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

 

Date:                      

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Wednesday, 20 September 2017

4.30pm

Local Board Office
2 Glen Road
Browns Bay

 

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Julia Parfitt, JP

 

Deputy Chairperson

Janet Fitzgerald, JP

 

Members

Chris Bettany

 

 

David Cooper

 

 

Gary Holmes

 

 

Caitlin Watson

 

 

Vicki Watson

 

 

Mike Williamson

 

 

(Quorum 4 members)

 

 

 

Vivienne Sullivan

Local Board Democracy Advisor

 

14 September 2017

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 427 3317

Email: vivienne.sullivan@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 

 DELEGATIONS HIBISCUS AND BAYS LOCAL BOARD 2016-2019

 

Portfolio

Description

Local Board Members

Minor landowner approvals and landlord approvals including events

 

Confirm if the matter is minor for staff to exercise their delegation

Julia Parfitt -Chairperson

Janet Fitzgerald - Deputy Chairperson   

Transport Information Group

Discuss transport issues/projects

David Cooper

Janet Fitzgerald

Julia Parfitt

Resource consent applications 

Input into notification decisions for resource consent applications 

Gary Holmes 

Janet Fitzgerald

Urgent Decision Making

To make decisions on matters that cannot wait until the next ordinary meeting of the local board

Julia Parfitt – Chairperson

Janet Fitzgerald-Deputy Chairperson

 

 

Appointments to outside organisations

 

Organisation

Local Board Member

Vaughan Homestead (Torbay Historical Society)

Julia Parfitt

Chris Bettany - Alternate

Estuary Arts Charitable Trust

 

Victor Eaves Management Committee

Mike Williamson

Local Government New Zealand Zone One (Auckland and Northland)

Janet Fitzgerald

 

Business Improvement Districts (BIDS)

 

Destination Orewa Beach

Vicki Watson

David Cooper - Alternate

Torbay

Chris Bettany

Julia Parfitt - Alternate

Browns Bay

Gary Holmes

Chris Bettany - Alternate

Mairangi Bay

David Cooper

Julia Parfitt - Alternate

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

20 September 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

8.1     Harbour Volleyball Incorporated                                                                        5

8.2     Silverdale Community ActionGroup                                                                  6

9          Public Forum                                                                                                                  6

10        Extraordinary Business                                                                                                6

11        Notices of Motion                                                                                                          7

12        Auckland Transport Update to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board for September 2017                                                                                                                                         9

13        Disposals recommendation report                                                                            77

14        Governance and Management for Orewa Community Centre                               83

15        East Coast Bays Needs Assessment                                                                        87

16        Hibiscus and Bays Quick Response Grant Round One 2017/2018                     123

17        Auckland Plan Refresh - Local Board Engagement                                              185

18        Remuneration Authority consultation document                                                  197

19        Approval for amended road name for the Long Bay Subdivision at Te Oneroa Way, Long Bay - SUB60033219                                                                                                   235

20        Ward Councillors Update                                                                                         239

21        Governance Forward Work Calendar                                                                     241

22        Record of Workshop Meetings                                                                                245  

23        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

24        Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public                                                               253

C1       Further advice on proposed vesting of land for open space – West Hoe Heights 253  

 


1          Welcome

 

 

2          Apologies

 

Apologies from Member D Cooper and Member G Holmes have 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 Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 16 August 2017, as a true and correct record.

 

5          Leave of Absence

 

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

 

 

6          Acknowledgements

 

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

 

 

7          Petitions

 

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

 

 

8          Deputations

 

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

 

8.1       Harbour Volleyball Incorporated

Rob Tarr, Chief Executive Officer of Harbour Volleyball Incorporated has requested a deputation to discuss the upgrade of the volleyball area that has been done recently.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a)      Thank Mr Tarr for his presentation.

 

 

 

8.2       Silverdale Community ActionGroup

Silverdale Community ActionGroup have requested a deputation to discuss development in Millwater.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a)      Thank the Silverdale Community ActionGroup for their presentation.

 

 

9          Public Forum

 

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

 

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

 

 

10        Extraordinary Business

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

11        Notices of Motion

 

There were no notices of motion.

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

20 September 2017

 

 

Auckland Transport Update to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board for September 2017

 

File No.: CP2017/19040

 

  

Purpose

1.       To respond to resolutions and requests on transport-related matters, provide an update and seek approval on the current status of the Local Board’s Transport Capital Fund projects, a summary of consultation material sent to the local board and information on transport-related matters of specific application and interest to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board and its community.

Executive summary

2.       This particular report provides updates and information on:

·        The Local Board’s Transport Capital Fund Projects;

·        Consultations on regulatory processes;

·        Traffic Control Committee results;

·        Issues Raised by Elected Members;

·        Response to resolution - Browns Bay Parking Study;

·        Amendment to the Elections Signs Bylaw 2013;

·        Double Decker Buses Advertising Trial.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a)      notes the Auckland Transport Update to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board for September 2017

b)      approve the allocation of $XXX from the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Transport Capital Fund towards the upgrade of four/six informal crossings at the intersections of Hibiscus Coast Highway and Moana and Moenui Avenues and the intersections of Hibiscus Coast Highway and Moana, Tamariki and Moenui Avenues.

 

 

Comments

Update on the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Transport Capital Fund Projects

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Transport Capital Fund financial summary

Total funds available in current political term

$1,812,442

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

Nil

Additional sum available to the local board from the 2019/2020 financial year commencing on 1 July 2019

$688,702

 

 

3.       A range of projects are being considered by the local board’s Transport Interest Group (TIG) and will be brought to the local board for confirmation before being assessed against the criteria for the Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) by Auckland Transport (AT) staff. Assuming these projects meet the criteria, a rough order of cost for each will be provided for further consideration by members.

4.       At a workshop on 7 September 2017, members were provided with an update on a project initiated by the local board at the request of Destination Orewa Beach, to upgrade a total of six informal crossings at the intersections of Hibiscus Coast Highway with Moana, Tamariki and Moenui Avenues. Whilst there is no record of any crashes involving pedestrians on these crossings, the crossings are confusing for both pedestrians and motorists with uncertainty as to who has the right of way.

5.       Key changes to the existing streetscape by the installation of these pedestrian crossings to Auckland Transport Code of Practice (ATCOP) standards and factors influencing costs were discussed at the workshop, and members were presented with the likely scenarios illustrating how the tactiles, light poles and belisha beacons on the pedestrian crossings and footpaths will look once completed. The specific treatment around tactile pavers was also discussed and it was emphasised that the contrasting stone setts would be the likely option implemented as it provides contrast for the visually impaired.

6.       Members were advised that the existing pedestrian crossing at 342 Hibiscus Coast Highway, Orewa, would be removed as part of this project, and that planters would be installed in strategic locations to dissuade pedestrians from using any of the remaining informal crossings.

7.       The following illustrations show the options under consideration:

 

Option 1:

Orewa Town Centre After_option1

 

 

 


 

Option 2:

Orewa Town Centre After_option2

 

8.       The possibility of completing just four of the crossings, those at Moana and Moenui Avenues, and leaving the two informal crossing points at the intersection of Hibiscus Coast Highway and Tamariki Avenue, was also discussed.

9.       The costs for construction of the crossings at the three intersections, which includes a 10% contingency sum, totals $506,275. Costs for construction excluding the crossings at Tamariki Avenue total $329,010.

10.     AT’s contribution to the project is limited to $201,500 by the funding available in its minor safety improvements budget. Should the local board wish to proceed, a contribution of either $304,775 for completion of the three intersections, or of $127,510 for completion of those at Moenui and Moana Avenues only would be required from the local board.

11.     Members present at the TIG meeting on 16 August 2017 agreed that, with the support of remaining members, the local board would support the project using its LBTCF.

12.     The contribution by the local board will depend on the outcome of discussions at the local board workshop on 7 September 2017 and which of the options detailed above is confirmed.

 

 

Consultations on Regulatory Processes

13.     Documentation describing the proposed installation of No Stopping at all times (NSAAT) restrictions on Deborah Place, Okura was forwarded to TIG members and Members Bettany and Holmes on 29 August 2017 with a request for response no later than 9 September 2017.


Traffic Control Committee Results

14.     Decisions made in relation to regulatory processes by AT’s Traffic Control Committee in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area during August 2017 are listed below:

15.    

 

Street Name, Suburb

Report Type

Nature of Restriction

Decision

Beach Road / Philson Terrace / Argyle Road / Browns Bay Road / Wilks Lane, Browns Bay

Permanent Traffic and Parking changes combined

NSAATs, cycle lane, lane arrows, traffic island, footpath, give-way control, roundabout control, flush median, and keep clear zone

Carried

 

 

Issues Raised by Elected Members

15.     The following table lists issues raised by elected members and local board services staff to 4 September 2017:

 

Location

Issue

Status

1

Glenvar Glade, Torbay

Request for signage restricting heavy commercial vehicles on Glenvar Glade, Torbay.

Member Cooper requested a second sign prior to the intersection of Glenvar Road/Ian Sage Avenue in Torbay on 16 March 2017, advising that Glenvar Glade is restricted to heavy commercial vehicles and encouraging drivers of these to seek an alternate route. On 7 August 2017 members of the TIG and Member Bettany were advised that, although there had been a slight reduction in the number of heavy vehicles using The Glade, many drivers were still deliberately ignoring the heavy vehicle restriction signage. The engineers will therefore investigate the installation of permanent physical barriers such as kerb extensions and bollards to restrict access to small trucks only, but this would need to be discussed with both the residents and service providers so is unlikely to be pursued until the 2018/2019 financial year. In the meantime an additional sign will be installed at the Ian Sage Drive intersection.

2

Moenui Avenue, Orewa

Request for second footpath on Moenui Avenue, Orewa.

Member Parfitt requested a second footpath on Moenui Avenue, Orewa on 21 March 2017, advising that that there was no ramp access for wheel chairs or mobility scooters to the existing footpath, necessitating use of the grass verge or the road to access a ramp onto the footpath. Referred to AT's Walking and Cycling Team for response.

3

Knights Road, Rothesay Bay

Request for improved safety on Knights Road, Rothesay Bay.

Member Parfitt asked on behalf of a constituent on 2 June 2017 for an investigation into improved safety on Knights Road, Rothesay Bay, in light of continuing high vehicle speeds and accidents. On 21 August 2017 members of the TIG were advised that AT's Network Management and Safety Team had carried out an investigation into reported crashes, traffic speeds and volume, the numbers of large vehicles using the street, its topography, length and status (local, collector or arterial road).  Crash statistics in particular, including those involving pedestrians, are used as an important indicator of the risk for pedestrians and other road users.  Whilst investigating Knights Road, the engineers found there had been no reported crashes relating to speed at this location during the five years prior to the investigation. Notwithstanding this, the concerns with respect to speeding on the bend were acknowledged and for this reason they propose the installation of six ‘Slow’ markings on red surfaces between Beach and Browns Bay Roads to influence driver behaviour on this section of road; and
No Stopping At All Times (NSAAT) restrictions around the curve to improve visibility.
Consultation on these measures will be carried out with those most affected and implementation of the proposed parking restriction will be subject to, in part, feedback from those consulted. Should the decision be made to proceed with the proposal, prior to the physical implementation of the NSAAT restrictions a report to support the restrictions will be considered by AT’s Traffic Control Committee so that, once approved, the changes proposed will become legal and enforceable.

4

Hibiscus Coast Highway, Silverdale

Pedestrian access across Hibiscus Coast Highway, Silverdale.

Member Parfitt forwarded the concerns of a Whangaparaoa resident regarding safe access, particularly for the disabled, from the East of Hibiscus Coast Highway to the new Silverdale Centre (the mall, medical centre etc.). Referred to Network Operations and Safety.

5

Beach Road, Mairangi Bay

Request for 'Welcome to' signage on Beach Road, Mairangi Bay.

Member Cooper asked on 14 July 2017 that ‘Welcome to Mairangi Bay Village’ signs, of the style recently installed at the entrance to Silverdale Village, be installed in the berms at the intersection of Brighton Terrace/Beach Road adjacent to 1D Brighton Terrace, (i.e. north of the village) and the intersection of Newhaven Terrace/Beach Road adjacent to 346 Beach Road, (i.e. 2 – south of the village) Referred to Traffic Engineering for consideration.

6

Glenvar Road, Torbay

Request for installation of a second lane on Glenvar Road at its intersection with East Coast Road, Torbay.

Member Parfitt asked on 14 July 2017 that consideration be given to easing the right turn out of Glenvar Road, Torbay onto East Coast Road by widening the left hand side of the exit and repainting the centre line. This would allow installation of a second lane, so that larger right-turning vehicles can swing across onto East Coast Road and not hold up traffic behind them, also allowing left turning vehicles to reach the intersection sooner, make their turn and allow others to move up into their place and reducing long back up queues. With regard to vehicles turning out of Glenvar Road into East Coast Road, AT’s Traffic Operations Team advises that increasing space for the left turning movements would require widening a portion of Glenvar Road, involving construction of retaining walls and relocating services (e.g. power), and provide only a short-term solution. AT has investigated options for improving the local road network to respond to development in the area and the preferred option is to construct a roundabout and re-align Glenvar Road with Lonely Track Road to become a single intersection, providing safety benefits and improving traffic flow, together with increased capacity for left-turning vehicles from Glenvar Road. Funding for this work is being considered as part of the Regional Land Transport Programme 2018-2021, which will be available for consultation early in 2018 and finalised  mid-2018.

7

Spur and Duck Creek Roads, Stillwater

Maintenance on Spur and Duck Creek Roads, Stillwater.

The Office of Mark Mitchell MP raised concerns on 3 August 2017 on behalf of a constituent about the roads into and out of Stillwater, namely Spur and Duck Creek Roads, which have been subject to slips and reoccurring potholes. Referred to Road Corridor Delivery.

8

93 - 131 Gulf Harbour Drive, Hobbs Bay

Request for bus shelter at 93 - 131 Gulf Harbour Drive, Hobbs Bay.

Member Caitlin Watson requested installation of a bus shelter at the bus stop outside Wentworth College, located at 93 - 131 Gulf Harbour Drive, Hobbs Bay on 10 August 2017. On 21 August 2017 Member Watson and members of the TIG were advised that AT eventually hopes to have seating and shelter provided at all city bound bus stops within the Auckland Region, however this is subject to funding and to a prioritisation process so that bus stops with the highest patronage are given priority.  AT is in the process of implementing a New Network for the region, with the next phases being East, Central and then North Auckland. AT’s Infrastructure and Facilities team is currently prioritising funding for new stops critical to these future New Networks. However, the request for installation of a shelter at bus stop #4709 at 93 - 131 Gulf will be assessed when possible.

9

193 Lakeside Drive, Orewa

Request for hardstand area outside 193 Lakeside Drive, Orewa.

Member Cooper requested provision of a hardstand area at the bus stop outside 193 Lakeside Drive, Orewa, on 10 August 2017. On 6 September 2017 Member Cooper was advised that a landing pad will be installed at this stop; however, a timeline for this work can't be provided at this time. AT is currently in the process of implementing a New Network for the entire Auckland Region so funding is being prioritised for new bus stops and infrastructure that is critical to the future New Networks. The next phases to be implemented will be East, Central and then North Auckland.

10

Mairangi Bay Town Centre

Pavers in Mairangi Bay Town Centre.

Member Cooper raised concerns about the slip-resistance of the pavers installed in the Mairangi Bay Town Centre on 10 August 2017. Referred to AT's Roading Asset Manager for investigation.

11

Bus Services Orewa - Dairy Flat

Complaint that the connecting bus for Dairy Flat leaves before the 981 from Orewa has arrived.

Mark Mitchell MP received a complaint from Kris Tucker, teacher in charge of buses for Orewa College on 14 August 2017, that the bus for Dairy Flat leaves before students travelling to the busway station after school have arrived on the 981 connecting bus from Orewa, leaving the pupils stranded. Mr Tucker and the parents of the affected pupils requested reassurance that drivers of the Dairy Flat connecting bus will not leave before students from the 981 have arrived. On 24 August 2017 the MP's Office was advised that the 981 was scheduled to arrive five minutes prior to the 986 leaving the Silverdale Busway Station for Dairy Flat; however, the 981 had run late on a few occasions recently.  The bus  operators had been requested to delay departure of the 986 until the 981 had arrived so that students from Dairy Flat did not miss their connection.

12

Whangaparaoa Road, Whangaparaoa

Cars for sale and unsafe overtaking on Whangaparaoa Road, Whangaparaoa.

The Office of Mark Mitchell MP asked that the matter of cars for sale parked in the vicinity of the Peninsula Club Retirement Village, causing serious visibility issues for residents exiting and entering the village, and unsafe overtaking in the area between Beverly and Brightside Road, be investigated. Whilst the issue of parked cars had been investigated and responded to previously from the point of view of the AT Bylaw, there were still serious safety concerns held by Village residents. Referred to Traffic Operations.

13

John Downs Drive and Glencoe Road, Browns Bay

Request for modification of entry/exit to Sherwood Park, Browns Bay.

Member Cooper asked on 22 August 2017 that consideration be given to modifying the exit from Sherwood Park, Browns Bay, by the installation of a kerb build out to deter vehicles entering the exit for the reserve from John Downs Drive; and lengthening the central median on Glencoe Road to also deter entry from Glencoe Road, also requesting comment on any other possibilities to address this problem. Referred to Network Management and Safety.

 


 

14

97 Pacific Road, Army Bay

New work dug up to lay drains outside 97 Pacific Road, Manly.

Mark Mitchell MP asked on 30 August 2017 why two days after the road outside 97 Pacific Parade, Army Bay was upgraded, this work was destroyed when contractors came back to lay drains in the area, suggesting that better coordination between teams would be preferential to wasting money. Referred to Road Corridor Delivery and Road Corridor Access.

15

Hibiscus Coast and Dairy Flat

Complaints regarding public transport on the Hibiscus Coast and Dairy Flat.

Member Caitlin Watson forwarded complaints regarding public transport on the Hibiscus Coast and Dairy Flat on 30 August 2017. Referred to AT Metro.

 

 

Response to Resolution – Browns Bay Parking Study

16.     At the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board meeting on 16 August 2017  the local board resolved  (HB/2017/129) to:

a)       receive in part, with the exception of Attachment C, the Browns Bay Parking Study, the Auckland Transport Update to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board for August 2017.

b)       requests that as there has been no formal consideration of the Auckland Transport Browns Bay Parking Study by the local board, officers report to the 20 September 2017 business meeting to provide the opportunity for the local board to consider the implications and provide formal feedback on matters within the study, e.g. car parking capacity.

c)       requests that Auckland Council does not consider the disposal of the site at 19 Anzac Road, Browns Bay, until the local board has formally considered and provided feedback on the Browns Bay Parking Study report and resulting impacts from the possible removal of the car park.

17.     AT’s Parking Design Team Leader Alok Vashista and Parking Designer Pablo Sanchez discussed the results of the Browns Bay Town Centre Parking Study with the local board on 25 May 2017 and will be present at the meeting to receive formal feedback on matters within the scope of the study from the local board.

18.     The Browns Bay Town Centre Parking Review Report is appended to this report as Attachment A.

 

 

Regional and sub-regional projects

Amendment to the Elections Signs Bylaw 2013

19.     AT sought feedback on proposed amendments to the AT Election Signs Bylaw 2013 from 6 June to 26 June 2017.

20.     It was proposed that the Bylaw be amended to:

·        clarify controls relating to the display of election signs; and

·        remove the restriction limiting the display of election signs to the nine-week period preceding a general election, local election or election for the Auckland Energy Consumer Trust.

21.     In total, AT received 51 feedback submissions.  This was arranged into themes and responded to by AT in the Amendments to the Auckland Transport Election Signs Bylaw 2013 consultation report which is appended to this report as Attachment B and can also be found on AT’s website: AT.govt.nz/about-us/bylaws/election-signs-bylaw/

22.     On 1 August 2017 the AT Board resolved to pass the Auckland Transport Election Signs (Amendment No. 3) Bylaw 2017, with effect from 1 August 2017, thereby amending the Auckland Transport Election Signs Bylaw 2013. The official minutes from the Board meeting were published on AT’s website on Tuesday 5 September 2017.

23.     The majority of submitters were not in favour of the removal of the time-based restrictions as proposed; however, this is what the new bylaw has done, the reason being that the Bill of Rights Act guarantees the rights of citizens and groups (such as political organisations) to freedom of expression. Councils and Council Controlled Organisations cannot legitimately limit this right, except for over-riding reasons such as safety.

24.     AT has noted the concerns of many submitters over the potential visual pollution created by excessive signage and the risk of signage remaining in place for long periods becoming unsightly; however, has additional means at its disposal to deal with these issues, other than through the revised bylaw.

 

Double Decker Bus Advertising Trial

25.     AT’s Customer and Market Team is about to trial some innovative advertising panels on 15 of the regions double decker buses. The trial includes both a ‘roadside’ and ‘footpath-side’ portrait advertising panel, with minimum intrusion over the side glass. 

26.     The trial lasts for eight weeks and will be running on the 274 and the 277 Britomart to Three Kings Routes. These popular routes travel via Symonds Street, the universities and Mt Eden Road, before travelling on to Three Kings and Waikowhai.  The trial will be used to promote the AT Mobile app which is popular with university students. The ‘rate card value’ of this space is $240,000; however, the AT Metro Customer and Market team has negotiated this space at no cost during the eight-week trial.  The illustration below shows how the side panels could look on a Northern Express bus if the trial on the 274 and 277 routes proves successful.

mark-lambert-180817-2

 

AT Mobile Reaches 100,000 downloads

27.     From day one, the app which allows users to plan, save and track their journeys on AT Metro’s bus, train, and ferry services, has been designed from the customer's point of view. The AT Mobile app, which is available on both iOS and Android, is being continually updated to add more functions and features to continue to extend the digital service offering to customers.

28.     Since it launched, AT has made improvements that allow users to drop a pin on a map to create a journey rather than having to search for an address, added the train platform number so they know exactly where to board their trains, and added a guided tour video of the app to show how it works.

‘I Just Clicked’ Campaign

29.     AT and the New Zealand Police (NZ Police)are working together to reduce the number of lives lost and serious injuries through people not wearing their seatbelts or buckling their children safely into vehicles.

30.     A new campaign, ‘I Just Clicked’, to remind people that seatbelts save lives, began on 17 August 2017. AT is using traditional and social media and NZ Police will be stopping drivers and issuing fines for those who break the rules, putting lives at risk.

31.     Too many crashes result in unnecessary loss of life because people are not properly restrained, and Ministry of Transport data indicates that, regardless of being in the front or the back seat, wearing a seatbelt reduces the chance of serious injury by up to 40 percent if a crash occurs.

32.     A large proportion of crashes occur on short trips where drivers may not be wearing their seatbelts - road users can feel safe on roads they know well and become complacent as a result. Just popping out to the dairy or doing the school run is still a risk, and both drivers and passengers need to protect themselves by ensuring seat belts are always worn.

33.     The statistics are alarming for Auckland where between 2012 and 2016 there were 40 deaths and 130 serious injuries directly related to people not wearing their seatbelts. The impact on families and the community is massive so one of the aims of this campaign is to show people the human side of not doing the right thing.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

34.     The local board’s views will be considered during consultation on any proposed schemes.

Māori impact statement

35.     No specific issues with regard to impacts on Māori are triggered by this report and any engagement with Māori will be carried out on an individual project basis.

 

Implementation

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

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Browns Bay Parking Study

19

b

Amendment of the AT Election Signs Bylaw 2013 Feedback Report

45

      

Signatories

Authors

Ellen Barrett, Elected Member Relationship Manager North, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon, Manager, Elected Member Relationship Unit, Auckland Transport

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

20 September 2017

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

20 September 2017

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

20 September 2017

 

 

Disposals recommendation report

 

File No.: CP2017/17787

 

  

Purpose

1.       To seek the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board’s endorsement for Panuku Development Auckland to recommend to the Finance and Performance Committee the disposal of the council owned property at 8 Hiwi Crescent, Stanmore Bay. 

Executive summary

2.       The council-owned site at 8 Hiwi Crescent, Stanmore Bay is vacant land that was acquired for transport purposes.  The site is no longer required for this purposeThe rationalisation process for 8 Hiwi Crescent, Stanmore Bay commenced in May 2016.  Consultation with council departments and Council Controlled Organisations, iwi authorities and the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board has now taken place.  No alternative service use has been identified for the property through the rationalisation process.  Due to this, Panuku Development Auckland recommends disposal of the site. 

3.       A resolution approving the disposal of the subject site is required from the Finance and Performance Committee before the proposed divestment can be progressed. 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a)      endorse Panuku Development Auckland’s recommendation to the Finance and Performance Committee to dispose of 8 Hiwi Crescent, Stanmore Bay.

 

 

Comments

4.       Panuku Development Aiuckland (Panuku) and Auckland Council’s Stakeholder and Land Advisory team in Community Facilities work jointly on a comprehensive review of council’s property portfolio.  One of the outcomes of the review process is to identify properties in the council portfolio that are potentially surplus to requirements and may be suitable to sell.  The subject site was identified as potentially saleable through the review process.

5.       Once a property has been identified as potentially surplus, Panuku engages with council departments and its Council Controlled Organisations (CCO’s) through an expression of interest process, to establish whether the property must be retained for a strategic purpose or is required for a future funded project.  Once a property has been internally cleared of any service requirements, Panuku then consults with local boards, mana whenua and ward councillors.  All sale recommendations must be approved by Panuku’s Board before it makes a final recommendation to council’s Finance and Performance Committee. 

Property information

6.       Number 8 Hiwi Crescent, Stanmore Bay is an 809m2 vacant site acquired by the former Rodney District Council in 1998 for the purpose of Whangaparaoa Road Widening Project.  The widening of Whangaparaoa Road remains a "live project" but the property is not included in the Whangaparaoa Road upgrade project (between Hibiscus Coast Highway to Red Beach Road).

7.       The Auckland Transport Board resolved in November 2015 that 8 Hiwi Crescent, Stanmore Bay was no longer required for current or future transport related purposes.  Number 8 Hiwi Crescent, Stanmore Bay was subsequently transferred to Panuku.

8.       The Unitary Plan zoning of 8 Hiwi Crescent, Stanmore Bay is residential - single house.  It has a 2014 capital value of $375,000.

Internal consultation

9.       The rationalisation process commenced in May 2016.  No alternate service uses for the subject site were identified during the internal consultation.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

10.     Local boards are informed of the commencement of the rationalisation process for specific properties.  Following the close of the expression of interest period, relevant local boards are engaged with.

11.     This report provides the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board with an opportunity to formalise its views regarding the subject site.

Māori impact statement

12.     Fourteen mana whenua iwi authorities were contacted regarding the potential sale of 8 Hiwi Crescent, Stanmore Bay.  The following feedback was received:

a)      Ngāti Wai

No feedback received for this site.

b)      Ngāti Manuhiri

No feedback received for this site.

c)      Te Runanga o Ngāti Whatua

No feedback received for this site.

d)      Ngāti Whatua o Kaipara

No feedback received for this site.

e)      Ngāti Whatua o Ōrākei

No feedback received for this site.

f)       Te Kawerau a Maki

No feedback received for this site.

g)      Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki

No feedback received for this site.

h)      Te ākitai - Waiohua

No feedback received for this site.

i)       Ngāti Te Ata - Waiohua

No site specific feedback received for this site; however Ngāti Te Ata has expressed general cultural interest across Tāmaki Makaurau, has potential commercial interest in any council owned land that comes available for sale in their rohe and notes specific association with the south western area of Auckland, focusing around Manukau and the western coastline.

j)       Ngāti Paoa

No feedback received for this site.

k)      Ngaati Whanaunga

No feedback received for this site.

l)       Ngāti Maru

No feedback received for this site.

m)     Ngāti Tamatera

No feedback received for this site.

n)      Patukirikiri

No feedback received for this site.

Implementation

13.     Number 8 Hiwi Crescent, Stanmore Bay would likely be subject to the offer back obligations to the former owners in accordance with section 40 of the Public Works Act 1981 if it is no longer required for a public work.

14.     The terms and conditions of any disposal would be approved under appropriate financial delegation.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Images of 8 Hiwi Crescent, Stanmore Bay

81

     

Signatories

Authors

Anthony Lewis - Senior Advisor Portfolio Review, Panuku Development Auckland

Authorisers

Letitia McColl - Team Leader Portfolio Strategy, Panuku Development Auckland

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

20 September 2017

 

 


 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

20 September 2017

 

 

Governance and Management for Orewa Community Centre

 

File No.: CP2017/10519

 

  

Purpose

1.       To endorse a community-led management model for the Orewa Community Centre and allocate $10,000 of further funding from the Locally Driven Initiatives budget to implement the management model.

Executive summary

2.       In the 2014 Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Plan the local board set its vision to create ‘the world’s most liveable city at a local level’.

3.       Auckland Council currently manages Orewa Community Centre.

4.       The local board has expressed an interest in the Orewa Community Centre being locally managed.

5.       Staff were due to investigate management options for the Orewa Community Centre as part of the 2016/2017 Arts, Community and Events  (ACE) 2016/2017 work programme. Due to limited resources, staff were unable to complete the work.

6.       The 2017/2018 ACE work programme includes changing Orewa Community Centre’s management model. The work programme also included a further decision point from the local board to allocate $10,000 of further funding in quarter one or quarter two for the work.

7.       At a local board workshop on 3 August 2017 staff identified three possible future management options for the centre: council management; community-led management and contracted management.

8.       Staff recommend community-led management for the Orewa Community Centre through an engagement and expression of interest process as this provides the opportunity to investigate the capacity and capability within the community.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a)      endorse a community-led management model for the Orewa Community Centre.

b)      allocate $15,000 from the Locally Driven Initiatives budget to transition Orewa Community Centre to a community-led management model.

 

 

Comments

Background

9.       The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board plan includes a vision to create ‘the world’s most liveable city’ and for the ‘community to be part of the making our towns and neighbourhoods special places’.

10.     The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board has shown a continuing interest in the Orewa Community Centre being a locally managed service.

11.     The Arts, Community and Events (ACE) 2016/2017 work programme included investigating management options for the Orewa Community Centre and $5000 Locally Driven Initiatives budget to deliver this work. Limited staff resources and budget meant staff could not complete the work in 2016/2017.

12.     The ACE 2017/2018 work progamme includes changing the operational model for the Orewa Community Centre. The work programme also included a further decision point from the local board to allocate a further $10,000 from the Locally Driven Initiatives Operational budget in quarter one or quarter two for the work.

13.     On 3 August 2017 staff conducted a workshop with the local board to consider options for the future management of the Orewa Community Centre. The options are council management, community-led management and contract management.

Options for managing Orewa Community Centre

14.     The table below outlines the three options considered:

Option One

Council management (current model)

Auckland Council manages all aspects of Orewa Community Centre. 

Risks

The standardised approach of Auckland Council does not align with the local board’s vision to create the world’s most liveable city at a local level.

The centre has a number of regular community users. Changing the model could lead to fewer regular users.

Benefits

The centre is at 37% occupancy which is the council target.

The centre is operationally stable, meeting its revenue targets and has a number of regular community users.

Option Two

Community-led management (recommended model)

A community organisation would manage bookings and general maintenance through the revenue. Volunteers deliver the work programme.

Risks

There is no existing community organisation identified with interest or capacity to take on management. Ongoing support for capacity building within the group may be required.

Benefits

This model empowers the community to be the centre’s decision-makers.

This model also plays to the strengths and talents of the communities and builds their capacity.

Option Three

Contracted management

This model is where a community organisation manages bookings and general maintenance.

The community organisation would also receive Asset-Based Services budget or Locally Driven Initiative budget to employ staff and deliver community outcomes from the centre.

Risks

The community organisation would require organisational capacity building as it would be managing the facility as well as staff and volunteers.

Additional funding would need to be found.

 

Benefits

This option would create community pride and a sense of ownership, and increase community capacity and capability.

 

Preferred option

15.     Staff recommend Hibiscus and Bays Local Board option two, community-led management  because:

·    it aligns with the Hibiscus and Bays 2014-17 Local Board Plan’s vision to create ‘the world’s most livable city at a local level’.

·    empowers the local community to make decisions about their community centre

·    continues to build community capacity and participation

·    it is an opportunity for residents to use their skills and talents to manage the centre.

 

Additional resourcing for transitioning the centre’s operational model

16.     The local board allocated $5000 from the Locally Driven Initiative budget in the 2016/2017 ACE work programme to transition the community centre’s management model.  This $5,000 has been approved to carry forward to 2017/2018 financial year.

17.     For staff to transition the centre to a community-led management model, an additional $10,000 from the Locally Driven Initiative budget is required to scope, plan and conduct an engagement and expression of interest process. Staff are requesting a total of $15,000 for the work.

18.     On 3 August 2017 staff conducted a workshop with the local board to consider options for the future management of the Orewa Community Centre. Staff  presented the local board with the cost for the work and the next steps for the scope, plan, engagement and expression of interest process. 

19.     The risk of the local board allocating less than $15,000 is the community centre will not be transitioned to a community-led model.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

20.     Hibiscus and Bays Local Board members expressed strong support for option two – community led management.

21.     As stated in paragraph nine, the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board 2014-17 Plan includes a vision to create ‘the world’s most liveable city at a local level’ and wanting the ‘community to be part of making our towns and neighbourhoods special places’.

Māori impact statement

22.     Four tribal rohe intersect the Hibiscus and Bays area: Ngāti Wai, Ngāti Manuhiri, Ngāti Whātua and Ngāti Whātua Ngā Rima o Kaipara. They will be invited to participate in all engagement activity to ensure that iwi are included in the future management of the centre.

Implementation

23.     Should the local board approve staff’s recommendations, staff will implement the community-led management model according to the table below:

 

 

Stage One

Description

Total Cost

Scope and Plan engagement

October – November 2017

 

·   staff hold community meetings to gauge community interest, including local iwi, current hirers, networks and wider community.

·   staff and local board set criteria for successful applicant

·   local board approves criteria.

Total Cost $5,000.00

Stage Two

Description

Total Cost

Expression of Interest process

December 2017 – February 2018

 

·   staff create an information pack, application form and communication material

·   staff advertise EOI

·   staff manage enquiries

·   staff collate the applications.

Total Cost $5,000.00

Stage Three

Description

Total Cost

Selection and appointment

February 2018 –       June 2018

 

·   selection panel meets to review applications

·   panel appoints community group

·   staff notify successful applicant

·   staff work with the successful applicant through transition.

Total Cost $5,000.00

 

24.     Staff will workshop the expression of interest’s criteria and outcomes with the local board in November 2017.

25.     Staff will notify the local board of the selected community organisation in April 2018 and will seek the board’s approval to grant the organisation with a licence to occupy and manage the centre.

26.     If additional support is required in the way of capacity building, this will be discussed through an additional workshop before the April 2018 report.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

 

Signatories

Author

Marilyn Kelly, Programmes and Partnership Advisor Places-N Community Places

Authorisers

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Graham Bodman - General Manager Arts, Community and Events

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

20 September 2017

 

 

East Coast Bays Needs Assessment

 

File No.: CP2017/18613

 

  

Purpose

1.       To receive the East Coast Bays Needs Assessment report.

Executive summary

2.       In April 2016, Hibiscus and Bays Local Board allocated $20,000 from the 2015/2016 Locallyl Driven Initiatives Opex Community Development Budget to undertake a needs assessment study of East Coast Bays (HB/2016/49).

3.       The purpose of the research was to understand more clearly the community development needs and priorities in the East Coast Bays area.

4.       The East Coast Bays study shows there is a strong foundation of community development in place, upon which to build.

5.       The report identified eight priorities which can be categorised under the four headings of environmental, transport, business and social concerns.

6.       Council staff workshopped the needs assessment report with the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board in April and August of this year and it is ready to be received.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a)      Receive the East Coast Bays Needs Assessment report.

 

 

Comments

Background

 

7.       At a local board meeting on 20 April 2016, the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board allocated $20,000 from the 2015/2016 Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) Opex Community Development Budget to contract Point Research to assess and analyse the community development needs in East Coast Bays (HB/2016/49). The work included:

·        gathering a comprehensive range of place-specific community information by working collaboratively with the local community

·        analysing information to identify what additional community services, facilities or interventions might be needed to strengthen community wellbeing and resilience at a local level

·        presenting a written report to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board with recommendations based on the findings.

8.       At a local board workshop in April 2017, Alex Woodley of Point Research presented a summary of the work achieved to date. This included some of the early findings that had been identified in the initial stages of the interviews and compiling process.

9.       Ms Woodley presented the final draft of the report for comment and feedback at a local board workshop on 3 August 2017.

 

Needs assessment report findings

10.     The report states four main findings:

·        There is a strong sense of community in East Coast Bays once people find their place in it.

·        People are strongly attracted to the area because of its coastal environment, its connections and its amenities.

·        It’s a safe, great place for children to grow up.

·        It is community friendly, well connected and integrated.

 

11.     The report identified the following priorities that are of the highest concern for residents: environmental, transport related, business opportunities and social concerns. These concerns can be broken down into specific priorities:

·        environmental

o   preserving the environment

·        transport

o   traffic, parking, cycle ways and road management including improving public transport links 

·        business opportunities

o   local economic development and local jobs

·        social concerns

o   children and young people

o   balance of activities and facilities

o   reducing isolation

o   strengthening sense of community

o   improving safety in the area.

 

12.     Point Research has made 12 recommendations to the local board to address the issues:

·        support initiatives designed to preserve and restore environmental health. Specifically, initiatives to restore stream health through daylighting, riparian planting and pest control.

·        provide shade areas in public spaces, including beaches, parks and malls

·        increase the number, size and collection frequency of rubbish bins along beaches and in public spaces, ensuring that they are bird and animal proof and of sufficient size to accommodate pizza boxes.

·        work with Auckland Transport on initiatives to reduce traffic congestion, such as expanding the Park and Ride areas, extending the frequency of public transport options, and increasing cycle pathways. This could include introducing smaller coaches in suburban streets, more frequent buses at interchanges and a ferry/taxi service around the Bays, as in Sydney.

·        support initiatives aimed at engaging intermediate school aged students in after school activities.

·        support initiatives designed to reduce family violence, bullying, and online safety.

·        support initiatives designed to reduce traffic, speed, and racing.

·    identify and introduce pedestrian crossings where needed.

·    support initiatives designed to support older adults and newcomers to the area, such as combining activities and classes with a social aspect where people can connect and get to know each other.

·    implement the town centre plan and spruce up areas with murals, colourful plantings, welcome signs, more frequent maintenance schedules and changes to rubbish collection.

·    support the activation of town centres through markets and events designed to draw people to the area.

·    investigate ways and implement initiatives designed to attract different types of shops and businesses to the area.

13.     The needs assessment report is attached as Attachment A to the agenda report.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

14.     Ms Woodley presented the needs assessment report findings at two local board workshops in April and August 2017. The local board expressed support for receiving the report to enable the recommendations to be implemented.

15.     Previously Point Research had carried out a needs assessment survey of Hibiscus Coast.

16.     The local board has allocated funding for projects that arise as a result of the needs assessment work for both Hibiscus Coast and East Coast Bays of up to $45,000 in the 2017/2018 Arts Culture and Events work programme.

Māori impact statement

17.     The report did not make any specific reference to Māori needs or concerns in the needs assessment report.  However the relevance for and inclusion of Māori will need to be considered when implementing the report’s recommendations.

Implementation

18.     Following the local board’s receipt of his report, staff will hold a series of workshops and focus groups with major stakeholders in October and November to identify projects and programmes to address the issues raised in the needs assessment report. Staff will report back to the local board in February 2018.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment A Final EBC Needs Assessment report

91

     

Signatories

Author

Suzanne Dennehy – Strategic Broker

Authorisers

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Graham Bodman - General Manager Arts, Community and Events

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

20 September 2017

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

20 September 2017

 

 

Hibiscus and Bays Quick Response Grant Round One 2017/2018

 

File No.: CP2017/18581

 

  

Purpose

1.       To present applications received for Hibiscus and Bays Quick Response Grants Round One 2017/2018. The local board is required to fund, part-fund or decline these applications.

Executive summary

2.       The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board has approved a total community grants budget of $493,000 for the 2017/2018 financial year. 

3.       Sixteen applications were received for the quick response grants round one 2017/2018 requesting at total of $34,465.75. This includes two multi-board applications.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a)      Consider the applications listed in Table One and agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application in this round.

            Table One:

Application ID

Organization Name

Project requesting funding for

Amount requested

Eligibility

QR1806-101

Badminton North Harbour

Towards costs of purchasing shuttlecocks for Badminton North Harbour Community summer league social sporting event at Forrest Hill.

 $         2,000.00

Eligible

QR1806-105

Shakespear Open Sanctuary Society Incorporated.

Towards a contribution towards potting mix and bags for native plant nursery project at Shakespear Regional Park

 $           2,000.00

Eligible

QR1806-112

Mairangi Arts Centre

Towards funding a tutor to teach a harakeke (flax) paper making workshop at the Mairangi Arts Centre.

 $           1,000.00

Eligible

QR1806-106

Mairangi Arts Centre

Towards a contribution for facilitator costs for the "Making Friends" community art project in Mairangi Bay community.

 $           2,000.00

Eligible

QR1806-107

No5 Squadron (Rodney District) Air Training Corps

Towards the costs of an outdoor gazebo for a variety of squadron activities and the sports day.

 $           1,600.00

Eligible

QR1806-108

Age Concern Rodney Incorporated. - Charitable Trust

Towards costs for the venue, lighting, sound technicians, koha, tickets and afternoon tea, for the Christmas concert at Centrestage Theatre, Orewa.

 $           2,000.00

Eligible

QR1806-109

Silverdale and Districts Historical Society Incorporated

Towards material costs and equipment hire for the Neville House refurbishment.

 $           2,000.00

Eligible

QR1806-110


Orewa College

Towards the costs of purchasing a musical instrument for Orewa College and community.

 $           2,000.00

Ineligible under the Community Grants Policy paragraph 86.

QR1806-111

Special Olympics Hibiscus Coast

Towards registration fees for the Special Olympics New Zealand 2017 Summer National Games, to be held in Wellington, in November 2018

 $           2,000.00

Eligible

QR1806-113

PHAB Association Incorporated (Auckland)

Towards costs of coordination, wages for specially trained youth workers and volunteer expenses for running the "skills for all project".

 $           2,000.00

Eligible

QR1806-114

Brake (New Zealand)

Towards costs for marquee hire, posters and flyers, remembrance cards, tokens and refreshments for the attendees at the World Day of Remembrance for Road Crash Victims at Orewa Beach.

 $              655.00

Eligible

QR1806-115

Gulf Harbour School

Towards a mobile cricket pitch to be used by the Gulf Harbour school and Hibiscus Coast Cricket Club.

 $           2,000.00

Eligible

QR1806-116

Mapura Studios  Division of Panacea Art Charitable Trust

Towards covering the cost of facility hire to implement the "Returning community vitality through creativity" project at the Estuary Arts in Orewa.

 $           1,716.00

Eligible

QR1806-119

Action Education Incorporated.

Towards costs for 10 two hour spoken word poetry workshops at local schools in the Hibiscus and Bays areas.

 $           2,000.00

Eligible

 

 

Total

$24,971

 

 

b)      Consider the multi-board applications listed in Table Two and agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application in this round.

            Table Two

App. ID

Organisation

 Name

Project

Amount Requested

Eligible/

Ineligible

LG1706-203

Project Litefoot Trust

Towards LiteClub Hibiscus and Bay salaries, materials installed at the club, administration costs, travel costs, and promotion.
Clubs include:
Orewa Tennis Club, East Coast Bays Rugby League, Pupuke Golf Club and Red Beach SLSC and Squash Club.

 $           7,089.00

Eligible

LG1721-203

Big Buddy Mentoring Trust

Towards costs of purchasing three laptops and coordinators' salaries from 30 April 2017 to 1 May 2018 for the “fatherless boys” programme.

 $           2,405.75

Eligible

 

 

Total

$9,494.75

 

 

Comments

4.       The Auckland Council Community Grants Policy supports each local board to adopt a grants programme (see Attachment A).

5.       The local board grants programme sets out:

·          local board priorities

·          lower priorities for funding

·          exclusions

·          grant types, the number of grant rounds and when these will open and close

·          any additional accountability requirements

6.       The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board will operate three quick response grant rounds for this financial year. The first quick response grants round closed on 18 August 2017.

7.       The community grant programmes have been advertised through the council grants webpage, local board webpages, Facebook pages, council publications, radio, and community networks.

For the 2017/2018 financial year, the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board set a total community grants budget of $493,000.

8.       Sixteen applications were received for the quick response grants round one 2017/2018 requesting at total of $34,465.75 including two multi-board applications.

 

Consideration

Local board views and implications

9.       Local boards are responsible for the decision-making and allocation of local board community grants. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board is required to fund, part-fund or decline these grant applications against the local board priorities identified in the local board grant programme.

10.     The local board is requested to note that section 50 of the Community Grants Policy states “We will also provide feedback to unsuccessful grant applicants about why they have been declined, so they will know what they can do to increase their chances of success next time.”

11.     A summary of each application is attached (see Attachment B).

Māori impact statement

12.     The provision of community grants provides opportunities for all Aucklanders to undertake projects, programmes and activities that benefit a wider range of individuals and groups, including Māori. As a guide for decision-making, in the allocation of community grants, the new community grants policy supports the principle of delivering positive outcomes for Māori.

 

Implementation

13.     The allocation of grants to community groups is within the adopted Long-term Plan 2015-2025 and local board agreements.

14.     Following the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board allocation of funding for quick response round one grants, commercial and finance staff will notify the applicants of the local board’s decision.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Grant Programme 2017/2018

127

b

Hibiscus and Bays Quick Response Round One 2017/2018 grant applications

131

     

Signatories

Author

Catherine Bolinga - Community Grants Advisor

Authorisers

Marion Davies - Community Grants Operations Manager

Jennifer Rose - Operations Support Manager

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

20 September 2017

 

 


 


 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

20 September 2017

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

20 September 2017

 

 

Auckland Plan Refresh - Local Board Engagement

 

File No.: CP2017/18785

 

  

Purpose

1.       To seek local board feedback on draft Auckland Plan content to inform the final draft of the refreshed Auckland Plan.

 

Executive summary

2.       In June and July 2017 the Auckland Plan refresh team provided all local boards with summaries of the strategic themes and focus areas for the refreshed Auckland Plan for their consideration.

3.       Resolutions and feedback from local boards over June and July, and feedback from stakeholders informed the further development of content and development of the strategic framework. The framework was approved in principle by the Planning Committee on 1 August 2017.   A summary of the feedback from local boards accompanied the report to the Planning Committee.

4.       A further update on the Auckland Plan refresh was sent by memo to local boards on 16 August. This memo highlighted next steps, in particular that there would be further engagement with local boards in September 2017. 

5.       Local boards are scheduled to hold workshops during September 2017 to review the Auckland Plan package of materials, including content across the six outcome areas and the development strategy. This report seeks formal feedback on this content which will be considered as part of the proposed Auckland Plan.  

6.       Further Planning Committee meetings will be held in October and November to finalise draft content for the proposed Auckland Plan prior to public consultation in early 2018. 

 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a)      provides feedback, including any specific feedback on the package of materials across the six outcome areas and the Development Strategy (attachment A).

b)      notes that the resolutions of this meeting will be reported back to the Planning Committee for consideration in the drafting of the refreshed Auckland Plan.

 

 

Comments

7.       Auckland Council is required under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 to develop and review a spatial plan for Auckland. The Auckland Plan refresh provides an opportunity to revisit Auckland’s most challenging issues, to ensure the plan continues to be a useful guiding document for Auckland.

8.       On 28 March 2017, the Planning Committee endorsed a streamlined spatial approach for the refresh of the Auckland Plan. The refreshed plan is intended to be more focused and structured around a small number of inter-linked strategic themes that address Auckland’s biggest challenges. The plan is also intended to have a greater focus on the development strategy.

Local board involvement in the refresh

9.       Local board chairs have been invited to all Planning Committee workshops on the Auckland Plan during 2017.  Throughout these workshops, chairs (or their representatives) have provided early input into opportunities and challenges for Auckland over the next 30 years and feedback on the proposed strategic framework for the refreshed Auckland Plan. This input was the views of chairs only and does not represent formal local board feedback.

10.     At local board cluster briefings in February and April 2017, local board members gave feedback and information which was used to refine the scope of strategic themes and focus areas. 

11.     A report on the Auckland Plan Refresh was considered at local board business meetings in June and July.  Local boards were invited to consider their formal position on the themes and focus areas and provide further feedback. 

12.     Local board cluster briefings were also held in April and July on the development strategy which is a core component of Auckland Plan.

13.     Resolutions and feedback from local boards over June and July informed the further development of a draft strategic framework. This was approved in principle by the Planning Committee on 1 August 2017.   A summary of the feedback from local boards accompanied this report to the Planning Committee.

14.     A further update on the Auckland Plan refresh was sent by memo to local boards on 16 August 2017. This memo highlighted next steps, in particular that there would be further engagement with local boards in September 2017.

15.     Local boards are scheduled to hold workshops during September 2017 to review the Auckland Plan package of materials, including content across the six outcome areas and the development strategy. This report seeks formal feedback on this content which will be considered as part of the proposed Auckland Plan. 

16.     Further Planning Committee meetings will be held in October and November to finalise draft content for the proposed Auckland Plan prior to full public consultation in early 2018. 

Consideration

Local board views and implications

17.     Local board feedback on the package of engagement material is being sought in this report.

18.     Local boards play an important role in relation to the content of the Auckland Plan through communicating local views to the governing body and providing input to regional strategies, policies, and plans  

Māori impact statement

19.     The council is required to provide opportunities for Māori engagement and to support Māori capacity to participate in decision-making. When making significant decisions in relation to land or a body of water, the council must take into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water, sites, waahi tapu, valued flora and fauna and other taonga.

20.     Staff from the Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB) provided guidance on the strategic themes of the plan. The IMSB’s Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau was a guiding document underpinning the development of the strategic themes and focus areas.

21.     The strategic themes acknowledge and celebrate Māori culture as Auckland’s point of difference, and Māori as Treaty partners in Auckland.

22.     Māori Identity and Wellbeing is one of the six outcomes of the plan. The outcome describes the application of Te ao Māori values to the region, acknowledges the unique role of mana whenua as kaitiaki of Tāmaki Makaurau and acknowledges the foundational role of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.  

23.     Engagement with mana whenua, mataawaka, and relevant Māori community groups has been undertaken to develop the draft plan.

Implementation

24.     Feedback from the local boards will be summarised and provided to the Planning Committee for consideration in the drafting of the refreshed Auckland Plan.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Auckland Plan Draft Content Package

189

     

Signatories

Author

Denise O’Shaughnessy - Manager Strategic Advice

Authorisers

Jacques  Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Karen Lyons - General Manager Local Board Services

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

20 September 2017

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

20 September 2017

 

 

Remuneration Authority consultation document

 

File No.: CP2017/19208

 

  

Purpose

1.       To seek local board comments on the Remuneration Authority’s Consultation Document “Local Government Review” by 15 December 2017.

Executive summary

2.       The Remuneration Authority is consulting local authorities on proposals in its consultation document “Local Government Review”. Feedback is due by Friday 15 December 2017. The Remuneration Authority wants to discuss the proposals with Local Government New Zealand zone meetings.

3.       The Remuneration Authority has noted that they are seeking the views of councils, not individual elected members or staff.  All local boards are being provided the opportunity to respond as is the governing body.

4.       The Remuneration Authority proposes the following long-term changes to the way in which remuneration is decided:

(i)         each council is sized according to proposed factors such as population

(ii)        a remuneration pool for the council is determined based on the size

(iii)       the mayor’s salary is determined by the Remuneration Authority

(iv)       the council then proposes how to allocate the total pool (after the mayor’s salary is deducted) among elected members to recognise positions of responsibility

(v)        there is relativity between mayors and MPs, with the Auckland mayor being paid no more than a cabinet minister.

5.       The consultation document sets out the proposals and asks for feedback in regard to specific questions. 

6.       The proposals do not impact on expenses policies or meeting fees for resource management hearings. 

7.       The body of this report summarises the content of each section of the document and quotes the questions. Comments from staff highlight issues the local board might wish to consider. The document is in Attachment A and provides the full details of the proposals.

8.       The proposal to provide each council with a remuneration pool gives councils more flexibility to recognise varying responsibilities among members, but it puts elected members in the position of making decisions about their own salaries.

9.       The consultation document does not discuss local boards.  In other councils, community board salaries would be funded from the council pool, unless they were funded by a targeted rate.  Local boards are very different from community boards and local boards should make their comments in the context of their role and responsibilities within Auckland Council. Local boards may wish to comment on how, if the remuneration pool concept proceeds, the remuneration of local boards should be decided.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a)      provide its comments on the Remuneration Authority’s Consultation Document Local Government Review.

 

 

Comments

Introduction

10.     The Remuneration Authority (the Authority) has circulated a discussion document with a request for comments by 15 December 2017. This is appended in Attachment A. The Authority states that a separate consultation document will be circulated for Auckland Council but that the principles in the current document will apply to Auckland Council.

11.     The Authority has noted that they are seeking the views of councils, not individual elected members or staff.  All local boards are being provided the opportunity to respond as is the Governing Body.

12.       Currently, the key aspects for setting remuneration for councils other than Auckland are:

(i)      a size index for each council based on population and expenditure

(ii)      job-sizing council positions in sample councils

(iii)     assessing the portion of full-time work

(iv)    the Authority’s pay scale

(v)     a pool equivalent to one member’s salary for recognising additional positions of responsibility

(vi)    a loading of 12.5% for unitary councils

(vii)    hourly rates for resource consent hearings.

13.     The report summarises the content of each section of the discussion document and quotes the questions. Comments from staff highlight issues the local board might wish to consider. The document is in Attachment A and provides the full details of the proposals.

Council size

14.     The discussion document defines council size as “the accumulated demands on any council resulting from its accountability for its unique mix of functions, obligations, assets and citizenry”.  It proposes a number of measures on which to base council size such as:

(i)      population

(ii)      operational expenditure

(iii)     asset size

(iv)    social deprivation

(v)     guest nights.

15.     For regional councils, social deprivation would not be used to assess size, but land area would be.

16.     For unitary councils, land area would be added to all other factors in order to recognise regional responsibilities.  The previous 12.5% loading would not apply.

17.     Detailed explanations about why these factors were chosen are in the discussion document.

18.     Remuneration Authority questions on sizing factors:

With regard to the proposed factors to be used for sizing councils

·        Are there significant influences on council size that are not recognised by the factors identified?

·        Are there any factors that we have identified that you believe should not be used and why?

·        When measuring council assets, do you support the inclusion of all council assets, including those commercial companies that are operated by boards?

·        If not, how should the Authority distinguish between different classes of assets? 

19.     Comments:

(i)      It is noted that prior to 2013, the Authority took population growth into account.  The councils experiencing higher growth might be expected to be faced with more complex issues to resolve than councils with stagnant growth.

(ii)      In a review conducted in 2012, the Authority stated:

The adjustment for ‘abnormal population growth’ has been discontinued, because it is felt that such growth will be reflected in a council’s expenses

Weighting

20.     The discussion document proposes weighting the factors slightly differently for different types of council.

Territorial authorities:

Population, operational expenditure

Assets

Deprivation index, visitor nights

 

Regional councils:

Operational expenditure, geographic size

Assets, population

Visitor nights

 

Unitary authorities:

Population, operational expenditure, geographic size

Assets

Deprivation index; visitor nights

 

21.     Remuneration Authority questions on weighting:

·        Are you aware of evidence that would support or challenge the relativity of the factors for each type of council?

·        If you believe other factors should be taken into account, where would they sit relative to others?

22.     Comments:

(i)      Staff do not see any issues with this proposal.

Mayoral remuneration

23.     Mayors are considered to be full-time positions.  The discussion document states that a base rate would be determined and additional amounts would be based on the size of the council as assessed above.  The  Authority would set the mayor’s salary.

24.     Remuneration Authority questions on Mayoral remuneration:

·    Should mayor/chair roles should be treated as full time?

·    If not, how should they be treated?

·    Should there be a “base” remuneration level for all mayors/chairs, with additional remuneration added according to the size of the council?

·        If so, what should determine this “base remuneration”?

25.     Comments:

(i)      For Auckland Council, the roles of the mayor, councillors and local board chairs have all been treated as full-time. There has been no diminution in role responsibilities since that was determined.  There is no rationale for change.

Councillor remuneration

26.     A total remuneration pool would be set for each council and each council would decide how to distribute the pool among elected members (after the mayoral salary has been deducted).  A 75% majority vote would be required.  The Remuneration Authority would receive each council’s decisions and would then make formal determinations.

27.     The pool could be used to recognise additional workload arising from appointments to external bodies.

28.     Remuneration Authority questions on councillor remuneration:

·        Should councillor remuneration be decided by each council within the parameters of a governance/representation pool allocated to each council by the Remuneration Authority?

·        If so, should each additional position of responsibility, above a base councillor role, require a formal role description?

·        Should each council be required to gain a 75% majority vote to determine the allocation of remuneration across all its positions?

29.     Comments:

(i)      Setting a remuneration pool for an entity with the entity then responsible for deciding how it is allocated among members, is a valid remuneration practice. 

(ii)      One issue to consider relating to the pool proposal is that the size of the pool, once determined, is fixed.  If a pool is determined for each local board, then if the number of members on a local board is increased or decreased, say by a review of representation arrangements, the amount that each member is paid will decrease or increase accordingly.  This issue is acknowledged in paragraphs 102 and 103 of the discussion document.

(iii)     In view of this, the local board might wish to consider its view on the assumption that the governance responsibility can be represented by a fixed pool.

(iv)    A further issue to consider is that elected members would need to debate how to allocate the pool. The Remuneration Authority currently fully sets Auckland Council’s elected member remuneration.  Council has not had to debate how remuneration might be apportioned among governing body and local board members.  This would be a major change.

(v)     Staff do not see any issues with the proposals for role descriptions and a 75% majority vote.

External representation roles

30.     The Authority notes that elected members are increasingly being appointed to represent councils on various outside committees and bodies.

31.     Remuneration Authority questions on external representation roles:

·        Should external representation roles be able to be remunerated in a similar way to council positions of responsibility?

32.     Comments:

(i)      There are many bodies such as trusts and co-governance entities to which Auckland Council elected members are appointed.   These appointments are currently treated as part of the role of being an elected member.

(ii)      If the pool proposal allows councils to recognise additional responsibilities (or workload) attached to representation on external organisations, an issue to consider is whether such recognition of additional workload might then extend to internal committee membership, including the number of committees a member is part of. The issue is how granular the recognition of responsibilities should be.

Appointments to Council Controlled Organisations

33.     The Authority notes that some councils make appointments of elected members to Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs)

34.     Remuneration Authority questions on appointments to CCOs:

·        Do the additional demands placed on CCO board members make it fair for elected members appointed to such boards to receive the same director fees as are paid to other CCO board members?

35.     Comments:

(i)      Auckland Council cannot legally appoint elected members to substantive CCOs, other than Auckland Transport. 

(ii)      In the current term, Auckland Council has not appointed elected members to Auckland Transport, but in previous terms the two appointees received directors’ fees.

Community boards

36.     The discussion document includes proposals and questions regarding community boards. Auckland Council does not have community boards and we recommend this is clearly stated in any local board response.

37.     Community board salaries would either come from the council pool or be separately funded by way of a targeted rate.

38.     Remuneration Authority questions on community boards:

·        Should community board remuneration always come out of the council governance/representation pool?

·        If not, should it be funded by way of targeted rate on the community concerned?

·        If not, what other transparent and fair mechanisms are there for funding the remuneration of community board members?

Local Boards

39.     The discussion document does not mention local boards.

40.     Most local boards are larger or similar in size to other councils in New Zealand.

41.     Local boards have decision-making and governance responsibilities over $500million per annum

Comments:

Local boards should comment

(i)      On the merits or otherwise of a bulk funding approach

(ii)      If the Authority does decide on a bulk funding approach

a.      should the governing body determine remuneration for each local board or

b.      should the Authority determine separate bulk funding for the governing body and each local board.

 

Local government pay scale

42.     The discussion document discusses how the role of elected members might compare to other roles and other entities for the purposes of setting a pay scale.  It considers local government managers, central government managers and boards of directors.   These are not elected member roles.

43.     The document then considers parliamentary elected member salaries for comparison.

44.     Remuneration Authority questions on local government pay scale:

·        Is it appropriate for local government remuneration to be related to parliamentary remuneration, but taking account of differences in job sizes?

·        If so, should that the relativity be capped so the incumbent in the biggest role in local government cannot receive more than a cabinet minister?

·        If not, how should a local government pay scale be determined?

45.     Comments:

(i)   The Authority suggests in the document that mayor/chair salaries are related to MPs. The question refers to the “biggest role in local government” which would be the Auckland mayor.  By setting the salary of the Auckland mayor to that of a cabinet minister, other mayors would be scaled accordingly.

Timetable

46.     A determination setting councils’ remuneration pools will be made around 1 July in each election year.  Following the elections, each council is to resolve its remuneration policy on the allocation of the pool for the triennium.  In the years between elections, adjustments will be made based on published “Labour Market Statistics”.

Conclusion

47.     These proposals constitute a major change for Auckland Council.  From its inception, the salaries of Auckland Council elected members have been fully determined by the Remuneration Authority. 

48.     The remuneration pool proposal provides councils with more flexibility to recognise varying responsibilities among members, but this puts elected members in the position of making decisions about their own salaries.   

 

Consideration

Local board views and implications

49.     This report seeks the local boards’ views on the proposals contained in the Authority’s discussion document. Local board views will be reported individually to the Authority.

Māori impact statement

50.     The level at which elected members are remunerated does not impact differently on Māori as compared with the wider community. 

Implementation

51.     Feedback from the local board will be communicated to the Authority. 


 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Remuneration Authority Consultation Document Local Government Review

205

     

Signatories

Author

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - General Manager Democracy Services

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

20 September 2017

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

20 September 2017

 

 

Approval for amended road name for the Long Bay Subdivision at Te Oneroa Way, Long Bay - SUB60033219

 

File No.: CP2017/18096

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To seek the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board approval for amending the spelling of Nerite Place to Nerita Place.

Executive summary

2.       The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board approved the road name Nerite Way as part of  the approval of road names for the subdivision at Te Oneroa Way, Long Bay at their August business meeting, resolution HB/2017/146 dated 16 August 2017.

3.       After approval the developer advised that the approved name Nerite Place was spelt incorrectly and should be Nerita Place.

4.       The developer has requested that the name Nerita Place be approved.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a)      Revoke part of resolution HB/2017/146, dated 17 August 2017 which reads as follows:

          approve the following names for the new public roads constructed within the subdivision being undertaken by, Todd Property, (the Applicant), at Te Oneroa Way, Long Bay pursuant to section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974;

v)      Nerite Place,

and replace it with:

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

          approve the following road name for the new public roads constructed within the subdivision being undertaken by, Todd Property, (the Applicant), at Te Oneroa Way, Long Bay pursuant to section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974;

v)      Nerita Place

            as shown on the Location Map dated 20 September 2017 (Attachment A).

 

 

Comments

5.       The council road naming guidelines require that road names reflect either:

·      a historical or ancestral linkage to an area or;

·      a particular landscape, environmental or biodiversity feature or

·      an existing name theme or introduce a new name theme in an area.

6.       Names need to be easily identifiable, easy to pronounce and spell, and intuitively clear to minimise confusion. The use of Māori names is encouraged where appropriate and names should not be duplicated in the wider Auckland region for safety reasons.

7.       The name has been assessed against the council’s road naming guidelines and meet the assessment criteria.

8.       The name has also been assessed under New Zealand Post and Land Information New Zealand criteria for the avoidance of duplication within the wider Auckland region and aside from Kukupara Street which is similar to Kukupa Road in west Auckland and Hauwai Street which is close in spelling and pronunciation to the name of a mobile telecommunications company they all meet the criteria.

9.       The road types chosen i.e Road, Street, Place, Way, Rise, or Drive are appropriate for the roads.

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

 

Consideration

Local board views and implications

11.     The decision sought from the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board does not trigger any significant policy and is not considered to have any immediate impact on the community.

12.     The decision sought from the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board is not considered to have any legal or legislative implications.

 

Implementation

13.     The Northern Consenting Subdivision Team will ensure that appropriate road name signage will be installed by the applicant at their full cost once an approval is obtained for the new road name.

14.     The cost of processing the approval of the new road name is recoverable from the applicant in accordance with council’s administrative charging policies.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Location Map

237

     

Signatories

Authors

John Benefield – Senior Subdivision Advisor

Authoriser

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

20 September 2017

 

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

20 September 2017

 

 

Ward Councillors Update

 

File No.: CP2017/18138

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board allocates a period of time for the Ward Councillors, Cr Wayne Walker and Cr John Watson, to update them on the activities of the governing body.

 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a)      thank Councillors Walker and Watson for their update.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Signatories

Author

Vivienne Sullivan - Local Board Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

20 September 2017

 

 

Governance Forward Work Calendar

 

File No.: CP2017/18140

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To present the local board with a governance forward work calendar.

Executive summary

2.       This report contains the governance forward work calendar: a schedule of items that will come before the local board at business meetings and workshops over the next 12 months.

3.       The calendar aims to support local boards’ governance role by:

·    ensuring advice on agendas and workshop material is driven by local board priorities

·    clarifying what advice is required

·    clarifying the rationale for reports.

4.       The calendar will be updated every month. Each update will be reported back to business meetings.  It is recognised that at times items will arise that are not programmed. Local board members are welcome to discuss changes to the calendar.

 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a)      receive the Governance Forward Work Calendar.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Governance Forward Work Calendar

243

     

Signatories

Author

Vivienne Sullivan - Local Board Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

 



Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

20 September 2017

 

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

20 September 2017

 

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

20 September 2017

 

 

Record of Workshop Meetings

 

File No.: CP2017/18139

 

  

 

Executive Summary

1.       The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board held workshop meetings on 27 July 2017 and 3 and 24 August 2017.

 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a)      Endorse the record of the workshop meetings held on 27 July 2017 and 3 and 24 August 2017.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Workshop Record 27 July 2017

247

b

Workshop Record 3 August 2017

249

c

Workshop Record 24 August 2017

251

    

Signatories

Authors

Vivienne Sullivan - Local Board Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

20 September 2017

 

 


 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

20 September 2017

 

 


 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

20 September 2017

 

 


 

     

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

20 September 2017

 

 

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

b)                                           

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

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

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

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

 

C1       Further advice on proposed vesting of land for open space – West Hoe Heights

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

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

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

s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.

In particular, the report contains details for the acquisition of land by Auckland Council. Release of information at this time would prejudice commercial negotiations.

s48(1)(a)

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