way of death which aired on 28 June. A very well-made and informative programme.

 

Parks Portfolio

Restructuring

20.     I’ve been trying to get my head around recent rounds of restructuring and how they affect parks. Firstly, the old legacy council parks’ manager jobs were disestablished. Our valued west sector manager, Grant Jennings, was successful in obtaining the position of regional sports field manager and we wish him well.

21.     We thought at first there would be a central-west manager, which worried us as this manager would serve 9 boards from Great Barrier to Waitakere Ranges.  In the end, sub-regional managers were dispensed with altogether, and there is now simply one manager for all local parks throughout the region. I have yet to meet this new regional manager.

22.     Next parks teams were split up, with operational matters with a local team under Community Services, but all asset management going into the Community Facilities team, which not only looks after renewals, parks’ developments and maintenance contracts, but also built facilities such as community centres, art galleries and the like.  These two arms of parks, only come together at the level of a Tier Two Manager, the Chief Operating Officer.

23.     These are very significant changes and we will be watching carefully to see how they work out.

24.     We are also concerned about restructuring and staff reductions in the area of parks and environmental education and programmes. There has also been a loss of staff in the kauri die-back team.


Sprayfree parks

25.     The Board has entered into an MOU with a Glen Eden group, part of Glen Eden Transition Town, to manage a cycleway through parks as sprayfree.  The group will undertake to keep the area tidy using mechanical means and using volunteers. As the first group to approach us like this, they have had to endure a bit of a bumpy ride to get to the stage they can actually take over, but this is all settled and we wish them well.

26.     Use of sprays in parks was brought up at the recent Parau AGM, and since then myself and Board member Saffron Toms and parks’ staff have met with a group from Parau to look at something similar for Armour Bay Reserve.

27.     Any other groups with similar aspirations are welcome to contact me.

Local Parks Heritage Area Design Guide

28.     A few years back, a very good Piha Design Guide was developed for regional parks at Piha. This was also adopted by the Local Board for local parks in 2011. Now the Board has got Liz Oldfield, who did the design guide, to extend that for the whole Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area, to apply to parkland.  There will be a consultation session in the heritage area , probably in the spring/summer.

Huia Seawall

29.     The Open Day at Huia Domain attracted a large attendance of residents and children, who were able to give feedback on the proposed project for protecting the Huia Domain. Along with this more serious task, people enjoyed the music and ate 150 sausages, cooked by parks’ staff.

30.     49 submissions were received from the open day and online survey. 41 were in favour of the groyne and beach replenishment option that has been developed with representatives of the local community and the Council’s coastal engineers; three were opposed and five neutral. The majority were in favour of two groynes rather than three.

31.     Parks will be bringing these results to the Local Board at its meeting on 14 July, so it can make a decision on the way head. Currently, there is insufficient renewal budget allocated to carry out the whole project: that is a challenge the Board must address, possibly by extending the work over two financial years.

32.     Work has started on drainage works to prevent seawater inundating the pohutukawa trees. This is due to be completed in early July. In the meantime, a couple of new voids have appeared behind the seawall. These are to be filled with concrete, which is what has occurred with other voids.

33.     Two new double 60 litre bins are being installed in the Domain to replace the rusty old ones.

Promoting waterfalls and beaches

34.     AT is responding from concerns by the fire service and regional parks about congestion at the end of Glen Esk Road, Piha, with hordes of people visiting Kitekite Falls. It is consulting on no parking broken yellow lines in this area so emergency vehicles and residents can get through.

35.     The Board has also met with the CEO of ATEED (Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development) about its role in attracting visitors to this area. A look at the ATEED website revealed that waterfalls, such as Kitekite, Karekare and Fairy Falls, were repeatedly mentioned as tourism destinations. Similarly, Piha beach got mentioned frequently, but not other beaches in the west. We were also concerned at the lack of safety information eg don’t go off track, swim within the flags.

36.     We had a productive meeting with Brett O’Reilly, CEO of ATEED, and ATEED has already had to a good look at their website to cut down mentions of Kitekite Falls and Piha Beach.  Of course, we can’t do anything about social media and Lonely Planet, but Auckland Council itself can be smarter about what it promotes.

 

Piha and Te Henga Aquatic signs

37.     These are due to be installed shortly. The signs amalgamate some other issues, such as dog rules and no camping. 

Regional Parks

38.     Stephen Bell, Principal West Sector Ranger comes to our portfolio catchups and it is good to hear what is happening in regional parks.

39.     Stephen informed us of the extension of the successful rock-fishing project, which has run for about the last 8 years, with a reduction in deaths of rock fishermen on the West Coast, to Manukau Harbour and other areas where people die, rock-fishing or gathering crabs or floundering and the like. A good move by the Governing Body which has extended the funding.

40.     Stephen also informed us that work is pressing on with access to the Karekare Surf Club. There has been extensive consultation with the local community and a route and methodology arrived at. The access is a prerequisite for the planned rebuild of the clubhouse which is feeling its age. Ann application for the consent will be lodged in late August.

41.     Regional parks is also looking at how to manage the kauri on the Zig-Zag Track in Titirangi. This long downhill track goes from Park Road to Titirangi Beach. There is a large number of kauri on the lower reaches of the track and parks are looking at how they can best safeguard them against infection with kauri dieback.

42.     Good to hear from Stephen too, that grey-faced petrel have been found at various places along the Coast, such as at Whatipu. This means they are making homes at points all the way from Te Henga along the Coast, only rocky headlands where they make burrows to lay their eggs. They are also along the Manukau Coast, such as Puponga Point.

43.     This is a tribute to the many people who have pest control projects along the coast, including the park rangers. Fewer rats and possums mean more beautiful birds, and petrels are surely one of the most beautiful birds to have living nearby. I can’t resist including a picture of what is thought to be a Pycroft’s petrel that tried to get into my outside safe, and then flew into the kitchen at Piha. We had a bit of trouble getting him to leave. With their wing span, petrels need a cliff-edge to launch. Our Pycroft’s Petrel does not normally stop off at Piha, but they do fly over the isthmus out to the Tasman Sea. This one was identified after the rounds of Auckland Council and DOC bird experts.

DSC06141 - Copy.JPG

Pycrofts Petrel with cobwebs around its beak from trying to get into my food safe.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a)      receive the Portfolio Update from Member Sandra Coney.

 

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Signatories

Authors

Tua Viliamu - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

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

     

  


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

14 July 2016

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

Item 8.1      Attachment a    Youth Week report                                             Page 3


Waitākere Ranges Local Board

14 July 2016