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

 

Date:                      

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Thursday, 17 August 2017

4.00pm

Fickling Convention Centre
546 Mt Albert Road
Three Kings

 

Puketāpapa Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Harry Doig

 

Deputy Chairperson

Julie Fairey

 

Members

Anne-Marie Coury

 

 

David Holm

 

 

Shail Kaushal

 

 

Ella Kumar, JP

 

 

(Quorum 3 members)

 

 

 

Brenda  Railey

Democracy Advisor

 

8 August 2017

 

Contact Telephone: 021 820 781

Email: brenda.railey@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                        PAGE

1          Welcome                                                                                                                         5

2          Apologies                                                                                                                        5

3          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   5

4          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               5

5          Leave of Absence                                                                                                          5

6          Acknowledgements                                                                                                       5

7          Petitions                                                                                                                          5

8          Deputations                                                                                                                    5

9          Public Forum                                                                                                                  5

10        Extraordinary Business                                                                                                5

11        Notices of Motion                                                                                                          6

12        Notice of Motion - Official naming of Wesley suburb                                               7

13        Chairperson's Report, August 2017                                                                          13

14        Board Member Reports                                                                                              17

15        Albert-Eden-Roskill Governing Body Members Update                                         49

16        Auckland Transport August 2017 Report                                                                 51

17        Airport Access                                                                                                             65

18        Puketāpapa Local Board Draft 2016/2017 Annual Report                                      75

19        Auckland Council’s Quarterly Performance Report: Puketāpapa Local Board for quarter four, 1 April - 30 June 2017                                                                                         89

20        Submissions and feedback on the draft Puketāpapa Local Board Plan 2017    135

21        Plan change proposal for Three Kings precinct                                                    163

22        Feedback on the proposed direction of the Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan                                                                                                                                     209

23        Feedback on the Tākaro – Investing in Play discussion document                    223

24        Input to the review of Citizens Advice Bureaux services                                     247

25        ATEED six-monthly report from 1 January to 30 June 2017                                251

26        Governance Forward Work Calendar                                                                     267

27        Record of Puketāpapa Local Board Workshop Notes                                          271

28        Resolutions Pending Action Schedule                                                                   277

29        Governance Framework Review recommendations                                             281  

30        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

 

 


1          Welcome

 

 

2          Apologies

 

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

 

3          Declaration of Interest

 

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

 

4          Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 20 July 2017, as a true and correct.

 

5          Leave of Absence

 

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

 

6          Acknowledgements

 

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

 

7          Petitions

 

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

 

8          Deputations

 

Standing Order 3.20 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are required to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications are approved by the Chairperson of the Puketāpapa Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

 

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

 

9          Public Forum

 

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

 

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

 

10        Extraordinary Business

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

11        Notices of Motion

 

Under Standing Order 2.5.1 (LBS 3.11.1) or Standing Order 1.9.1 (LBS 3.10.17) (revoke or alter a previous resolution) a Notice of Motion has been received from <Member Names>  for consideration under item 12.

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

Notice of Motion - Official naming of Wesley suburb

 

File No.: CP2017/15990

 

  

 

In accordance with Standing Order 3.11.1, the following Notice of Motion (Attachment A) has been received from Member Julie Fairey for inclusion on the agenda for the Puketāpapa Local Board meeting being held on day, Thursday, 17 August 2017:

 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)      note the intention of the Wesley community to apply to have the name Wesley officially attached to their suburb, by way of an application to the next NZ Geographic Board meeting

b)      endorse the application for the official recognition of Wesley as a suburb, and adds our endorsement to any community submission to the NZ Geographic Board seeking the same

c)       confirm that local mana whenua representatives will be consulted for their opinion regarding the Wesley name, and any feedback provided considered prior to the application being made;

d)      provide the map (Attachment B) to define the boundaries of Wesley for the sake of the submission to the NZ Geographic Board.

 

 

Background

Refer to Attachments.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Notice of Motion - Official naming of Wesley suburb

9

b

Wesley Boundary Map

11

      

Signatories

Authors

Brenda  Railey - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

Chairperson's Report, August 2017

 

File No.: CP2017/14276

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report is to provide the Chairperson with an opportunity to update the local board on the activities he has been involved with since the last meeting.

Executive Summary

2.       It is anticipated that the Chairperson will speak to the report at the meeting.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board receive the Chair’s Report for August 2017.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Harry Doig report, 10 July to 6 August 2017

15

    

Signatories

Authors

Brenda  Railey - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

Board Member Reports

 

File No.: CP2017/14277

 

  

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report is to provide Board members with an opportunity to update the local board on the activities they have been involved with since the last meeting.

Executive Summary

2.       It is anticipated that Board members will speak to their reports at the meeting.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board receive the Member reports for August 2017.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Ella Kumar report, 1 to 31 July 2017

19

b

David Holm report, 10 July to 6 August 2017

23

c

Julie Fairey report, 6 July to 6 August 2017

25

d

Shail Kaushal report, 6 June to 6 August 2017

29

e

Anne-Marie Coury reports, 6 March to 9 April 2017, 10 April to 8 May 2017, 4 May to 4 June 2017, 5 June to 9 July 2017, 10 July to 7 August 2017 and Local Government NZ Conference 23-25 July report

33

    

Signatories

Authors

Brenda  Railey - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


 


 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


 


 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


 


 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

Albert-Eden-Roskill Governing Body Members Update

 

File No.: CP2017/14278

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report is for the Albert-Eden-Roskill Governing Body Members to provide a verbal update to the Board.

 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Puketapapa Local Board thank Governing Body Members for their update.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Authors

Brenda  Railey - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

Auckland Transport August 2017 Report

 

File No.: CP2017/15726

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       This report seeks to update the Puketāpapa Local Board (the Board) on Auckland Transport’s (AT) activities in the Board area over the last month, recommends that the Board complete two transport capital projects and advises of progress on the Local Board’s capital fund.

Executive summary

2.       This report recommends that the Board resolve to complete the Richardson Road carpark redesign (and therefore the missing link in the Mt Roskill Safe Routes scheme) and its lighting.  It also recommends that the Board undertake the lighting of the southern section of the Keith Hay Park shared path to complement the northern section.  These projects were started in the previous electoral term and are designed, and in the case of the southern section of Keith Hay Park consented, and ready to proceed.

3.       The report also notes that the Board is preparing to request AT provide more detailed information on projects that achieve priority during the Board’s discussions in August and provides an update on the Board’s other transport capital projects.

4.       Details are given on the changes to the Gilletta Road speed calming project which were made in response to the addition of a new streetlight circa 68/69 Gilletta Road.

5.       The report also has attachments which contain AT’s quarterly reporting information for the Board from April to June 2017.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)      receive the Auckland Transport Report for August 2017.

b)      request Auckland Transport to liaise with Auckland Council Parks/Community Facilities to confirm the design and construction of the Richardson Road carpark and shared path realignment and allocates a budget of $220,000 from its Local Board Transport Capital Fund.

c)      request Auckland Transport to liaise with Auckland Council Parks/Community Facilities to confirm the design and construction of the lighting of the Richardson Road carpark and shared path realignment and allocates a budget of $100,000 from its Local Board Transport Capital Fund.

d)      request Auckland Transport to liaise with Auckland Council Parks/Community Facilities to confirm the design and construction of the lighting of the southern section of Keith Hay Park shared path and allocates a budget of $250,000 from its Local Board Transport Capital Fund.

 

 

Comments

Transport Capital Fund Update

6.       The Puketāpapa Local Board has discretionary funding available for transport related capital projects and the Board is now considering what projects to proceed with in this political term.

7.       In the last political term, the Board constructed the lighting for the northern section of shared pathway in Keith Hay Park and left the southern section lighting for funding in the new term.

8.       The Board also allocated funding for the design of the reconfiguration of the Richardson Road carpark to allow the Mt Roskill Safe Routes shared path to continue past the kindergarten to meet the shared path at the Noton Road carpark.  This design is now completed and ready for consenting if funded.

9.       The Mt Roskill Safe Routes pathway was designed to enter Keith Hay Park from the Richardson Road car park and continue along the side of the kindergarten.  Therefore, realigning the carpark and widening the pathway beside the kindergarten would finally complete the Mt Roskill Safe Routes scheme.  AT also considers that lighting this pathway would be advisable.

10.     At the Board’s June workshop, AT provided firm estimate of costs for these projects:

Keith Hay Park Lighting, Stage 2

$200,000 – $250,000

·    From main road to Noton Road carpark

·    Work designed and consented

Richardson Road carpark realignment and shared path realignment

$180,000 - $220,000

·    Bring shared path from where it stops on Richardson Road (Mt Roskill Safe Routes Project) to along the side of the kindergarten to meet the existing shared path at Noton Road carpark.

·    Requires kindergarten carpark to be realigned and rebuilt

·    Has been designed, ready for consenting if funded

·    Does not include lighting cost (see below)

Richardson Road carpark realignment and shared path realignment lighting

$80,000 – 100,000

·    Lighting of new shared path from Richardson Road to Noton Road carpark (if built as above).

11.     These projects could now be funded in the new political term and AT would like to liaise with Auckland Council Parks/Community Facilities to confirm the designs and to move forward to construction.

12.     The Board has a list of projects to prioritise at their August workshop and AT looks forward to working with the Board and providing further information on other projects that they wish to further investigate.

Gilletta Road Speed Calming

13.     In June 2017, the Board instructed AT to deliver traffic calming proposals along Gilletta Road to a budget of $36,500.  At that time, it was not possible to include the speed control device circa 68/69 Gilletta Road due to the cost of the extra lighting at this location.

14.     Residents along the street expressed some disappointment that the extra speed device was unable to be installed due to the high cost of the light pole installation.

15.     Since then, a light pole has been installed and the cost was covered by AT’s infill lighting budget. This has meant that the extra speed control device can now be installed at 68/69 Gilletta Road as per the Board’s May resolution within the allocated funding.  This extra device has been approved by the Chair.

Financial Summary

Puketāpapa Local Board Transport Capital Fund Financial Summary

Total Funds Available in current political term

$2,064,658

Amount committed to date on projects approved for design and/or construction

$817,845

Remaining Budget left

$1,246,813

16.     The Board’s current Local Board projects are summarised in the table below.

Project

Description

Status

Projected Cost

Fearon Park Pathway

A shared path to be constructed through Fearon Park.

This is being managed by Auckland Council Parks. First stage of the greenway path is complete and the second section of the pathway by the playground will be completed by June 2018.

$190,000

Richardson Road carpark realignment project

Redesign of the carpark at Richardson Road to promote better safety for cyclist and walkers accessing Keith Hay Park.

Auckland Council Parks has completed and priced the designs for the Noton Road and Richardson Road carpark redesigns.

 

$30,000

Keith Hay Park Lighting – Southern Section

Continuing the lighting project from the northern section to the southern end of the park past Noton Road carpark to Richardson Road.

This project could now go ahead as the  Richardson Road carpark redesign is complete. Awaiting financial resourcing.

$170,000 - $180,000

Gilletta Road Safety Improvements

Adding traffic calming devices to curb speeding and burnouts in the street.

Option B was selected for construction. The lighting required for Option C was installed so the extra speed control device can now be installed within the budget estimate for Option B.

$36,500

(Option B)

Regional and Sub Regional Projects

Quarterly Reporting – April to June 2017

17.     The following quarterly report material is attached to this monthly report:

·    Attachment A – report from Auckland Transport departments on their activities in the Puketāpapa Local Board area and regionally over the last quarter (April to June 2017).

·    Attachment B – report on Travelwise Schools activities in the Puketāpapa Local Board area over the last quarter.

Traffic Control Committee (TCC) report

18.     Decisions of the Traffic Control Committee affecting the Puketāpapa Local Board area in July 2017.

Street

Area

Work

Decision

Stoddard Road

Mt Roskill

No Stopping At All Times, Flush Median

Carried

Consultation Items

19.     Auckland Transport provides the Board with the opportunity to comment on transport projects being delivered in its Local Board Area.

20.     In this reporting period, one consultation was sent to the Board:

Hendry Avenue, Hillsborough

No Stopping At All Times Restriction (Broken Yellow Lines)

Auckland Transport (AT) is seeking feedback on a proposal in your area.

 

AT is proposing to install broken yellow lines on Hendry Avenue, which includes parking removal. This street has parking on the approach to and departure from the vertical curve. Visibility is restricted with motorists finding it difficult to exit their driveways safely, therefore removing parking at this location will be a great benefit.

 

Circulated 11 July. Any feedback by 25th July 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Auckland Transport's Quarterly Report, April to June 2017

55

b

Auckland Transport's School Report, April to June 2017

63

      

Signatories

Authors

Lorna Stewart, Elected Member Relationship Manager

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon, Manager Elected Member Relationship Unit

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

Airport Access

 

File No.: CP2017/15807

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report is to respond to a number of enquiries received by Auckland Transport regarding the decision to discount a heavy rail option as a mass transit solution between the airport and the city centre.  This report will illustrate additional reasons, other than the value for money rationale that has been provided to date.

2.       In addition, the report will clarify the process, the steps taken and the studies and factors that contributed to the decision made by Auckland Transport (AT) and the NZ Transport Agency.

Executive summary

3.       Auckland Transport is progressing a business case for route protection for mass transit for the airport to city centre corridor.  The two modes being investigated for this route are bus and light rail transit (LRT).  Studies to date have concluded the benefits of an LRT system outweigh the benefits of heavy rail.

4.       The context for this discussion are the numerous studies that have contributed to the decision-making process regarding mass transit to the airport; the key study regarding heavy rail being the South-Western Multi-modal Airport Rapid Transit study (SMART), after which the heavy rail option was discounted.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)      receive the Airport Access report.

b)      note the rationale for heavy rail being discounted as the optimum mass transit solution for the Airport to City Centre corridor.

 

Comments

5.       Attachment A illustrates the walk-up catchment unlocked by each option.  The location of new stations along the route would provide 51,700 residents with access to the strategic public transport network on LRT and 3,100 on heavy rail.

6.       Attachment B is the resolution passed at the AT board meeting in June 2016 where the board resolved That Management discount heavy rail to the airport from any further option development due to its poor value for money proposition”.

7.       Attachment C illustrates the progression path from current bus services to LRT agreed to by the Auckland Transport and NZ Transport Agency boards in March 2017 and the next steps for the project.

8.       A key factor in the decision to discount heavy rail was value for money.  The cost estimate and Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of each option at the time of the SMART study analysis are as follows:

•      Heavy rail BCR = 0.37-0.64

•      Heavy rail cost estimate = $2.6-$3 billion

•      Light rail BCR = >1

•      Light rail cost estimate = $2.5-$3 billion

9.       The cost was similar between a heavy rail option for the section from Onehunga to the airport and an LRT line for the route from the city centre to the airport.  It was concluded that an LRT option would be accessible to more people than heavy rail and the benefits would be more widespread (including relieving the bus congestion in the city centre).

10.     Generally, the high cost of the heavy rail option was due to the number of structures that it would require in areas such as along SH20.  The impact of this mode on property and business would require it to be elevated, which signifies high capital cost.  At the airport, a heavy rail option would require tunneling to the planned terminal that is part of the Auckland Airport Masterplan.

11.     Investing in a heavy rail line from Onehunga to the Airport would offer a number of benefits, but would not solve the bus congestion problems in the city centre or on Dominion Road – one of the busiest public transport corridors in the country.

12.     Investment in an LRT line from the airport to Wynyard Quarter, would address the bus congestion issue, bring connectivity through the city and south west, address the public transport issues in Wynyard Quarter, and enable housing development and town centre improvements along the route at a similar cost.

13.     The LRT route through Dominion Road and into the city achieves more benefits than a heavy rail option, adding additional capacity to the current network.  This means that into the future, the resilience of the network can grow and services can be further improved and optimized to service the southern growth areas and east to Botany in the longer term.  LRT provides a supportive service to the existing network, which means that the pressure and strain is spread across services, and the network resilience is retained.

14.     The LRT option would support the Auckland Transport Alignment Project (ATAP) Strategic Public Transport Network and provides a one seat journey from the airport to the city.

15.     It has been acknowledged by Auckland Council and Auckland Transport through ATAP, and in addition by Kiwirail, that the Southern line through Wiri and into Manukau is under pressure with all of the services coming through, which include freight.

16.     Adding extra services in order to service the airport limits the future possibility to increase passenger train services to Papakura, Pukekohe or south in the future to Hamilton due to overloading the network.

17.     If the southern heavy rail line was to be used to service the airport, the resilience of the network as a whole would be compromisedThe reliance on one service line to the airport would mean that in the case of an incident on that line, the effect would be more widespread than if there was a supplementary network that could take some of the passenger load.  For example, in the case of an accident on the line, the operators have a statutory obligation to halt all services until resolution is reachedIf the rail line was the only option for frequent and reliable access to the airport, the effect of any such incident would cause major disruption across the network.

18.     There is high cost involved in making the Onehunga line a feasible option for heavy rail.  It would require double tracking, removal of a number of level crossings, relocation of the Onehunga station and a larger number of structures.

19.     There is a limit to the service levels of heavy rail because of the number of services already running on the rail network.  Heavy rail and LRT provide similar levels of capacity into the future, but LRT has the added advantage of doing that by running more frequently than the heavy rail option.

20.     Additional information regarding rail to the airport can be found in the minutes from the 4 July 2017 Planning Committee meeting at:

http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2017/07/PLA_20170704_ATT_6723_PLANS.PDF

21.     A summary is:

·     Bus congestion and terminal space in the city centre are major constraints and not addressed by heavy rail

·     Heavy rail provides less network resilience and operational constraints limit its capacity

·     Mass transit on the airport to city corridor via Dominion Road is a supplementary service to the rail network and therefore increases the resilience of the network

·     Both options can provide a one-seat ride to the city centre

·     Dominion Road corridor offers service benefits for the whole isthmus and addresses access issues at each end of the corridor

·     Heavy rail access to Manukau from the airport via Puhinui has a number of operational constraints that reduce its benefits overloading, sharing with freight – for one extra station – no further catchment opened up

·     City centre bus congestion remains a problem under heavy rail

·     Both options cost the same but LRT has higher benefits accessibility, connectivity, catchment, housing and development potential

·     LRT serves the isthmus

·     LRT provides resilience to the strategic network – more corridors / more modes

Next steps

22.     The progress of the Airport to City Centre project is illustrated in Attachment C.  The NZTA and AT boards have agreed to progress to LRT, with the next steps being three business cases for route protection.

23.     Airport to city centre business case for route protection – will include analysis of how and when to transition between modes, with a possible transition to bus rapid transit before introducing an LRT system, and a full understanding of implementation staging and the operational impacts of the options.

24.     Southern and eastern access business case for route protection – will include mass transit from Auckland Airport to Botany via Manukau with bus to LRT transition and implementation staging, including staged additional capacity on SH20B and SH20 and a new southbound link from SH20A to SH20.

25.     Improving short and medium term airport access investigation to further refine the public transport and road infrastructure requirements to support the already identified short and medium term public transport improvements.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Benefits of LRT and heavy rail to Aucklanders

69

b

Auckland Transport Board resolution

71

c

Progression pathway

73

     

Signatories

Authors

Kirsty Charles – Communications and Engagement Manager Auckland Transport

Theunis Van Schalkwyk – Group Manager Strategic Projects Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Aimee Barwick – Group Manager Investment and Development Auckland Transport

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

Puketāpapa Local Board Draft 2016/2017 Annual Report

 

File No.: CP2017/15263

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       This report compares actual activities and performance with the intended activities and level of service set out in the Local Board Agreement 2016/2017. The information is prepared as part of the local board’s accountability to the community for the decisions made throughout the year.

Executive summary

2.       The Auckland Council Annual Report 2016/2017 is currently being prepared and progressed through the external audit process. In late September, the audit is expected to be completed and the final report will be approved and released to the public. The Annual Report will include performance results for each local board.

3.       The local board is required to monitor and report on the implementation of its Local Board Agreement for 2016/2017. The requirements for monitoring and reporting are set out in the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009. These requirements include providing comment on actual local activities against the intended level of service, and for the comments to be included in the Annual Report.

4.       The performance measures reported on are those that were agreed on and included in the Long-term Plan 2015-2025. This is the second time we are reporting an annual result for this set of measures.

5.       The attached report is proposed for approval by the local board. The report includes the following sections:

-    Message from the chairperson

-    The year in review

-    How we performed

-    Financial information.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)      note the monitoring and reporting requirements set out in the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 and the draft local board information proposed for the Auckland Council Annual Report 2016/2017.

b)      receive the draft local board report to be included in the Auckland Council Annual Report 2016/2017.

c)      approve the message from the chairperson, which provides the local board’s comments on local board matters in the Annual Report 2016/2017.

d)      delegate authority to the chairperson and deputy chairperson to make typographical changes before submitting for final publication.

 

 

Comments

6.       The local board is required to monitor and report on the implementation of the Local Board Agreement 2016/2017. The requirements for monitoring and reporting are set out in the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 as follows:

Section 23 monitoring and reporting

1)    Each local board must monitor the implementation of the local board agreement for its local board area.

2)    Each annual report of the Auckland Council must include, in respect of local activities for each local board area, an audited statement that –

i.   compares the level of service achieved in relation to the activities with the performance target or targets for the activities (as stated in the local board agreement for that year); and

ii.  specifies whether any intended changes to the level of service have been achieved; and

iii.  gives reasons for any significant variation between the level of service achieved and the intended level of service.

7.       Each local board must comment on the matters included in the Annual Report under subsection 2 above in respect of its local board area and the council must include those comments in the Annual Report.

8.       This report focuses on the formal reporting referred to in Section 23 above. Attachment A provides the draft local board information for inclusion in the Annual Report 2016/2017.

9.       The report contains the following sections:

 

Section

Description

a)

Message from the chairperson

Legislative requirement to include commentary from the local board on matters included in the report.

b)

The year in review

-     Financial performance

-     Highlights and achievements

-     Challenges

Snapshot of the main areas of interest for the community in the local board area.

c)

How we performed

Legislative requirement to report on performance measure results for each activity, and to provide explanations where targeted service levels have not been achieved.

d)

Financial information

Legislative requirement to report on financial performance results compared to LTP and Annual Plan budgets, together with explanations about variances.

10.     The next steps for the draft Annual Report are:

-      audit during August 2017

-      report to Finance and Performance Committee on 19 September

-      report to the Governing Body for adoption on 28 September

-      release to stock exchanges and publish online on 29 September

-      physical copies provided to local board offices, council service centres and libraries by the end of October.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

11.     Local board comments on local board matters in the Annual Report will be included in the Annual Report as part of the message from the chair

Māori impact statement

12.     The Annual Report provides information on how Auckland Council has progressed its agreed priorities in the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 over a 12-month period. This includes engagement with Māori, as well as projects that benefit various population groups, including Māori.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Puketāpapa Local Board 2016/2017 Annual Report

79

     

Signatories

Authors

David Rose - Lead Financial Advisor

Authorisers

David Gurney – Manager Corporate Performance & Report

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Puketāpapa Local Board Draft 2016/2017 Annual Report


 

·                    

·                    

Puketāpapa Manu Aute Kite Day

 



 


·                    Message from the chairperson


1.             While the local board reflects on the achievements of the past year, we are also considering what to focus on over the next three years in the 2017 Puketāpapa Local Board Plan.

2.              

3.             Looking back, there’s a lot to be proud of. Two key walkway/cycleways were opened this year – the Sandringham Road extension and Mt Roskill Safe Routes.

4.              

5.             The Waikowhai boardwalk, which links Taumanu Reserve in Onehunga with Bamfield Reserve, was completed, and planning is underway for the next stage, which will extend the boardwalk to Taylors Bay. These are important contributions to the local greenways network, which helps keep our communities active and connected.

6.              

7.             Another milestone is the youth employment training programme for the Te Auaunga / Oakley Creek stormwater project in Walmsley and Underwood reserves. This partnership with Unitec provided training in the construction field, and a number of the students were employed on the council’s construction project. This is a successful model, which the local board will promote for use in other projects.

8.              

9.             The local board has worked with mana whenua to create the Te Auaunga / Oakley Creek Restoration Strategy. This will guide future work to protect and enhance the awa (creek). One of the initiatives is the creation of a tohu (marker) for the awa, which will help increase awareness of the area.

10.           

11.          There have been challenges too. Affordable housing is a pressing issue and the local board continues to advocate for social housing for seniors to remain at Liston Village in Hillsborough. Carefully planned urban design will be needed as our neighbourhoods grow, so that they are integrated, physically and socially.

12.           

13.          It’s also important that our heritage isn’t lost. The local board continues to seek funding for the restoration of the 1880s heritage hall in Monte Cecilia Park, known as the Whare. Once restored, it will provide a much-needed community space.

14.           

15.          The health of the Manukau Harbour is also a significant challenge for the nine local boards that bound it. Progress has been made, but there’s more that needs to be done to restore and protect the harbour.

16.           

17.          As a local board, we do not work in isolation. I would like to acknowledge the huge amount of work that our volunteers, community partners and other agencies do to help Puketāpapa be the vibrant and unique place that it is.

18.           

19.          Harry Doig

Chairperson, Puketāpapa Local Board


·                  The year in review


 

·                     Financial performance

Puketāpapa Local Board spent $3.9 million in capital expenditure and $8 million in operating expenditure in 2016/2017.

 

·                     Highlights and achievements

·    The first stage of the Waikowhai boardwalk, which links Taumanu Reserve in Onehunga with Bamfield Foreshore Reserve, was completed. Design work is underway for the next stage, which will extend the boardwalk to Taylors Bay.

·    To reduce barriers to participation, the local board produced Chinese versions of various written materials, including information for the Taste of Puketāpapa festival and Puketāpapa Manu Aute Kite Day, and the local board’s e-newsletter.

·    Two significant walkway/cycleways were opened this year – the Sandringham Road extension (fully funded by the local board) and Mt Roskill Safe Routes from War Memorial Park, through Keith Hay Park to Waikowhai Park (partially funded by the local board). Both are important links in the local greenways network.

·    The local board funded a youth training programme for Te Auaunga / Oakley Creek stormwater project in Walmsley and Underwood reserves. This Unitec course included training in construction, driver licensing and traffic control. Eight students were subsequently employed on the project.

·    Te Auaunga / Oakley Creek Restoration Strategy was created in partnership with mana whenua. A tohu (marker) for the awa has been developed and will be implemented in the coming year.

 

·                     Challenges

·    The local board continues to advocate for affordable social housing to remain at Liston Village in Hillsborough, and for affordable housing to be made available across the local board area. Urban design will need to consider community connections and access to services so that new and old neighbourhoods are integrated, both physically and socially.

·    The need for additional funds to restore the 1880s heritage hall in Monte Cecilia Park, known as the Whare, so it can be used by the community.

·    The need for collaboration between nine local boards to restore and protect the Manukau Harbour.

·   Increasing pressure on budgets for some capital projects has triggered the need to find alternative solutions, which has resulted in delays in completion.


20.   



 

21.       How we performed

 

·         Local parks, sport and recreation

Targets were met for all measures relating to local parks, sport and recreation, reflecting our success in engaging with the community to deliver project and services that meet the needs of our residents.

 


Provide a range of recreational opportunities catering for community needs on local parks, reserves and beaches

Percentage of residents satisfied with the provision (quality, location and distribution) of local parks and reserves

2017
target:

75%

2017 actual:

80%

2016 actual:

78%

2015 actual:

New

Percentage of residents who visited a local park or reserve in the last 12 months

2017
target:

90%

2017
actual:

90%

2016 actual:

83%

2015 actual:

90%


Provide sports fields that are fit for purpose and cater for community needs

Percentage of residents satisfied with the provision (quality, location and distribution) of sports fields

2017
target:

75%

2017 actual:

82%

2016 actual:

81%

2015 actual:

New


Provide programmes and facilities that ensure more Aucklanders are more active more often

Customers Net Promoter Score for Pool and Leisure Centres as a percentage(1)

2017
target:

+15

2017 actual:

+17

2016 actual:

+22

2015 actual:

New

·          

Note

1

Net Promoter Score (NPS) measures customer loyalty and satisfaction. It is calculated by subtracting the percentage of customers who would not recommend our facilities from the percentage of customers who would, (excluding neutral responses), to determine a score of between -100 (all customers would not recommend) and +100 (all customers would recommend).

·         Local community services

We fully met our level of service for libraries. The Wi-Fi service contributed to high numbers of customers using libraries as digital hubs.

A high percentage of customers are satisfied with both the quality of service delivery and library environment.

 

Grants satisfaction did not meet target, and we have made improvements to the online application form and webpage for 2017/2018.

 

Our level of service for events, programmes and projects saw improvements for both local events satisfaction and community connectedness.

 

Results for four of our six social infrastructure measures improved on last year, although we are still below targets in this area. The number of community venue visitors dropped due to the introduction of our online booking system, which has improved the accuracy of recording.

 


Provide safe, accessible, welcoming library facilities that support the delivery of quality learning programmes and services relevant to local communities

Use of libraries as digital community hubs: Number of internet sessions per capita (PC & Wi-Fi)

2017
target:

1.5

2017 actual:

2.4(1)

2016 actual:

2.5

2015 actual:

New

Number of visits to library facilities per capita

2017
target:

4.0

2017
actual:

4.5(2)

2016 actual:

4.9

2015 actual:

5.3

Percentage of customers satisfied with the quality of library service delivery

2017
target:

85%

2017
actual:

95%(3)

2016 actual:

83%

2015 actual:

82%

Percentage of visitors satisfied with the library environment

2017
target:

85%

2017
actual:

91%

2016 actual:

77%

2015 actual:

New


Enable Aucklanders and communities to express themselves and improve their wellbeing through customer-centric advice, funding, facilitation and permitting

Percentage of funding/grant applicants satisfied with information, assistance and advice provided

2017
target:

76%

2017 actual:

20%(4)

2016 actual:

44%

2015 actual:

New


Deliver a variety of events, programmes and projects that improve safety, connect Aucklanders and engage them in their city and communities

Percentage of Aucklanders that feel connected to their neighbourhood and local community

2017
target:

73%

2017 actual:

50%(5)

2016 actual:

26%

2015 actual:

New

Percentage of attendees satisfied with council-delivered and funded local events

2017
target:

85%

2017 actual:

71%(6)

2016 actual:

64%

2015 actual:

New


Provide safe, reliable and accessible social infrastructure for Aucklanders that contributes to placemaking and thriving communities

Percentage of Aucklanders that feel their local town centre is safe – day time

2017
target:

84%

2017 actual:

83%(7)

2016 actual:

82%

2015 actual:

New

Percentage of Aucklanders that feel their local town centre is safe – night time

2017
target:

36%

2017 actual:

33%(8)

2016 actual:

35%

2015 actual:

New

Facility utilisation: utilisation at peak times for council-managed community centres and venues for hire

2017
target:

36%

2017 actual:

32%(9)

2016 actual:

30%

2015 actual:

31%

 

 

Facility utilisation: utilisation at off-peak times for council-managed community centres and venues for hire   

2017
target:

25%

2017 actual:

18%(9)

2016 actual:

13%

2015 actual:

13%

Percentage of community facilities bookings used for health and wellbeing related activity

2017
target:

20%

2017 actual:

15%(10)

2016 actual:

9%

2015 actual:

New

Number of visitors to community centres and venues for hire

2017
target:

327,218

2017 actual:

288,637(11)

2016 actual:

299,683

2015 actual:

320,409

 

Note

1

Customer internet usage exceeded expectations. The ease of access, speed and reliability of the Wi-Fi service has been enhanced since the target was set and the number of customers with their own devices has increased.

2

The target was set to reflect the decline in traditional library business and the shift to customers accessing library services digitally. However, increased use of libraries as social and digital hubs has resulted in higher-than-expected library visits.

3

Satisfaction with the quality of library service delivery has improved on last year’s result and was higher than expected. This result matches the overall Auckland-wide result.

4

This result is based on only 10 survey responses and is subject to a ±27.3 per cent margin of error. Overall, the level of customer satisfaction has increased by seven per cent for all local boards this year. Customers have reported difficulties with completing the online form and navigating the council website, and improvements to these have been made for 2017/2018.

5

People may not be feeling connected for a variety of reasons, including being new to the area, being too busy or preferring to not be connected. To a lesser extent there may also be lack of awareness about how to access activities that could contribute to feeling connected, and language and cultural barriers. A number of our activities such as arts programmes, community facility programmes, events and community development seek to connect Aucklanders to their local communities. We continue to implement the empowered communities approach in a bid to increase community connectedness and participation.

6

This measure aims to survey two events annually for each local board to assess attendees’ views on a sample of events provided or funded by the council. Puketāpapa Christmas Festival was the only event surveyed this year and achieved a result of 71 per cent, which is an improvement on last year’s 64 per cent.

7

A number of elements such as crime rates, the built environment, and socioeconomic and other similar factors influence how people feel in their town centre. The council undertakes projects and initiatives, including place-making activities, to improve perceptions of safety. This year the local board supported a number of initiatives to improve perceptions of safety, including:

·  funding Roskill Together to host network meetings focused on health and wellbeing, seniors and family violence

·  alcohol awareness workshops

·  creating and promoting community-led safety grants

·  funding Neighbourhood Support to facilitate local Neighbours Day events.

The local board also funded Neighbourhood Support Auckland City and the Mount Roskill Community Patrol. A new Junior Neighbourhood Support programme will be implemented in primary and intermediate schools, to encourage young people to be part of the solution to increasing the perception of safety in the area.

8

Community and security patrols regularly monitor hotspot areas in Puketāpapa on Friday and Saturday nights. First Security is also funded to patrol certain parks. Funding was provided to Neighbourhood Support Auckland City and Mount Roskill Community Patrol to enable ongoing work and patrolling in the local board area.

9

We have delivered an online venue booking system and network-wide awareness campaigns. Statistics are now being captured for Roskill Youth Zone, which has higher utilisation than other local facilities.

10

Health and wellbeing activity has increased compared to last year, as statistics are now being captured for Roskill Youth Zone, which has higher utilisation than other facilities.

11

The number of visits to local facilities has declined due to improved accuracy of data recording.

 

·         Local planning and development

To support revitalisation of our town centres, the local board continued its investment and advocacy for the Mt Roskill village revitalisation. A community liaison group coordinated by Auckland Transport is making progress on design details for streetscape upgrades to Dominion Road, and the local board’s investment will support complementary design for Mt Roskill village. Funding for this project will be carried forward to 2017/2018.

 

There are no performance measures for this group of activities for Puketāpapa.

 

·         Local environmental management

In 2016/2017, the local board continued to support environmental projects that promote improving and enjoying our parks and natural environment. Community and local school efforts to improve water quality through stream restoration were supported with funding to Friends of Oakley Creek for weeding, site preparation, and community planting at a western section of Te Auaunga / Oakley Creek in Keith Hay Park.

 

The local board also funds the Manukau Harbour Forum to ensure joint decision-making and advocacy for the harbour, including an annual symposium and business education programme.

 

The local board continued to support the provision of warmer and drier homes by funding 34 property assessments and subsidies to landlords for insulation, clean heating and other elements to improve rental housing in high-priority locations. The late onset of winter resulted in low uptake of subsidies, so $7600 is being carried forward to the new financial year.

 

In 2016/2017 the local board funded a ‘climathon’ event to encourage community-led thinking about ways to reduce carbon emissions, which will inform the future strategic direction for low-carbon living.

 


Provide leadership & support to protect and conserve the region’s natural environment, historic heritage and Māori cultural heritage

Proportion of local programmes that deliver intended environmental actions and/or outcomes

2017
target:

85%

2017 actual:

80%(1)

2016 actual:

89%

2015 actual:

New

Note

1

We successfully delivered four environmental projects for Puketāpapa in 2016/2017 that contributed to local environmental outcomes as per the Puketāpapa Local Board Plan. One project was not completed within the year. The uptake of the Healthy Rentals subsidies project was less than expected, and $7600 has been deferred to 2017/2018.

 

·         Local governance

There are no performance measures for this group of activities.

 

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

 

·                     Financial information

·                     Summary of revenue and expenditure by local activity – Puketāpapa Local Board

·                     For the year ended 30 June 2017

$000

Note

Actual
2017

Annual
Plan 2017

Actual
2016

Operating revenue

 

 

 

 

Local community services

 

513

377

477

Local environmental services

 

-

-

-

Local parks sport and recreation

 

3

32

-

Local planning and development

 

-

-

-

Local governance

 

-

-

-

Total operating revenue

 

516

409

477

 

 

 

 

 

Operating expenditure

 

 

 

 

Local community services

 

3,021

2,976

2,825

Local environmental services

 

74

81

60

Local parks sport and recreation

1

3,896

4,744

4,696

Local planning and development

 

49

84

55

Local governance

 

974

974

985

Total operating expenditure

 

8,014

8,859

8,621

 

 

 

 

 

Net expenditure

 

7,498

8,450

8,144

 

 

 

 

 

Subsidies and grants for capital expenditure

 

 

 

 

Local community services

 

-

-

-

Local environmental services

 

-

-

-

Local parks sport and recreation

 

-

-

343

Local planning and development

 

-

-

-

Local governance

 

-

-

-

Total subsidies and grants for capital expenditure

 

-

-

343

 

 

 

 

 

Capital expenditure

 

 

 

 

Local community services

 

273

754

312

Local environmental management

 

-

-

-

Local parks sport and recreation

2

3,654

2,755

4,209

Local planning and development

 

-

-

-

Local governance

 

-

-

-

Total capital expenditure

 

3,927

3,509

4,521

 

Variance explanations – Actual 2017 to Annual Plan 2017

1

Operating expenditure for local parks sport and recreation is below budget due to planned maintenance not being undertaken as a result of extreme weather conditions.

2

Capital expenditure for local parks sport and recreation is above budget due to the finalisation of phase one of the Greenways walkway development that was planned in previous financial year.


 

·                     Funding impact statement – Puketāpapa Local Board

·                     For the year ended 30 June 2017

$000

Note

Actual
2017

Annual
Plan 2017

Long-term Plan 2016

Sources of operating funding:

 

 

 

 

General rates, UAGC, rates penalties

 

        10,015

          9,894

          9,800

Targeted rates

 

               -  

               -  

               -  

Subsidies and grants for operating purposes

 

               39

               38

               13

Fees and charges

 

             467

             360

             345

Local authorities fuel tax, fines, infringement fees and other receipts

 

               12

               11

               24

Total operating funding

 

        10,533

        10,303

        10,182

 

 

 

 

 

Applications of operating funding:

 

 

 

 

Payment to staff and suppliers

1

          7,328

          8,170

          8,063

Finance costs

 

             686

             686

             597

Internal charges and overheads applied

 

          1,451

          1,451

          1,454

Other operating funding applications

 

               -  

               -  

               -  

Total applications of operating funding

 

          9,465

        10,307

        10,114

 

 

 

 

 

Surplus (deficit) of operating funding

 

          1,068

               (4)

               68

 

 

 

 

 

Sources of capital funding:

 

 

 

 

Subsidies and grants for capital expenditure

 

               -  

               -  

               -  

Development and financial contributions

 

               -  

               -  

               -  

Increase (decrease) in debt

2

          2,860

          3,513

          4,909

Gross proceeds from sale of assets

 

               -  

               -  

               -  

Lump sum contributions

 

               -  

               -  

               -  

Other dedicated capital funding

 

               -  

               -  

               -  

Total sources of capital funding

 

          2,860

          3,513

          4,909

 

 

 

 

 

Applications of capital funding:

 

 

 

 

Capital expenditure:

 

 

 

 

  - to meet additional demand

 

          1,400

               -  

               21

  - to improve the level of service

 

             151

             284

          1,472

  - to replace existing assets

 

          2,377

          3,225

          3,484

Increase (decrease) in reserves

 

               -  

               -  

               -  

Increase (decrease) in investments

 

               -  

               -  

               -  

Total applications of capital funding

 

          3,928

          3,509

          4,977

 

 

 

 

 

Surplus (deficit) of capital funding

 

         (1,068)

                4

             (68)

 

 

 

 

 

Funding balance

 

               -  

               -  

               -  

 

Variance explanations – Actual 2017 to Annual Plan 2017

1

Payment to staff and suppliers is below budget due to planned maintenance not being undertaken as a result of extreme weather conditions, together with savings on administration and utility costs.

2

Increase in debt is lower than anticipated due to payment to staff and suppliers being below budget, which resulted in lower capital funding requirement.


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

Auckland Council’s Quarterly Performance Report: Puketāpapa Local Board for quarter four, 1 April - 30 June 2017

 

File No.: CP2017/14775

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To provide the Puketāpapa Local Board with an integrated quarterly performance report for quarter four, 1 April to 30 June 2017, against the local board agreement work programme.

Executive summary

2.       This report provides an integrated view of performance for the Puketāpapa Local Board. It includes financial performance and work programmes.

3.       The snapshot (Attachment A), shows overall performance against the Puketāpapa Local Board’s agreed 2016/2017 work programmes. Operating departments have provided a quarterly update against their work programme delivery (Attachment B).

4.       86 per cent of the activities within the agreed work programmes have been delivered. 18 activities were undelivered from the agreed work programmes in the 2016/2017 financial year.

5.       Overall, the net financial performance of the Puketāpapa local board is under budget to date with operating expenditure below budget by (3%) due to lower parks maintenance as a result of wet weather offset by operating revenue exceeding budget due to increased community facility hire fees. Capital expenditure was (32%) under budget however, the majority of this is expected to be carried forward to next year, the key variances are noted below. Attachment C contains further detailed financial information.

6.       Results from the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 performance measures that were included in the previous 2016/2017 quarterly performance reports are excluded this quarter. The results are included as a separate agenda item entitled “Draft Annual Report 2016/2017 – Local Board report”.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)      receive the performance report for the financial quarter ending 30 June 2017.

 

 

Comments

Key highlights for quarter four

7.       The Puketāpapa Local Board has a number of key achievements to report from the quarter four period, which include:

·    The Sandringham Road Extension cycle link, which was funded by the board, was completed and opened this quarter. The route is part of the Puketāpapa Local Board Greenways network and will connect Ernie Pinches Drive over State Highway 20, to the Sandringham Rd Extension, and the shared paths at the War Memorial Park in Mt Roskill.

·    The Puketāpapa Local Board launched a Chinese version of their e-newsletter as a trial. The goal is to increase the board’s engagement with Chinese communities by reducing language barriers, however there has not been a significant uptake with this project to date.

·    The board hosted a mini climathon event to identify actions which will support low carbon living initiatives, such as in energy and transport efficiency, waste reduction. In bringing together key stakeholders the board plans to support and promote actions to reduce the carbon footprint from Puketāpapa.

Key project achievements from the 2016/2017 work programme

8.       The following are year-end achievements relating to key projects identified in the Puketāpapa Local Board Plan and/or Local Board Agreement:

·    The completion of phase one of the Waikowhai boardwalk, which links Taumanu Reserve in Onehunga with Bamfield Reserve. Design work is underway the next stage, which will extend the boardwalk to Taylors Bay.

·    To reduce barriers to participation, the board has produced Chinese versions of various written materials, including information for the Taste of Puketāpapa festival, the Puketāpapa Manu Aute Kite Day the board’s e-newsletter.

·    Two significant pedestrian/cycleways were opened this year - the Sandringham Road extension (fully funded by the board) and Mt Roskill Safe Routes (part funded by the board). Both are important links in the local greenways network.

·    The board funded a youth employment training programme for the Te Auaunga/Oakley Creek storm water project in Walmsley/ Underwood reserves. This Unitec course included training in construction, driver licensing and traffic control. Eight of the students were subsequently employed on the storm water construction project.

·    The Te Auaunga/ Oakley Creek Restoration Strategy was created in partnership with mana whenua. A tohu for the awa has been developed and will be implemented in FY18.

Achievement of the 2016/2017 work programme

9.       The Puketāpapa Local Board has an approved 2016/2017 work programme for the following operating departments:

·    Arts, Community and Events, approved on 10 June 2016

·    Parks, Sport and Recreation, approved on 10 June 2016

·    Libraries and Information, approved on 5 July 2016

·    Community Facility Renewals and Community Leases, approved on 21 July 2016

·    Infrastructure and Environmental Services, approved on 21 July 2016

·    Local Economic Development, approved on 21 July 2016

10.     The snapshot (Attachment A), shows overall performance against the Puketāpapa Local Board’s agreed 2016/2017 work programmes. Operating departments have provided a quarterly update against their work programme delivery (Attachment B).

11.     In previous quarterly performance reports, the traffic light Red Amber Green (RAG) reflected progress: Red = issues, Amber = warning, Green = on track. As the quarter four report reflects delivery at the end of the financial year the traffic lights indicate Red = incomplete, Green = delivered as expected.

12.     86 per cent of the activities within the agreed work programmes have been delivered.

13.     Departments delivered the 2016/2017 work programmes as follows:

·   Arts, Community and Events work programme 92% delivered

 

Activity Status

Number of Activities

Green

Completed

10

In progress *

14

Red

On Hold, Deferred

2

Cancelled

0

Not delivered

0

                     * identified to be delivered across multiple years

Details on Red flagged items:

2967 Sustainable and Affordable Housing ($8,000) - Funding was reallocated to the Puketāpapa Community Space Stocktake.

2968 Whare Restoration Support ($ 5,000) - Funding was reallocated to the Puketāpapa Community Space Stocktake.

·   Parks, Sport and Recreation work programme 83% delivered (includes leisure, sports parks, local parks and sport and recreation projects)

 

Activity Status

Number of Activities

Green

Completed

10

In progress *

9

Red

On Hold, Deferred

3

Cancelled

0

Not delivered

1

                        * identified to be delivered across multiple years

Details on Red flagged items:

2842 Arthur Faulkner Tennis Courts ($40,000) - Project on hold pending the completion of concept design by Community Services and agreement by the Local Board as to next steps.

3786 Freeland Reserve Paths and Landscaping ($253,000) - On hold pending decision by the local board, working in partnership with Panuku, Healthy Waters and Housing New Zealand in regards to proposed changes to the reserve to accommodate increased development in the surrounding area in the immediate future.  Await decision from the local board should the pathway network progress or the budget be reallocated to other locally driven initiatives in FY 2017/2018.

605 Native forest maintenance and restoration ($8,000) - A programme for supporting maintenance and restoration has not been developed as the ecological contract has adequately covered requirements for FY16/17.

3418 Three Kings Reserve SID ($40,000) - The sports field growth fund is a regional fund so other projects around Auckland can and are prioritised high than other projects. Three Kings 1 lights and sand carpet was deferred to FY2019 for this reason. Concept and detailed design to be investigated in 2017/2018

·   Libraries and Information work programme 100% delivered

 

Activity Status

Number of Activities

Green

Completed

12

In progress *

0

Red

On Hold, Deferred

0

Cancelled

0

Not delivered

0

                     * identified to be delivered across multiple years

·   Community Facilities work programme 87% delivered (includes operations and maintenance, renewals and development projects)

 

Activity Status

Number of Activities

Green

Completed

17

In progress *

23

Red

On Hold, Deferred

5

Cancelled

0

Not delivered

1

                     * identified to be delivered across multiple years

Details on Red flagged items:

3775 Keith Hay Park upgrade & renewal ($205,000) - Staff are in discussions with Three Kings United about the changing room design. The irrigation design build works have been moved to 2017/2018 to reduce disruption to the club

2953 Arthur Faulkner Reserve Carpark and Path Renewal ($10,000) - Project is on hold while whole of park use is being reconsidered with the development of a concept design

2956 Belfast Reserve Structure & Furniture Renewals ($20,000) - Track renewal scope exceeds budget allocated. This is primarily due to significant estimated labour costs as a result of limited access. Structural assessment required to determine extent of remediation to the affected structures. There is the potential for a full bridge design and consenting to be required but this will not be known until after the structural assessment is completed.

4207 Pah Homestead - HVAC installation        ($249,000) - Investigations have concluded that the natural limitations and use of the Pah Homestead heritage building make it unachievable to maintain a highly stable air temperature and humidity.

4208 Pah Homestead - Upgrade LED Lighting System ($58,000) - There is insufficient budget to complete the work and the level of natural light affecting the art work also needs to be considered and possibly mitigated.

2952 Puketāpapa Playspace FY17-18 Renewals - The project needs to be scoped and specified comprehensively, then progressed to the business case phase

·   Community Leases work programme 44% delivered

 

Activity Status

Number of Activities

Green

Completed

4

In progress *

0

Red

On Hold, Deferred

5

Cancelled

0

Not delivered

0

                     * identified to be delivered across multiple years

Details on Red flagged items:

2806 Pah Homestead 72A Hillsborough Rd - Concerns raised by lessee regarding the terms and conditions of the draft Community Lease. Staff will meet with the Trust in July for further discussions.

1811 Royal NZ Plunket Society - Greenwoods Corner sub branch    - On hold until Plunket has completed its process on the transfer and assignment of its interests in all the leases to its new entity.

1810 The Waiata Epsom Tennis Club Inc - Renewal of lease granted on 20 April 2017 and the lease documents are currently with the group for signing.

1807 Three Kings United Soccer Club Inc - Delays due to the consent process for their new clubrooms

·   Infrastructure and Environmental Services work programme 86% delivered

 

Activity Status

Number of Activities

Green

Completed

4

In progress *

2

Red

On Hold, Deferred

1

Cancelled

0

Not delivered

0

                     * identified to be delivered across multiple years

Details on Red flagged items:

2012 Healthy rentals in Puketāpapa ($28,000) - This project is flagged red because it has not been fully delivered during the financial year. In 2016/2017 the unusually warm weather and late onset of winter resulted in a low uptake of the subsidy by landlords. A carry-over budget of $7,600 has been approved to defer budget to the 2017/2018 financial year. Staff will pro-actively promote the subsidy in advance of the winter months to ensure optimised uptake for this project going forward.

·   Local Economic Development work programme 100% delivered

 

Activity Status

Number of Activities

Green

Completed

2

In progress *

0

Red

On Hold, Deferred

0

Cancelled

0

Not delivered

0

                     * identified to be delivered across multiple years

14.     As part of the local board funding policy, local boards can resolve to defer projects that are funded by their Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) operating fund where there is an agreed scope and cost but the project has not been delivered.

15.     The Puketāpapa Local Board has identified the following 2016/2017 projects that meet the criteria for deferral to the 2017/2018 financial year. The deferral of these projects was approved by the Finance and Performance Committee on 1 June 2017:

·     Mt. Roskill Village revitalisation      $25,000

·     Revitalisation of town centres        $10,000

·     Healthy Rentals                                $6,000

Financial performance

16.     Operating expenditure is 3% under budget. The majority is in the Parks activity due to planned maintenance not being able to proceed due to extreme wet weather and lower utility and administration costs.

17.     Operating revenue has exceeded budget in community facility hire fees due to greater utilisation of Wesley Community centre and Fickling Convention centre.

18.     Capital expenditure in the quarter was mainly in parks sportsfield renewals at Keith Hay park, Mt Roskill War Memorial Car Park Renewal and linkage improvements at Harold Long-Fearon Park. Overall capital spend is well below budget mainly due to delays with tendering process at Harold Long-Fearon Park linkage improvements. Design delays for the Keith Hay park/Noton road carpark now awaiting resource consent approval and Freeland reserve paths and landscaping on hold awaiting proposed changes by neighbouring developers

19.     The Puketāpapa Local Board Financial performance report is in Appendix C.

Key performance indicators

20.     Results from the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 performance measures that were included in the previous 2016/2017 quarterly performance reports are excluded this quarter. However, the results are included as a separate agenda item entitled “Draft Annual Report 2016/2017 – Local Board report”.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

21.     This report informs the Puketāpapa Local Board of the performance for the year ending 30 June 2017.

Māori impact statement

22.     Key initiatives in this reporting period that have an influence on achieving outcomes for Māori include:

·    Ongoing partnership with mana whenua on Te Auaunga stream restoration projects, such as:

The creation of a recognisable tohu (or symbol), to represent the Te Auaunga (Oakley Creek), that will foster local community connection with the catchment. Mana Whenua were engaged in the development of this tohu. Representatives from Ngāti Whātua Orākei, Te Kawerau a Maki, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, Te Akitai Waiohua, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, and Ngāti Whanaunga helped to weave cultural stories and elements into the final design. Albert-Eden and Whau Local Boards were also involved in this project.

- Mana Whenua were invited to suggest names for the Rose Garden Park in Mt Roskill. The name Wahine Toa was proposed by Ngāti Whātua Orākei. The name Hine Titama was proposed by Ngāti Tamaoho. The Auckland branch of the National Council of Women proposed the name Wahine Toa. The board approved the re-naming of Rose Garden Park to Wahine Toa Park.

·    The local board met with Te Kura Kaupapa Maori o Nga Maungarongo to seek feedback on the Draft 2017 Puketāpapa Local Board Plan.

Implementation

23.     The Lead Financial Advisor will action the deferral of identified projects, approved by the Finance and Performance Committee on 1 June 2017.

24.     Local Board Services will refer undelivered projects from the agreed 2016/2017 work programme to the relevant operational department for investigation. Departments will be asked to identify their ability to deliver the activity in the 2017/2018 financial year.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Work programme snapshot

97

b

Work programme update

99

c

Financial Performance

127

     

Signatories

Authors

Mary Hay - Local Board Advisor - Puketapapa

Authorisers

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 



Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 



Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

Submissions and feedback on the draft Puketāpapa Local Board Plan 2017

 

File No.: CP2017/14864

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To provide a high level overview of data gathered through public consultation on the draft Puketāpapa Local Board Plan 2017, along with all submissions and feedback received.

Executive summary

2.       The consultation period for draft local board plans ran from 22 May to 30 June 2017.

3.       In total, 147 submissions were received on the draft Puketapapa Local Board Plan 2017 via online forms, hardcopy forms, emails and post. In addition, 18 people provided feedback at formal engagement events and 27 pieces of feedback were gathered through Facebook. This written feedback is supported by the numerous conversations between board members and their communities about the draft local board plan, throughout the consultation period. Two submitters requested to speak to the board.

 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)      receive submissions and feedback on the draft Puketāpapa Local Board Plan 2017.

 

 

Comments

4.       The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 requires local boards to produce and adopt a local board plan by 31 October 2017. Under Section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 local boards are required to use the special consultative procedure in adopting their local board plan. The consultation period ran from 22 May to 30 June 2017.

5.       An overview of consultation data, titled ‘Draft Puketāpapa Local Board Plan 2017 consultation feedback report’, (Attachment A) along with all submissions and feedback received as (Attachments B-F). The report includes a review of consultation findings such as responses to questions asked, common themes and demographic information on submitters.

6.       Feedback was provided on the draft plan in a range of ways:

·     formal written submissions (147)

·     events – formal with written notes (e.g. meeting with the kura students) and informal and verbal (e.g. local board drop-ins at retirement villages)

·     social media

·     direct feedback to the board (verbal and written)

7.       The board funded four community groups (Te Kura Kaupapa  Maori o Nga Maungarongo, Roskill South Oasis, Roskill Together, Migrant Action Trust/Auckland Resettlement Community Coalition) to engage with their communities to garner feedback and encourage involvement in the consultation process. Their feedback was returned in a range of ways – some sent in formal feedback from events, while others provided reports to the board (verbally and in writing).

8.       The informal event feedback was largely verbal. For example at the Three Kings Countdown had 60-80 members of the community were made aware of the draft local board plan and given feedback forms. At various community events, such as the Wesley Market, local board members talked to the community about the Local Board Plan.

9.       In focus groups, Lynfield and Mt Roskill Grammar School students both met to discuss the plan and provided written feedback. There were also engagements to develop the Children’s Development Action Plan and Youth Action Plan that provided feedback on the draft local board plan.

10.     Staff are currently analysing the consultation data before formulating any recommendations to the board on the final content of their local board plan.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

11.     While the Puketapapa Local Board is not holding formal hearings and did not ask whether submitters wished to be heard, Te Whakakitenga O Waikato-Tainui and the Cancer Society both asked to speak to the board. This opportunity was made available to both of these groups.

12.     The Puketāpapa Local Board will consider all submissions and feedback to the draft Puketāpapa Local Board Plan 2017 prior to adopting the final local board plan in September.

Māori impact statement

13.     Maori outcomes have been considered in the development of the draft Puketapapa Local Board Plan 2017.

14.     An engagement hui with mana whenua authorities was held on 17 March 2017. The local board chair also contacted several local iwi and invited them to engage in the local board plan consultation.

15.     In response to its request to be heard, the board has offered speaking rights to Te Whakakitenga O Waikato-Tainui at a board meeting or workshop. The local board Chair has also offered to visit the Chair of the iwi to discuss ways to strengthen their relationship.

16.     Further engagement with mataawaka and Maori ratepayers and residents was conducted by:

·     Considering pre-existing feedback

·     Holding a targeted event during the consultation period with Maori families from a local kura kaupapa school (Te Kura Kaupapa  Maori o Nga Maungarongo).

Implementation

17.     The board will adopt the final Puketāpapa Local Board Plan 2017 at their September business meeting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Draft Puketāpapa Local Board Plan 2017 consultation feedback report

139

b

Draft Puketāpapa Local Board 2017 submissions Part I (Under Separate Cover)

 

c

Draft Puketāpapa Local Board Plan 2017 submissions Part II (Under Separate Cover)

 

d

Draft Puketāpapa Local Board Plan 2017 event feedback (Under Separate Cover)

 

e

Draft Puketāpapa Local Board Plan 2017 social media feedback (Under Separate Cover)

 

f

Draft Puketāpapa Local Board Plan 2017 additional un-coded feedback (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Signatories

Authors

Mary Hay - Local Board Advisor - Puketapapa

Authorisers

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

Plan change proposal for Three Kings precinct

 

File No.: CP2017/15529

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To seek Puketāpapa Local Board’s views as to whether the plan change request to amend the Three Kings precinct, and to rezone some land within the precinct, should be accepted as a private plan change, or adopted as a council plan change.

Executive summary

2.       Fletcher Residential Limited lodged a plan change request to amend Auckland Unitary Plan zoning and provisions to the Three Kings precinct.  A plan change request may be adopted or accepted by the council.  Alternatively the council may reject the plan change request, or deal with it as a resource consent application.

3.       The Planning Committee will consider whether the plan change request is adopted, accepted, rejected or dealt with as a resource consent.  The views of the Puketāpapa Local Board are sought, to inform the Committee.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)      Recommend that the Planning Committee adopts the plan change request to the Auckland Unitary Plan by Fletcher Residential Limited to the Three Kings precinct, and zones.

 

 

Comments

4.       Fletcher Residential Limited (Fletcher, or the proponent) requests Auckland Council adopt a private plan change request to amend the Three Kings precinct, and to rezone some land within the precinct.  The plan change request is included as Attachment A.

5.       The Planning Committee is the decision-making entity for determining how plan change requests are processed.  The views of the Puketāpapa Local Board are relevant, as the Three Kings precinct lies within Puketāpapa.  The Board has led, or been involved, in earlier non-statutory and statutory planning for Three Kings.

6.       This report seeks the views of the Puketāpapa Local Board as to how the plan change request should be processed. 

7.       A future report will seek the Board’s views on the content of the plan change.

Three Kings precinct

8.       The precinct covers approximately 15 hectares of land north of the Three Kings town centre (town centre shown in pink on the following plan).  It includes a former quarry and a combination of reserve land, or land intended as reserve.  The precinct directly adjoins Te Tātua o Riu-ki-uta (Big King, shown in bright green). 

9.       The precinct’s present zoning is a mix of Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings zone, and open space zones:

10.     The plan change request would:

·    adjust the boundaries of existing zones; no new zones would be introduced (see Attachment A, pages 2 and 3);

·    introduce additional policies, standards and assessment criteria; and

·    correct errors in the existing precinct, and make its implementation more effective.

Processing a plan change request

11.     Each city or district council is required to prepare and implement a district plan under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). Auckland Council is a unitary authority, so the district plan is a component within the Auckland Unitary Plan. 

12.     Although plan-making is a requirement of council, any person may request a change to a plan.  The council has to decide whether a plan change request is:

·    adopted, as if the change was made by the council;

·    accepted as a private plan change request;

·    dealt with as a resource consent application; or

·    rejected, but certain statutory criteria would need to be satisfied to reject a request.

13.     The relevant statutory provision is highlighted and included as Attachment B: clause 25 of the First Schedule of the RMA.  

Options

14.     The different procedural options are evaluated according to clause 25, First Schedule RMA:

Benefit

Disbenefit

Other

Option: adopt the plan change

Zoning changes proposed align with previously agreed land swap between Fletchers and council.

Aligning zoning with the (intended) use of land is sound resource management practice.

Adoption allows council to modify the content of the plan change request, without the agreement of the proponent.

Correcting errors in the precinct would enhance the effectiveness of the Auckland Unitary Plan.

Processing costs would be borne by council, rather than the plan change proponent.

Adoption of the request would be consistent with the Planning Committee’s resolution PLA/2017/56 (discussed below).

The plan change proponent may make a submission on the plan change. 

Council may submit on its own plan change, although this is usually reserved to the correction of errors and such like.  To avoid a conflict of interest, independent commissioners would determine a plan change if the council had made a submission.  

Option: accept the plan change

Zoning changes proposed align with previously agreed land swap between Fletchers and council.

Aligning zoning with the (intended) use of land is sound resource management practice.

Correcting errors in the precinct would enhance the effectiveness of the Auckland Unitary Plan.

Processing costs would be borne by the plan change proponent, rather than council.

Council may not modify the plan change request without the agreement of the proponent.

Council may submit on an accepted private plan change.  To avoid a conflict of interest, independent commissioners would determine a plan change if the council had made a submission.  

Option: process as a resource consent

Nil

Would not achieve the intended purpose.  The nature of the changes proposed could not be implemented by resource consent alone.

The opportunity to correct errors and enhance the effectiveness of the Auckland Unitary Plan would be foregone.

 

Option: reject the plan change

 

Plan change request has arisen from agreement between Fletchers and two local community groups to resolve an appeal.  Rejection would thwart that agreement.

The plan change request corrects errors in the existing precinct.  Rejection would remove the ability to readily correct the errors.

Statutory criteria are not satisfied.  Request is not vexatious.  Parts of the request promote sound resource management practice.  Although the Unitary Plan has recently been made operative (in part) the change refines, and does not challenge, the Three Kings precinct.

 

15.     Adopting or accepting the plan change request are superior options to rejecting the request, or dealing with it as a resource consent application.  Adoption would enable council to make any necessary amendments to achieve consistency with, and effectiveness of, the Auckland Unitary Plan.  Fletchers, as the proponent, would still have the ability to participate by making a submission.

16.     The RMA requires that particular regard is paid to the evaluation report lodged by Fletchers accompanying the plan change (clause 25(1A), First Schedule).

Resolutions

17.     On 2 May 2017 the Planning Committee considered a confidential report on a draft settlement of an appeal against the Three Kings precinct in the Unitary Plan.  While the report remains confidential, the committee’s resolutions were publicly released.  Resolution number PLA/2017/56 records:

C1 Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - High Court Appeal on Three Kings Precinct

That the Planning Committee:

a) upon the withdrawal of the High Court appeal by the Societies (South Epsom Planning Group Incorporated and Three Kings United Group Incorporated), support a Council-initiated plan change to the Auckland Unitary Plan to give effect to the settlement broadly agreed between Fletcher Residential Limited (Fletcher) and the Societies, following the necessary statutory processes of the Resource Management Act and reporting back to the Planning Committee.

18.     On 28 March 2017 the Planning Committee endorsed an approach for future plan changes, and the processing of private plan changes.  Resolution PLA/2017/37 records:

19 Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - Future Plan Changes and processing of Private Plan Changes

That the Planning Committee:

a)      endorse the following criteria to be used by council staff to determine the appropriateness of any private plan changes requested during the two years post-15 November 2016 (i.e. the date on which the Auckland Unitary Plan became operative in part):

i)       any matter specified in Section 25 of the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991;

ii)      whether the outcomes of any plan change:

-     align with the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy, and

-     give effect to the Auckland Plan, and

-     follow Appendix 1 – Structure Plan Guidelines of the Auckland Unitary Plan for any structure planning related plan change, and

-     give effect to the environmental outcomes expected and effectiveness of the Auckland Unitary Plan.

b)      endorse staff investigating potential future plan changes to the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) and reporting them back to the Planning Committee for any decision to proceed.

19.     Planning Committee resolution PLA/2017/37 provides direction to Plans and Places for processing private plan change requests.  Commentary about clause 25 of the First Schedule is in the table above.  This plan change request amends, and is intended to enhance, an existing precinct in the urban area.  The corrections to existing provisions will make implementation of the precinct (and the Auckland Unitary Plan) more effective.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

20.     The purpose of this report is to seek the views of the Local Board.  The Board’s resolutions will be reported to the Planning Committee when the Committee considers the process by which the plan change request should be considered.  The Planning Committee will meet on 5 September 2017.

21.     The Board considered the plan change request at a workshop on 3 August 2017.

22.     A future report will seek the Board’s views on the content of the plan change (as the Board may not make a formal submission).  The Board’s views on the plan change itself will be incorporated into any submission made by the council on the plan change (if adopted or accepted) and the future hearings report.

23.     This report seeks the Board’s views as to the process by which the plan change request is considered: adopted; accepted; rejected; or dealt with as a resource consent application.

Māori impact statement

Process

24.     The Board’s views as to how the plan change request should be processed do not impact Māori.

25.     The RMA specifies consultation requirements when preparing a plan change.  If the plan change is adopted council will take responsibility for consulting with mana whenua, and it would also be appropriate to consult with the Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority.  The Authority co-governs Te Tātua o Riu-ki-uta (Big King) following the return of 14 maunga under the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act 2014.  Te Tātua o Riu-ki-uta is outside, but immediately adjoining, the precinct.

26.     The RMA has been amended to strengthen Māori participation in plan-making processes.  Consultation was always mandatory (and best practice) however there are new requirements to:

·    provide a draft plan change to iwi prior to notification;

·    allow iwi adequate time and opportunity to consider the draft plan change, and provide advice; and

·    have particular regard to any advice received.

27.     The plan change request was prepared by Fletcher.   Fletcher advises it has undertaken consultation with mana whenua and the Authority.  Fletcher advises a further hui is proposed with the five iwi with whom it has regularly met, and all the iwi on council’s rohe map that includes Three Kings are also to be invited.

Content

28.     The existing Three Kings precinct:

·    provides for residential development and open space on and around the former quarry, immediately adjacent to Te Tātua o Riu-ki-uta;

·    recognises the importance of Te Tātua o Riu-ki-uta, protects local sightlines to it and promotes planting on its slopes;

·    promotes Te Aranga Māori design principles in the precinct’s development;

·    encourages stormwater management in a manner that promotes kaitiakitanga of the aquifer and surface water; and

·    provides an opportunity for a whare manaaki (educational  and cultural facility) as a restricted discretionary activity.

29.     The plan change request retains the matters summarised above.  Key changes are:

·    inserting a definition of the whare manaaki;

·    reducing the size of the whare manaaki opportunity from 1000m2 to 450m2 (gross floor area);

·    specifying that no car parking spaces are required for the whare manaaki; and

·    repositioning the potential locations within the precinct where a whare manaaki may be proposed.

30.     The evaluation of potential impacts on, and opportunities for, Māori arising from the plan change request will be evaluated separately to this report which is concerned solely with the process by which the plan change request will be considered. Plans and Places are seeking specialist advice to assist that evaluation.

Implementation

31.     Plans and Places is the department responsible for processing council initiated and privately requested plan changes. The RMA prescribes the legal processes for making changes to a district plan.

Next steps

32.     Plans and Places is continuing to work with Fletchers on the detail of the plan change request. 

33.     Local Board views are sought, and will be incorporated into reporting to the Planning Committee.  A report is scheduled for 5 September 2017.

34.     If the Planning Committee adopts or accepts the plan change request, the council will need to comply with new Māori participation requirements. 

35.     The next statutory step will be to notify the plan change request (regardless of being adopted or accepted).  An amendment to the RMA now provides for limited notification of a plan change where only those notified may make a submission.  The usual process of full notification remains available.  Limited notification can only occur if all those persons directly affected by the plan change can be identified.  Determining a notification method is a future decision-making exercise.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment A Three Kings precinct plan change request

171

b

Attachment B Clause 25 First Schedule

207

     

Signatories

Authors

Celia Davison - Manager Planning - Central/South

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

Resource Management Act 1991 (as at 01 July 2017)

25 Local authority to consider request

(1) A local authority shall, within 30 working days of—

(a) receiving a request under clause 21; or

(b) receiving all required information or any report which was commissioned under clause 23; or

(c) modifying the request under clause 24

whichever is the latest, decide under which of subclauses (2), (3), and (4), or a combination of subclauses (2) and (4), the request shall be dealt with.

(1A) The local authority must have particular regard to the evaluation report prepared for the proposed plan or change in accordance with clause 22(1)

(a) when making a decision under subclause (1); and

(b) when dealing with the request under subclause (2), (3), or (4).

(2) The local authority may either

(a) adopt the request, or part of the request, as if it were a proposed policy statement or plan made by the local authority itself and, if it does so,—

(i) the request must be notified in accordance with clause 5 or 5A within 4 months of the local authority adopting the request; and

(ii) the provisions of Part 1 or 4 must apply; and

(iii) the request has legal effect once publicly notified; or

(b) accept the request, in whole or in part, and proceed to notify the request, or part of the request, under clause 26.

(2AA) However, if a direction is applied for under section 80C, the period between the date of that application and the date when the application is declined under clause 77(1) must not be included in the calculation of the 4-month period specified by subclause (2)(a)(i).

(2A) Subclause (2)(a)(iii) is subject to section 86B.

(3) The local authority may decide to deal with the request as if it were an application for a resource consent and the provisions of Part 6 shall apply accordingly.

(4) The local authority may reject the request in whole or in part, but only on the grounds that—

(a) the request or part of the request is frivolous or vexatious; or

(b) within the last 2 years, the substance of the request or part of the request—

(i) has been considered and given effect to, or rejected by, the local authority or the Environment Court; or

(ii) has been given effect to by regulations made under section 360A; or

(c) the request or part of the request is not in accordance with sound resource management practice; or

(d) the request or part of the request would make the policy statement or plan inconsistent with Part 5; or

(e) in the case of a proposed change to a policy statement or plan, the policy statement or plan has been operative for less than 2 years.

(5) The local authority shall notify the person who made the request, within 10 working days, of its decision under this clause, and the reasons for that decision, including the decision on notification.


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

Feedback on the proposed direction of the Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan

 

File No.: CP2017/11853

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To provide feedback on the proposed direction of management programmes being developed as part of the Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan review.

Executive summary

2.       Auckland Council is currently undertaking a review of its Regional Pest Management Plan. This plan is prepared under the Biosecurity Act 1993, and describes the pest plants, animals and pathogens that will be controlled in Auckland. It provides a framework to control and minimise the impact of those pests and manage them through a regional approach.

3.       The National Policy Direction for Pest Management identifies five approaches that can be implemented to manage pests including exclusion, eradication, progressive containment, sustained control, and site-led programmes as further described in this report.

4.       This report seeks feedback from the Puketāpapa Local Board on the proposed management approach for some specific regional programmes as detailed in Attachment A, in particular:

·        Cats

·        Possums

·        Widespread weeds

·        Ban of sale of some pest species.

5.       The proposed Regional Pest Management Plan will be presented to the Environment and Community Committee in November 2017 seeking approval to publically notify the draft plan. Feedback from all local boards will be included as a part of this report.

6.       A range of pest species and issues have previously been discussed with the Puketāpapa Local Board, and the approaches being developed for these local board specific interests have been included as Attachment B. Feedback on these approaches is also being sought.

 

Recommendation

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)      provide feedback on the proposed direction of specific regional and local programmes being considered as part of the Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan review (as per Attachment C of the agenda report).

 

 

Comments

Background

7.       A Regional Pest Management Plan is a statutory document prepared under the Biosecurity Act 1993 for controlling pest plants, animals and pathogens in the region.

8.       Auckland Council is currently reviewing its 2007 Regional Pest Management Strategy, prepared by the former Auckland Regional Council. The expiry date of 17 December 2012 was extended to 17 December 2017, while the National Policy Direction on Pest Management was completed and changes to the Biosecurity Act were made.

9.       On 14 February 2017, the Environment and Community Committee resolved that council’s current strategy is inconsistent with the National Policy Direction on Pest Management 2015, and that the changes necessary to address the inconsistencies could not be addressed by minor amendment to the current Regional Pest Management Strategy (resolution ENV/2017/7). As a consequence of this determination, council is required to initiate a review to address the inconsistency, in accordance with section 100E(5) of the Biosecurity Act 1993 by 17 December 2017, which is the date that the current plan will expire.

10.     For a proposal to be initiated, council is required to have resolved by 17 December 2017 that it is satisfied a proposal has been developed that complies with sections 70 and 100D(5) of the Biosecurity Act 1993. A report on the proposed Regional Pest Management Plan will be considered at the November 2017 Environment and Community Committee meeting in order to meet this deadline.

11.     Once operative, following public consultation, governing body approval of the plan, and resolution of any appeals, the plan will empower Auckland Council to exercise the relevant advisory, service delivery, regulatory and funding provisions available under the Biosecurity Act 1993 to deliver the specified objectives for identified species using a range of programme types.

Programme types

12.     The National Policy Direction for Pest Management 2015 outlines five different management approaches that can be implemented to manage pests through a pest management plan. These approaches are defined as ‘programmes’:

·        Exclusion – aims to prevent the establishment of a pest that is present in New Zealand but not yet established in an area

·        Eradication – aims to reduce the infestation level of the pest to zero levels in an area in the short to medium term

·        Progressive containment – aims to contain or reduce the geographic distribution of the pest to an area over time

·        Sustained control – provides for the ongoing control of a pest to reduce its impacts on values and spread to other properties

·        Site-led pest programme – aims to ensure that pests that are capable of causing damage to a place are excluded or eradicated from that place, or contained, reduced or controlled within the place to an extent that protects the values of that place.

13.     A regional pest management plan sets out programmes as listed above, but does not specify the methodology for achieving these objectives.

Previous engagement

14.     Engagement on the revision of the plan has been ongoing since 2014 including local board members, mana whenua, council and council-controlled organisation staff, industry representatives, and the wider public. Further information on engagement has been included as Attachment D.

Key regional issues

15.     During engagement on the issues and options paper and wider public consultation on the discussion document, key issues were raised in relation to cats, possums, widespread pest plants, and the ban of sale of some pest species. Feedback is being sought on these specific programmes, as they are either likely to be of wide public interest or are proposed to be delivered through a new approach.

16.     A summary of the proposed approach for each of the regional programmes currently being developed is set out below. Additional information including the current management approach and rationale for change has been included in Attachment A.

·        Cats: Redefining the definition of a pest cat to enable greater clarity for the management of ‘unowned’ cats when undertaking integrated pest control in areas of high biodiversity value

·        Possums: Proposing a shift from possum control focused on areas of high biodiversity to a region-wide programme

·        Widespread pest plants: Shifting from species-led enforcement to a multiple species site-led programme focused on parkland with significant ecological areas

·        Ban of sale for some pest species: Increasing the number of pest species (both plants and animals) currently banned from sale.

17.     Previous feedback from the Puketāpapa Local Board at its 23 May 2014 workshop, and more recently at its 06 July 2017 workshop in relation to these issues is summarised below:

·        Cats: Board members noted that cats are an issue in the area.

·        Widespread pest plants: Widespread pest plants such as moth plant, privet, woolly nightshade and wattles are an issue in the local board area.

Puketāpapa specific issues

18.     In addition to the specific regional issues, the Puketāpapa Local Board has provided feedback at its 23 May 2014 workshop, and 06 July 2017 workshop in relation to the issues discussed in Attachment B. The proposed approach in relation to these issues, and the rationale, is also provided in Attachment B.

19.     Specific pest management issues previously identified by the Puketāpapa Local Board included:

·        Kauri dieback disease: Support for the designation of kauri dieback disease as a pest in the region with an exclusion programme with pathway management rules to prevent the establishment of kauri dieback in high priority kauri dieback-free zones.

·        Education around pests: Request for the provision of information and advice on pest identification, impacts and control for members of the public.

·        Community pest control: The need for council and community pest control initiatives to work together and support each other.

·        Site-led programme for Waikowhai Coast: A request for a site-led pest plant control programme for this location.

20.     During the discussion the Board queried who can propose a regional pest management plan. In accordance with section 70(1)(b) of the Biosecurity Act 1993, anyone may submit a proposed regional pest management plan. Auckland Council is the decision making body in the Auckland Region.

21.     It was also requested that staff provide a detailed list of pest plants’ invasiveness, impact and method of spread. This information is currently being prepared as part of a detailed cost benefit analysis of all proposed programmes. The cost benefit analyses will be completed as a supporting document for the consideration of the proposed plan by the Environment and Community Committee in November 2017.  Local boards will be consulted on these aspects as part of the finalisation of the plan over 2018.

22.     This report seeks feedback from the local board the direction of the proposed regional pest management plan, guided by the regional and local board relevant approaches outlined in this report. Attachment C has been provided to facilitate formal feedback from the local board at its August 2017 business meeting.

Financial implications

23.     The budget for implementing the plan will be confirmed through the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 process. Consultation on the Regional Pest Management Plan is proposed to be aligned with consultation on the Long-term Plan in early 2018.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

24.     An initial workshop was held with the Puketāpapa Local Board on 23 May 2014, where the issues raised in Attachments A were discussed. A recent workshop with the board was held on 06 July 2017 to discuss the proposals set out in this report. Feedback provided at these workshops has been considered under the Puketāpapa specific issues in Attachment B.

Māori impact statement

25.     Section 61 of the Biosecurity Act 1993 requires that a Regional Pest Management Plan set out effects that implementation of the plan would have on the relationship between Māori, their culture, and their traditions and their ancestral lands, waters, sites, maunga, mahinga kai, wāhi tapu, and taonga.

26.     Engagement has been undertaken with interested mana whenua in the Auckland Region as described earlier in this report and conversations are ongoing. In addition, staff are working closely with mana whenua on the development and implementation of a range of biosecurity programmes, providing opportunities for mana whenua to exercise kaitiakitanga, through direct involvement in the protection of culturally significant sites and taonga species. The impact statement required by section 61 of the Biosecurity Act 1993, along with feedback received by mana whenua, will be part of the development of the draft plan for consultation.

27.     Some key topics raised during hui and kōrero with mana whenua included management of species such as cats, rats, rabbits, mustelids, deer, pest birds, freshwater pest fish, widespread weeds, emerging and future weeds (including garden escapees), and kauri dieback disease. 

28.     Mana whenua recognised cats were an increasing problem, indicating a desire for cat-free areas next to sensitive sites. There was also support for kauri dieback disease to be included in the proposed plan as it will enable implementation of regionally specific pathway management rules for kauri protection.  Mana whenua identified a strong partnership with council and regional leadership in their role as kaitiaki and owners of kauri in many rohe (regions).

29.     Wider issues raised included:

·    the importance of building the capacity of mana whenua to directly undertake pest management in each rohe

·    acknowledgement that council should control pests on its own land if asking public to do the same on private land

·    the definition of pests versus resources (such as deer and pigs)

·    the need for coordination of all environmental outcomes across the region, and the alignment of the Regional Pest Management Plan document with other plans, such as Seachange

·    the need for more education around pests

·    the need to look holistically at rohe

·    the importance of community pest control by linking scattered projects

·    the need for the plan to be visionary and bicultural, reflecting Te Ao Māori, Te Reo.

Implementation

30.     As the management approaches proposed in the Regional Pest Management Plan will have financial implications, consultation on the plan is proposed to be aligned with consultation on the Long-term Plan. This will ensure that any budget implications are considered through the Long-term Plan process.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Local board general feedback

215

b

Puketāpapa Local Board specific feedback

217

c

Feedback form

219

d

Previous engagement

221

     

Signatories

Authors

Dr Nick Waipara – Biosecurity Principal Advisor

Dr Imogen Bassett – Environmental Advisory Manager

Rachel Kelleher – Biosecurity Manager.

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

Feedback on the Tākaro – Investing in Play discussion document

 

File No.: CP2017/13894

 

  

Purpose

1.       To seek local board feedback on the Tākaro – Investing in Play discussion document.

Executive summary

1.       Auckland Council invests in play because it has the potential to provide a range of health, social, community and economic benefits to Aucklanders.

2.       The total value of council’s playground equipment is $66 million. The Long-term Plan 2015-2025 allocates $33 million for renewing these assets and a further $25 million to provide new play opportunities in areas of growth.

3.       Key challenges are to respond to a growing population, financial constraints and increasing demands for play over the next 20 years.

4.       The development of a play investment plan, Tākaro – Investing in Play, will help decision-makers across council to invest in ways that make the best use of available resources, while maximising benefits to Auckland’s communities.

5.       It will do this by:

·    providing high-level guidance on how to support a diverse, accessible network of play

·    clarifying the causal relationship between investment in play and the benefits sought

·    establishing processes to assess the performance of past investments.

Discussion document

6.       Staff have prepared a discussion document (Attachment A) to engage with local boards, play experts and the public.  At the end of the discussion document, section nine includes a summary of questions to help focus your feedback.

7.       The purpose of the discussion document is to describe the current state of play provision, and to gauge opinions on a range of investment possibilities. These include new approaches to nature play, risky play and play activations, as well as opportunities for council to partner with schools, businesses and community groups in the delivery of play.

Local board engagement

8.       Local boards play a vital role in the planning and funding of play in their communities. Local board views will be central to the development of the investment plan.

9.       Local board members provided informal feedback on the discussion document at regional cluster workshops on 19 and 26 June 2017.

10.     Local boards are invited to submit formal feedback on the issues raised in the discussion document by 21 August 2017.

11.     Analysis of feedback will inform the development of an initial draft investment plan in early 2018. Staff will then work with local boards and other stakeholders to refine the draft, including further rounds of consultation.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)      provide feedback on the questions presented in the Tākaro – Investing in Play discussion document by 21 August 2017.

 

 

Comments

Background

10.     Auckland Council invests in play because it has the potential to provide a range of health, social, community and economic benefits to Aucklanders.

1.       The total value of council’s playground equipment is $66 million. The Long-term Plan 2015-2025 allocates $33 million for renewing these assets and a further $25 million to provide new play opportunities in areas of growth.

2.       Key challenges are to respond to a growing population, financial constraints and increasing demands for play over the next 20 years.

3.       The development of a play investment plan, Tākaro – Investing in Play, will help decision-makers across the council family, in particular the Governing Body and local boards, to invest in ways that make the best use of available resources, while maximising benefits to Auckland’s communities.

4.       It will do this by:

·    clarifying the causal relationship between investment in play and the benefits sought

·    providing guidance on how to support a diverse, accessible network of play

·    establishing processes to assess the performance of past investments.

5.       The development of the investment plan is a scheduled piece of work arising from the Parks and Open Spaces Strategic Action Plan 2013.

Discussion document

6.       Staff have prepared a discussion document (Attachment A) as part of the initial consultation and planning phase of the Tākaro – Investing in Play project.  It presents a summary of the council’s current supply and practices towards play. Section nine of the document includes a summary of questions to help focus feedback.

7.       The purpose of the discussion document is to describe the current state of play provision, and to gauge opinions on a range of investment possibilities. These include new approaches to nature play, risky play and play activations, as well as opportunities for council to partner with schools, businesses and community groups in the delivery of play.

Role of local boards

8.       Local boards play a vital role as decision makers in the planning and funding of play in their communities. Local board views will be central to the development of the investment plan.

9.       The statutory role of local boards include many decision-making responsibilities with relevance to provision and management of the play network:

·    adoption of local board plans

·    agreement of local board agreements (with the Governing Body) and monitoring the implementation of local board agreements

·    providing input into regional strategies, policies and plans

·    proposing bylaws for the local area

·    community engagement, consultation and advocacy.

10.     Local boards have a particularly important role in the delivery of play programmes through their budgets for open space activation. Some of these programmes are specifically targeted at attracting people to use public play spaces.

Current engagement with local boards

11.     This report provides local boards with an opportunity to formalise their views on the Tākaro – Investing in Play discussion document.

12.     Local boards are invited to submit formal feedback on the issues raised in the document by 21 August 2017.

13.     Feedback will inform the development of an initial draft investment plan in early 2018. Staff will then work with local boards to refine the draft, including further rounds of consultation.

14.     Table 1 below explains the timing and key processes in the development of the plan, including further consultation with local boards.

Table 1: Timing and process

Process

Milestones

a)             Consultation with the public

b)            29 May to 10 July 2017

c)             Consultation with local boards and advisory panels

d)            19 June to 21 August 2017

e)             Analysis of feedback and submissions  

f)             August to October 2017

g)            Report to the Environment and Community Committee on the results of the public consultation

h)             November 2017

i)              Develop and refine a draft investment plan, in consultation with local boards

j)              Early 2018

k)             Public consultation on the draft investment plan

l)              Mid 2018

Consideration

Local board views and implications

15.     Local board members provided informal feedback on the discussion document at regional cluster workshops on 19 and 26 June 2017.

16.     Many members expressed support for the intent of the plan in principle, and for certain aspects of the plan in particular. These included:

·    the value of providing communities with a diverse range of play

·    the importance of taking a future-focused approach to investment

·    the opportunity to make play more accessible and inclusive to people of different ages, abilities and cultural backgrounds

·    the opportunity to partner with schools, community groups and others in extending the play network

·    the value of using investment in play to support local community outcomes.

17.     Some members expressed concern that the development of a regional plan could limit the ability of local boards to make investment decisions in the best interests of their specific communities. Staff clarified that the plan is intended to serve as a guiding document not as a constraint. It will need to be designed in a way which empowers local decision-making, and which recognises the diverse needs of our communities.

18.     This report now provides local boards with an opportunity to formalise their views on the Tākaro – Investing in Play discussion document.

Māori impact statement

19.     Māori are identified as a key target group for the investment plan, due to their young population profile.

20.     In 2013, Māori comprised 15.7 per cent of all young people aged 0 to 24 years old living in Auckland. Half of all Auckland Māori (52.4%) are under 25 years of age.

21.     Statistics New Zealand’s projections (medium series) suggest that the number of children and young people in Auckland will continue to increase over the next twenty years by another 26.5 per cent. This combined with high Māori birth rates suggest issues affecting Māori children and young people will continue to be important into the future.

22.     The plan will incorporate a Mana Whenua perspective and identify opportunities to express kaitiakitanga in local play spaces. Staff will consult with Mana Whenua on the discussion document as part of the current phase of the investment plan development.

Implementation

23.     There are no implementation issues arising from the recommendations of this report.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Tākaro - Investing in Play discussion document

227

     

Signatories

Authors

Jacqueline Fa’amatuainu-Pointon – Policy Analyst – Parks and Recreation Policy

Authorisers

Paul Marriott-Lloyd – Senior Manager – Parks and Recreation Policy

Kataraina Maki – General Manager – Community and Social Policy

Karen Lyons – General Manager – Local Board Services

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

Input to the review of Citizens Advice Bureaux services

 

File No.: CP2017/15803

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To seek approval of local board input to the review of Citizens Advice Bureaux services.

Executive Summary

2.       Council is reviewing Citizens Advice Bureaux services in Auckland, following a resolution by the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee in April 2016.

3.       The review will determine ongoing level of support for Auckland Citizens Advice Bureaux Incorporated and Citizens Advice Bureaux services from 2018/2019 onwards.

4.       Thirty-one Citizens Advice Bureaux operate in the Auckland region.

5.       Auckland Council fund Auckland Citizens Advice Bureaux Incorporated approximately $1.8 million a year, which then distributes the funds to bureaux.

6.       Local boards hold relationships with their local bureaux. Local bureaux report to local boards on service usage and other matters of interest to the community.

7.       A briefing of the review was provided at regional local board cluster workshops on 19 and 26 June 2017.

8.       Local boards informally discussed input to the review in workshops in June and July 2017 and are requested to formalise their input through resolution.

9.       Analysis of the input will inform the development of options on future funding of Citizens Advice Bureaux and service provision. This will be reported to the Environment and Community Committee in September 2017.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)      provide input to the review of Citizens Advice Bureaux services..

 

Comments

Background

10.     On 7 April 2016, the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee resolved to:

‘seek information from staff regarding a review of the service after consultation with the 21 local boards on the issues raised by the Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board regarding Auckland Citizens Advice Bureaux Incorporated (ACABx) funding, to achieve greater equity and fairness, taking into consideration social issues in local communities across Auckland.’ (REG/2016/22)

11.     Since 2013, Auckland Citizens Advice Bureau Incorporated (ACABx), a board made up of nine representatives from across Auckland bureaux, has been distributing the council funding to bureaux using a population based funding model, which replaced previous funding arrangements by legacy councils.

12.     ACABx receives $1.796 million on an annual basis for the financial years 2017 and 2018, plus an annual inflation provision. Provision for this expenditure is included in the Long-term Plan 2015-2025.

13.     ACABx distribute funds to local Citizens Advice Bureaux (CAB) services so that communities are provided with access to information, advice, referral and client advocacy services.

14.     Support for CAB services aligns with the following:

·     local board plans;

·     the Auckland Plan (chapter one, strategic direction one): ‘to create a strong, inclusive and equitable society that ensures opportunity for all Aucklanders’; and

·     the Empowered Communities Approach, where individuals, whanau and communities have the power and ability to influence decisions.

15.     Currently there are 31 Auckland CAB sites in 19 local board areas, with over 900 trained volunteers fielding approximately 300,000 enquiries per annum; 75 per cent of the service is delivered face-to-face.

The review

16.     The review seeks input from the 21 local boards on their relationship with ACABx, local bureaux and service provision. In September 2017, staff will report the findings of the review to the Environment and Community Committee.

17.     The review will inform council’s future approach to its funding relationship with ACABx and CAB, including how responsive they are to the changing demographics and growth in local communities. It will also consider other funding models.

Role of local boards

18.     Local boards have detailed knowledge of both their individual bureau delivery and of their local communities’ needs.

19.     Some local boards provide funding to their local bureau in addition to the core funding allocated through ACABx.  Such funding is at the board’s discretion.

 

20.     Local bureaux are expected to:

·     report to local boards on service usage and other matters of interest;

·     provide informal updates;

·     provide opportunities to input into future local bureaux service development; and

·     consider opportunities for co-location or location in Auckland Council-owned facilities.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

21.     Local boards have discussed their input to the review informally at workshops during June and July 2017. A comprehensive information pack was provided to resource and support the discussions.

22.     On the basis that CAB services are not currently provided in Franklin and Great Barrier, these local boards have not participated in a workshop discussion.

23.     The following questions guided the workshop discussions:

·     What is your relationship with your local CAB?

·     What is the value of your local bureau service to your community?

·     Is your local bureau delivering outcomes that support the local area and local board objectives?

·     Is the current funding model effective in terms of delivering what is required for Auckland and locally?

·     What kind of factors should be considered in the funding of local bureaux to ensure fair and equitable service distribution across the region?

·     What type of information does the board wish to receive when local bureau are reporting?

·     Would you prefer that the local bureau report quarterly or six monthly to the local board?

·     Do you understand the role of ACABx in relation to your local bureaux?

·     Regarding CAB services, what is working well in your local board area?

·     What would you change if you could?

24.     Once approved, future options for funding of CABs and service provision will be presented to the Environment and Community Committee in September 2017.

Māori impact statement

25.     From the information available for 2015/2016, Māori users of CAB services comprised between 2.5 per cent of users in the central Auckland/Waiheke cluster, to 13.2 per cent in the south/east Auckland cluster. 

26.     Through the review, there may be opportunities to improve Māori engagement with CAB services which can be explored in the development of options for the future.

Implementation

27.     The timeline for the review is provided below:

Date

Phase

Action

June  2017

Phase one - discovery and definition on the current state

Local board chairs forum; local board cluster briefings

June – August 2017

Phase one - discovery and definition on the current state

Local board workshops; local board business meetings

September 2017

Phase two - development of options for the future state

Report to the Environment and Community Committee

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Signatories

Authors

Carole Blacklock,Specialist Advisor - Partnering and Social Investment, Community Empowerment Unit

Authorisers

Graham Bodman, General Manager – Arts, Community and Events

Karen Lyons, General Manager – Local Board Services

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

ATEED six-monthly report from 1 January to 30 June 2017

 

File No.: CP2017/15716

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To provide the six-monthly report from ATEED on their activities in the local board area.

Executive summary

2.       This report provides the Puketāpapa Local Board with highlights of ATEED’s activities in the local board area for the six months from 1 January to 30 June 2017.

 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)      receive the six-monthly report for the period 1 January to 30 June 2017.

 

Comments

3.       This report provides the Local Board with an overview of ATEED activities for discussion.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

4.       The report is for information only.

Māori impact statement

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

Implementation

6.       N/A

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

ATEED six-monthly report from 1 January to 30 June 2017

253

     

Signatories

Authors

Paul Robinson, Local Economic Growth Manager (ATEED)

Richard Court, Manager, Operational Strategy and Planning (ATEED)

Samantha-Jane Miranda, Operational Strategy Advisor (ATEED)

Authorisers

Susan Sawbridge, Manager Stakeholder Relations (ATEED)

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

Governance Forward Work Calendar

 

File No.: CP2017/14527

 

  

 

Purpose

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

Executive Summary

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

 

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

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

·    clarifying what advice is expected and when

·    clarifying the rationale for reports.

 

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

 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board note the Governance Forward Work Calendar for August 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Governance Forward Work Calendar - August 2017

269

     

Signatories

Authors

Brenda  Railey - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

Record of Puketāpapa Local Board Workshop Notes

 

File No.: CP2017/14528

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of Puketāpapa Local Board (the Board) workshop notes.

Executive Summary

2.       The attached summary of workshop notes provides a record of the Board workshop held in July 2017.

These sessions are held to give an informal opportunity for board members and officers to discuss issues and projects and note that no binding decisions are made or voted on at workshop sessions.

 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board receive the workshop notes for 6, 13 and 27 July 2017.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Workshop Records for July 2017

273

    

Signatories

Authors

Brenda  Railey - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


 


 


 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

Resolutions Pending Action Schedule

 

File No.: CP2017/14529

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report is to provide the Board with a schedule of resolutions that are still pending action.

Executive summary

2.       Updated version of the Resolutions Pending Actions schedule is attached.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board receive the Resolutions Pending Action schedule for August 2017.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Resolutions Pending Action Schedule for August 2017

279

     

Signatories

Authors

Brenda  Railey - Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 



Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

17 August 2017

 

 

Governance Framework Review recommendations

 

File No.: CP2017/16232

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       This report seeks local board feedback on the draft positions of the Governance Framework Review’s Political Working Party.

Executive summary

2.       The governance framework review (GFR) was initiated to assess how well the Auckland governance model (governing body/local boards) is meeting the aims of the 2010 reforms. The review was reported in late 2016 and a political working party (PWP) made up of local board and governing body members was established to consider the review’s findings and recommendations.

3.       The working party has considered the report’s recommendations in three broad workstreams:

·        policy and decision-making roles

·        local boards funding and finance

·        governance and representation.

4.       This report sets out the interim positions of the political working party on those three workstreams and seeks local board feedback on those positions. The working party will report back to the governing body on 28 September 2017 with recommendations for decisions, including local boards’ views,

 

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)      Provide feedback on the following draft positions and recommendations of the Political Working Party:

Regional policy and decision-making

i.           Agree that council should implement new mechanisms that ensure effective local board input to regional policy decisions, via a framework that sets out, at a minimum:

·   A process for involving local boards in the development of regional work programmes at the beginning of each term and in an annual refresh;

·   Earlier and more joint engagement between local boards and the governing body in regional decision-making processes

·   Requirements for analysis of local impacts and local interest of regional decisions and options, and reporting of this to local boards and the governing body

·   Specified criteria for categorising the potential local impact and local board interest of regional decisions

·   Processes and methods for tailoring local board engagement in line with the local impact and local interest of regional decisions e.g. high categorisation requiring more specific local engagement and analysis, low categorisation requiring more cluster joint local board workshop sessions and less in depth analysis.

·   Specified methods for engagement and communication with local boards at all stages of the decision-making process.

ii.           Direct that local boards will be consulted on the details of these mechanisms prior to implementation.

iii.          Note that the Quality Advice programme is continuing to be implemented in order to improve the quality of advice to elected members for decision-making, in line with the recommendations of the Governance Framework Review.

iv.         Agree not to implement any formal policies or procedures that control when and how local boards may procure external or contestable advice, but note that, in principle, the Auckland Council organisation should be the first provider of advice to local boards.

v.          Agree not to implement any policy or procedure that would limit local boards’ ability to advocate to the governing body on regional issues.

Local decisions that may have regional impacts (development of a ‘call-in’ right)

vi.         Note that an explicit call-in right is not possible under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 

vii.         Agree not to implement any mechanism that would have the effect of ‘calling in’ or allocating decision-making to the governing body for otherwise local activities or decisions that have regional implications.

viii.        Direct officers that, whenever a local board is to make a decision that has potential impacts beyond the immediate local board area e.g. a sub-regional impact or an impact on regional networks, advice on those potential impacts is to be provided to the local board as a matter of course (for example through a regional impact statement).

Allocations and delegations

ix.         Agree that the governing body delegates, subject to the necessary statutory tests being met, the following Reserves Act 1977 decision-making functions for local reserves to local boards:

·   declaration

·   classification

·   reclassification

·   application for revocation of reserve status (limited to when there is a desire by a local board to manage open space under the LGA)

x.          Note that officers’ advice on decision-making for exchanges of reserve land was that it should remain with the governing body, with the relevant local board consulted on these decisions

xi.         Note that the working party did not reach consensus on this issue, and will consider the feedback of local boards before making a recommendation

xii.         Agree that the Minister of Conservation’s supervisory powers remain delegated to staff, but where there is likely to be significant public interest, an independent commissioner should be engaged.

The role of Auckland Transport and local boards

xiii.        Note the critical interface between the local place-shaping role of local boards and Auckland Transport’s jurisdiction over the road corridor and transport networks.

xiv.       Note that the Governance Manual for Substantive CCOs requires Auckland Transport, amongst other things, to:

·   develop, with local boards, a shared understanding of local board views and CCO priorities to inform the following year’s business planning, including through an annual interactive workshop ‘where local boards communicate their local board priorities and the CCOs communicate how their current year work programme will contribute to local board priorities’.

·   develop by 31 July each year an annual local board engagement plan, which includes a schedule ‘clearly indicat[ing] for each board, the projects and/or activities that it expects to report on, and the projects and activities that it expects to consult on, for the following year. This should be updated annually or more frequently if required.’  

·   report against their local board engagement plan in their quarterly performance reports to the CCO Governance and Monitoring Committee.

xv.        Direct Auckland Transport to meet all requirements for local board engagement as set out in the Governance Manual for Substantive CCOs.

xvi.       Direct Auckland Council officers to monitor Auckland Transport’s compliance with the requirements for local board engagement, as set out in the Governance Manual for Substantive CCOs, and to report this monitoring to the governing body at least annually.

xvii.       Note that the Mayor’s 2017 letter of expectation to Auckland Transport stipulated that council expects there to be:

·   better and earlier engagement and communication between Auckland Transport and local boards;

·   active consideration by Auckland Transport of which of its decision-making powers it could delegate to local boards (within the constraints created by the regulatory environment, safety considerations, the needs of regional networks and the role played by NZTA in decision-making).

xviii.      Note that the following activity statement has been included in Auckland Transport’s 2017-2020 Statement of Intent:

‘Participation in the governance review which is aimed at changing behaviours and processes across relevant Council family activities, including Auckland Transport, to enable local boards to give effect to their governance role, particularly around local place-shaping.’

xix.       Note that the Governance Framework Review has investigated the potential delegation of a range of Auckland Transport powers and the working party recommends that additional work be undertaken to identify delegation opportunities

xx.        Direct Auckland Transport, in working with local boards, to:

·   Ensure that local boards have a strong governance role in determining the ‘look and feel’ of town centres and streetscapes, in line with their allocation of non-regulatory decision-making

·   Improve co-ordination between local place-shaping projects, such as town centre upgrades, and its renewals programmes

·   Provide more opportunities for local board direction on the prioritisation of minor traffic safety projects, with the exception of those which Auckland Transport considers are of critical safety importance

·   Be more responsive to local place-shaping initiatives in non-transport parts of the road corridor, including reducing or removing barriers to community place-making initiatives e.g. looking at ways to reduce the costs of developing traffic management plans for community events

·   Take direction from local boards on how and where to implement community-focused programmes

xxi.       Direct Auckland Transport to report to the governing body annually on how it is meeting the directions given under recommendation xx.

xxii.       Note that the Quality Advice programme has been working with Auckland Transport to improve the quality of advice to local boards and will shortly begin regular six monthly surveys of local board members’ satisfaction with Auckland Transport advice, engagement and reporting to local boards.

xxiii.      Note that the Local Board Transport Capital Fund is valued by local boards but that the level of funding means that some boards are not able to progress meaningful projects, and that improved local transport outcomes may be achieved if the size of the fund was significantly increased.

xxiv.     Direct officers to report to the relevant governing body committee, through the Long Term Plan process, on options for significantly increasing the Local Board Transport Capital Fund and the method of allocation of the fund.

xxv.      Direct Auckland Transport to implement a more systematic work programme approach to assist local boards to identify potential projects and make decisions.

xxvi.     Direct Auckland Transport to actively engage with governing body members (ward councillors) on transport projects and issues within their ward areas.

Waiheke Local Board pilot

xxvii.     Agree that the governing body should endorse the Waiheke Local Board pilot project as set out in the Waiheke Local Board pilot project plan.

xxviii.    Note that the Waiheke Local Board will maintain oversight of local implementation of the pilot.

Local boards funding and finance

xxix.     Agree that the enhanced status quo model be progressed now, giving as much additional decision making to local boards as possible within that framework.

xxx.      Agree that the additional work to support the Enhanced status quo model be undertaken – framework for service levels and local flexibility, options for addressing historical uneven funding, improving the information and advice that is provided to local boards.

xxxi.      Agree that further work on the implications of the local decision making model also be undertaken for further consideration - modelling of rates implication following the revaluation, costs to the organisation of supporting more local decision making etc.

The optimum number of local boards

xxxii.     Agree that council should undertake no further work on changing the number of local boards until at least after the governance framework review has been completed and implemented, and the outcomes of reorganisation proposals that are underway for North Rodney and Waiheke Island are known.

Methods of electing governing body members

xxxiii.    Agree that a change to the current system of electing governing body members from existing wards is not warranted purely to address alignment between governing body members and local boards

xxxiv.   Note that the statutory review of representation arrangements for Auckland Council must be completed by September 2018.

xxxv.    Note that the Local Government Act Amendment Bill No. 2, which proposes a simplified process for local government-led reorganisation processes, is currently before Parliament.

xxxvi.   Agree that council should continue to advocate to central government for legislative amendments that would allow changes to the number of governing body members in line with population changes, and simplification of the process for changes to numbers and boundaries of local boards.

b)      Provide feedback on whether decision-making for exchanges of reserve land should sit with the governing body or local boards

c)      Provide feedback on its preferred naming conventions for governing body members and local board members

d)      Provide feedback on options for the continuation of a joint local board/governing body political working party focusing on matters of governance impacting on both governance arms.

 

 

Comments

Background

5.       In early 2016, Auckland Council instigated a review of the Council’s governance framework as set out in the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, focusing on the complementary governance relationship between local boards and a governing body. The review did not consider Auckland Council’s CCO governance framework or the role of the Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB).

6.       The primary purpose of the review was to assess how the Auckland governance model is meeting the aim of the Auckland governance reforms by delivering strong regional decision-making, complemented by decisions that meet diverse local needs and interests. After nearly six years since Auckland Council was established, it was an appropriate point to look at this.

7.       The intention was to complete the review prior to the 2016 local government election and to provide advice to the incoming council about any recommended changes. The review was carried out by an independent consultant.

8.       The review focused on improvements to the governance framework, not fundamental reform. It was based on extensive interviews with elected members, staff, council-controlled organisations (CCOs) and external stakeholders, as well as review and research of foundation documents and other material.

9.       A report summarising the findings of the review was issued in draft form to elected members in late August 2016 and discussed with elected members at workshops. The feedback received on the draft from elected members was largely supportive of the findings. The report was finalised in November 2016, and incorporated some minor changes based on the feedback of the elected members.

10.     In December 2016 the governing body established a political working party of governing body members and local board members to consider the GFR report and oversee the development of a work programme to explore the implications of its findings then make final recommendations to the Governing Body. The political working party has been considering issues and options via a series of working papers and presentations during the first half of 2017. It will report to the Governing Body in September.

Key findings of the Governance Framework Review

11.     The review concluded that there were a number of positive aspects of the governance model from both a regional and local perspective. This includes the ability for the Auckland region to ‘speak with one voice’ to important stakeholders, such as central government, regarding regional strategic planning and infrastructure development, and enabling local decision-making that provides a local community focus in a way that did not exist under the previous arrangements. However, it also identified a number of areas for improvement, which fall under four key themes:

·   Organisational structures and culture have not adapted to the complexity of the model: 

The review found that the organisation has had challenges in responding to the unique and complex governance arrangements in Auckland, and that this has impacted on the quality of advice and support for elected members.

·   Complementary decision-making, but key aspects of overlap: 

The review touched on a number of decision-making functions where there is overlap between the Governing body and Local Boards, or a lack of clarity about respective roles of the two governance arms.

·   Lack of alignment of accountabilities with responsibilities: 

The review found that the system of decision-making creates incentives for governing body members to act locally despite regional benefits and that local boards are incentivised to advocate for local service improvements, without having to make trade-offs required to achieve these. 

·   Local boards are not sufficiently empowered:

The review identified that there are some practices that are constraining local boards from carrying out their role, including the inflexibility of funding arrangements and difficulties in feeding local input into regional decision-making. It also noted particular local frustrations in relation to transport decision-making.

Approach of the political working party and structure of this report

12.     The working party has been considering the thirty six recommendations of the GFR. They are grouped in to the following workstreams:

·     policy and decision-making roles

·     local boards funding and finance

·     governance and representation

13.     These first three workstreams are nearing completion. A fourth workstream, organisational support, is in its early stages and will consider improvements to the way the organisation supports the Auckland governance model, including any changes that arise from this review.

14.     This report briefly sets out the issues presented to the political working party in the first three workstreams, the recommendations, and the draft position the PWP has reached. Local board feedback on these directions is sought. A more in-depth discussion of the analysis, rationale and options development for each issue is available in relevant discussion documents appended to this report.

15.     A high level summary of all GFR report recommendations and how they were progressed (or not) is attached as Appendix A. Several recommendations were not progressed for various reasons and these are noted in the table.

16.     In considering the GFR report recommendations, options were developed and assessed against the following criteria endorsed by the political working party and approved by the governing body:

·     consistency with the statutory purpose of local government

·     provision for decision making at the appropriate level, as set out in Section 17 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 and consistency with the subsidiarity principle

·     contribution to improving role clarity between the two arms of governance, both internally and for the public

·     provision for increased empowerment of local boards, especially in their place shaping role

·     ensuring appropriate accountability and incentives for political decisions

·     contribution to improved community engagement with, and better services for Aucklanders

·        administrative feasibility, including efficiency and practicality of implementation.

Workstream 1: Policy and decision-making roles

17.     This workstream covers the following topics:

·     Regional policy and decision-making processes

·     Tension between local and regional priorities (development of a ‘call-in’ right)

·     Allocations and delegations

·     The role of local boards and Auckland Transport in local place-shaping

·     A pilot for devolving greater powers to Waiheke Local Board.

 

Regional policy and decision-making processes

18.     The GFR found that:

·     There is no agreed strategic framework for regional policy development that adequately addresses governing body and local board statutory roles[1]

·     The timing of regional decision-making is not well-planned across the organisation. Local boards in particular do not have good visibility of the timing of regional decisions

·     Considerable time and resource commitments are required to seek local board input on regional decisions

·     Local boards do not receive quality advice to inform their input, and advice to the governing body and local boards often lacks analysis of local impacts.

19.     To address these issues, the GFR recommended that council should:

·     Bring both arms of governance together early in the policy development process to clarify respective roles

·     Increase the use of joint briefings and workshops where relevant

·     Develop a methodology that clearly identifies local boards’ role in regional decisions

·     Develop tools to enable local board input earlier into regional policy development

·     Develop a clear policy on the commissioning of contestable advice, including a conflict resolution process

·     Continue to embed the programme for improving the quality of policy advice

·     Consider limiting the ability of local boards to advocate on regional policy issues (particularly investment), once due consideration has been given.

20.     Two options were assessed for implementing better policy development processes that would ensure effective local board input to regional policy decisions:

·     Option 1 that involves implementing a framework with mechanisms to ensure effective local board input to regional policy decisions, and specifies methodologies and ways of working to address these procedural deficiencies identified by GFR

·     Option 2 that involves the same framework plus politically adopted principles, in order to provide greater political direction and set public and political expectations.

21.     Both options were considered to lead to better policy development, more empowerment of local boards, and to better fulfil statutory obligations. Option 2 was recommended on the grounds that it was more likely to result in greater political accountability. Option 1 was favoured by the PWP.

22.     The following recommendations were also made to the PWP:

·     The Quality Advice programme should continue as an organisational priority

·     Council should not implement a policy or process on the commissioning of contestable advice, nor a formal conflict resolution process, as neither are considered to be needed or proportional to the scale of the problem

·     Council should not implement a policy to limit the ability of local boards to advocate on regional policy issues, as it would not be in line with local boards’ statutory role to advocate on behalf of their communities.

23.     The PWP’s position is that:

·     A framework that implements mechanisms to ensure effective local board input to regional policy decisions would be useful, and local boards will need to be consulted on this prior to its implementation;

·     Council should not implement a policy or process on the commissioning of contestable advice, nor a formal conflict resolution process, nor a policy to limit the ability of local boards to advocate on regional policy issues. It was considered that such policies or procedures are unnecessary and would be out of proportion to the scale of any problems.

24.     In line with this position, recommendations i-v have been drafted. Local board feedback is sought on these.

25.     More details on the analysis, options considered and rationale is available in the working paper ‘Regional decision-making and policy processes’ (Appendix B).

Next steps

26.     A framework setting out mechanisms to ensure effective local board input into regional decisions will be developed in line with the high level direction in the discussion document and the recommendations above. It will be workshopped with local boards in the implementation phase of GFR.

27.     How organisational advice is provided, and by who, is a key question that needs to be considered; resource constraint issues, specifically around the ability of the organisation to service local board requests for advice on regional issues or to develop local policy, were a common theme encountered during this workstream. This is particularly important given that implementation of this framework may require more in depth and involved work to provide advice to local boards. This will be considered through the Organisational Support workstream.

Local decisions that may have regional impacts (development of a ‘call-in’ right)

28.     The GFR concluded that the current governance model ‘provides limited incentives for local boards to consider local assets in a regional context, or contemplate divestment or re-prioritisation of assets or facilities in their local board areas. This leads to situations where conflict between local decision-making and regional decision-making arises.’

29.     The report cited the hypothetical example of a local sports field which has been identified as having capacity to be developed and contribute to the regional strategy to grow regional capacity in the sports field network, but the local board does not support this development because of the possible impacts on local residents of increased noise, traffic and light. The local board has the ability to decide against the development on the basis of those concerns, with the regional impact of that decision being a resultant shortfall in sports field capacity.

30.     To address this issue, the GFR recommended that council should develop a process which would allow the governing body to ‘call-in’ decisions about local assets where there is an important regional priority.

31.     Analysis showed that these situations occur very rarely, but when they do they usually have potentially significant or serious implications.

32.     Legal analysis showed that an explicit ‘call-in’ right is not possible under LGACA or the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) but could be achieved through other mechanisms such as amendments to the allocation table.  A range of options to address the problem were developed:

·     Option 1: Enhanced status quo (with a focus on council staff ensuring that advice to local boards covers possible regional implications of a decision where they exist)

·     Option 2<