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

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Tuesday, 20 November 2018

4.00pm

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board Chamber
Takapuna Service Centre
Level 3
1 The Strand
Takapuna

 

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

George Wood, CNZM

 

Deputy Chairperson

Dr Grant Gillon

 

Members

Mike Cohen, QSM, JP

 

 

Jennifer McKenzie

 

 

Jan O'Connor

 

 

Mike Sheehy

 

 

(Quorum 3 members)

 

 

 

Heather Skinner

Democracy Advisor

 

14 November 2018

 

Contact Telephone:  021 190 5687

Email: heather.skinner@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 

 


Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

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                                                                                                                          6

8          Deputations                                                                                                                    6

9          Public Forum                                                                                                                  6

10        Extraordinary Business                                                                                                6

11        Trial of online voting at the 2019 local elections                                                       7

12        Local government elections 2019 – order of names on voting documents          21

13        Auckland Transport monthly update - November 2018                                          31

14        Devonport- Takapuna Strategic Play and Sunsmart Provision                             63

15        Funding food scraps collection service through a targeted rate                          69

16        Feedback on proposed topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy     81

17        Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan consultation feedback and recommended changes                                                                                                                         99

18        Devonport-Takapuna Quick Response, Round Two 2018/2019 grant applications    145

19        Public notification and proposed granting of a new community lease and licence to The Lake House Trust at Barrys Point Reserve, Takapuna.                                        149

20        Draft Contributions Policy                                                                                        157

21        Chairpersons' Report                                                                                                169

22        Elected Members' Reports                                                                                       171

23        Devonport-Takapuna Local Board - Record of Workshops October 2018        173

24        Governance Forward Work Calendar                                                                     181  

25        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

 

 


1          Welcome

 

 

2          Apologies

 

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

 

3          Declaration of Interest

 

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

 

The Auckland Council Code of Conduct for Elected Members (the Code) requires elected members to fully acquaint themselves with, and strictly adhere to, the provisions of Auckland Council’s Conflicts of Interest Policy.  The policy covers two classes of conflict of interest:

 

                 i.             A financial conflict of interest, which is one where a decision or act of the local board could reasonably give rise to an expectation of financial gain or loss to an elected member

 

                ii.             A non-financial conflict interest, which does not have a direct personal financial component.  It may arise, for example, from a personal relationship, or involvement with a non-profit organisation, or from conduct that indicates prejudice or predetermination.

 

The Office of the Auditor General has produced guidelines to help elected members understand the requirements of the Local Authority (Member’s Interest) Act 1968.  The guidelines discuss both types of conflicts in more detail, and provide elected members with practical examples and advice around when they may (or may not) have a conflict of interest.

 

Copies of both the Auckland Council Code of Conduct for Elected Members and the Office of the Auditor General guidelines are available for inspection by members upon request. 

 

Any questions relating to the Code or the guidelines may be directed to the Relationship Manager in the first instance.

 

4          Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 30 October 2018, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

 

 

5          Leave of Absence

 

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

 

6          Acknowledgements

 

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

 

 

 

7          Petitions

 

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

 

8          Deputations

 

Standing Order 7.7 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 Devonport-Takapuna Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

 

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

 

9          Public Forum

 

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

 

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

 

10        Extraordinary Business

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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


Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

Trial of online voting at the 2019 local elections

 

File No.: CP2018/20604

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To seek local board feedback on:

·        the trial of online voting at the 2019 local elections

·        the subset of voters to participate in the online voting trial.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       The postal system is declining. The frequency of postal deliveries is decreasing and the cost of sending mail is surging. An alternative method to postal voting must be put in place to secure the future of local democracy over time. Following the overall trend of transactions and activities moving online, online voting is the natural progression. It will increase convenience and accessibility for voters and has the potential to increase voter turnout.

3.       Following the 24 May 2018 Governing Body’s in-principle support for an online voting trial at the 2019 local body elections, Auckland Council has entered into a collaborative agreement with eight other councils to work together towards the trial.

4.       The project comprises three phases. The first phase, from now to December 2018, includes a procurement process aimed at selecting a preferred provider and all participating councils, seeking their Governing Body’s approval to proceed with the trial based on a full business case.

5.       The security of the online voting solution is paramount. The participating councils are committed to offering a similar or higher level of security than postal voting. The solution will fulfil stringent security requirements and will be designed, implemented and tested with the assistance from external Information and Communications Technology (ICT) security experts.

6.       In the case of Auckland Council, only a specified class of electors (a subset) will be offered to participate in the online voting trial. The other eight councils are intending to offer online voting to all their voters. In all cases, voters will retain the ability to vote by post.

7.       The Local Electoral Matters Bill states that the specified class of electors can be defined according to one or a combination of geographical areas or another common factor, like overseas residence or disability.

8.       The size of the subset is still to be confirmed by the Minister of Local Government, but will likely include between 10 and 30 per cent of Auckland’s voting population.

9.       The subset needs to be representative of the overall voting population. Staff have conducted an analysis of the population across the 21 local board areas based on a range of criteria. The preliminary results (refer Attachments A and B) show that no individual area is perfectly representative and that a combination of several areas will increase the representativeness of the sample of electors.

10.     Staff recommend also including in the subset the voters that are most disproportionately impacted in their ability to participate with the sole postal method, i.e. the overseas and disabled voters.

11.     This report seeks local board feedback on the participation of Auckland Council in the trial and on the subset of voters eligible to participate in the trial.

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board:

a)      provide feedback on:

i)        the trial of online voting at the 2019 elections

ii)       the subset of voters to participate in the trial.

 

 

Horopaki / Context

12.     For several years, Auckland Council has been supportive of trialling online voting for local body elections. At its December 2016 meeting, the Finance and Performance Committee resolved to ‘request the Minister of Local Government to explore a pilot trial of an electronic voting system including by-elections’ [resolution number FIN/2016/164].

13.     On 27 July 2017, the Governing Body approved the council’s submission on the previous parliament’s Justice and Electoral Select Committee inquiry into the 2016 local authority elections (which has not concluded yet). The submission advocated for councils to be able to trial online voting [resolution number GB/2017/83]. Local boards provided feedback and input into the submission, with several boards expressing support for online voting.

14.     At its 24 May 2018 meeting, the Governing Body agreed in principle to an online voting trial for the 2019 local body elections, subject to the following conditions:

·        the costs being acceptable

·        the legislation and regulations being in place on time

·        identified risks being manageable

·        the council giving its final approval to proceed.

15.     The Local Electoral Matters Bill, which amends the Electoral Act 1993 and the Local Electoral Act 2001 to enable the conduct of trials of new voting methods is still before Parliament. Councillor Richard Hills and staff made an oral presentation to the Justice Select Committee on Auckland Council’s submission on the bill on 29 August 2018. The select committee is due to report back on 9 November 2018.

16.     The enabling regulations are being drafted. The Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) released an exposure draft of the regulations on 19 October 2018, which is open for consultation until 2 November 2018. Two engagement events for community representatives and stakeholders were organised in Wellington on 26 October 2018 and Auckland on 31 October 2018.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Future-proofing local democracy

17.     The internet has become an integral part of everyday life. Many of the transactions that used to be carried out by post have long been replaced by online options, to the extent that people expect online facilities to enable the undertaking of their day-to-day activities. Online voting is therefore a natural progression and constitutes an opportunity to modernise the operation of local democracy in New Zealand.

18.     The current postal voting method relies entirely on New Zealand Post providing an effective and reliable service. It is a reality that the postal service is declining. Fewer New Zealanders choose to communicate via post, particularly first time and younger voters, many of whom have never posted a letter. The frequency of delivery is decreasing and the cost of sending mail is surging. The postal cost for the 2019 Auckland local elections will increase by an estimated 77 per cent compared with 2016, because of a postage price increase of almost 60 per cent and an increase in the number of electors of approximately 70,000.

19.     It will become increasingly difficult to deliver postal voting effectively and affordably. Therefore, it is crucial to have a viable alternative to postal voting in place, and online voting is the obvious choice.

Online voting has the potential to increase voter turnout

20.     Voter turnout has been dropping in both national and local elections in New Zealand. In the Auckland 2016 local elections, the voter turnout was 38.5 per cent. This means that almost two out of three eligible electors did not vote.

21.     Online voting has the potential to enhance participation in elections. Auckland Council conducted voter awareness research after the 2016 local elections[1]. The results strongly indicate that if online voting was available, electors would be more inclined to vote.

22.     When asked ‘If you had the choice of online voting or postal voting in the future, which would you prefer?’, 74 per cent of the respondents across all age groups in the 2016 survey said they would prefer online voting to postal voting. Focusing on the non-voter group alone, 82 per cent of respondents said they would prefer online voting to postal voting and 25 per cent said online or app-based voting would make them more likely to vote.

23.     The results reflect an appetite for online voting, particularly when faced with the inconvenience of postal voting: 13 per cent of non-voters (4 per cent of all respondents) completed voting papers but did not post them. Factors such as not knowing where to find a post box, the additional effort of physically taking papers to a post box and the confusion caused by the postal deadline and the actual close of the voting period a few days later, created further barriers to voter participation. Removing these barriers alone would potentially have pushed the overall voter participation in Auckland’s 2016 local elections from 38.5 per cent to 42.5 per cent.

24.     International experience and research demonstrates the positive effect that online voting can have on voter turnout. Some non-voters and infrequent voters are drawn to internet voting in Canada and European countries, such as Estonia and Switzerland. This means that some electors who have not voted previously voted for the first time, or on a more regular basis, because online voting was an option.

25.     In Estonian parliamentary elections, turnout has increased by 2.3 per cent since online voting was introduced in 2005. Post-election surveys in Estonia show a large proportion of people indicated they wouldn’t have voted if online voting wasn’t offered.

26.     At the municipal level in Canada, researchers examining online voting over time found that internet voting increased voter turnout by 3.5 per cent.

27.     The introduction of electronic voting for overseas military voters in various United States (US) jurisdictions has resulted in significant improvements in turnout. In Cook County, one of the largest electoral jurisdictions in the US, turnout increased from 11 per cent to 53 per cent after the introduction of internet voting in 2012.

Online voting improves accessibility

28.     Currently, a large part of the disability community requires support to complete and post voting papers. People with vision impairment, for example, cannot vote secretly and without the assistance of a support person. Online voting, coupled with screen-reading technology, would allow them to vote unaided.

29.     International postal timeframes can make it difficult for overseas voters to submit their votes in time. For them as well, online voting would make it easier to participate in the New Zealand local elections.

Online voting offers a better voting experience

30.     Online voting will make the voting process easier and faster, increase the speed and accuracy of results and reduce costs of local elections over time.

31.     Estonia, where online voting has been used in elections from 2005 and is now well established nationwide, has attempted to quantify the efficiency gain for using online voting as opposed to booth voting. It calculated that, in the Estonian parliamentary elections of 2011, the cumulative time savings in online voting were 11,000 working days, or €504,000 ($890,000) in average wages.[2]

32.     Online voting offers the potential to reduce voter errors. Technology can help prevent a voter from accidentally spoiling their ballot or submitting an incorrect or invalid vote.

33.     International experience suggests that a real tangible benefit of online voting is to substantially improve the voting experience of voters, making it more convenient to vote when, where and how they want.

34.     Online voting also offers potential for greater information and engagement. It provides end-to-end verifiability so that a voter is able to verify that their vote was received. These benefits will improve the experience of those who were already intending to vote and has the potential of addressing some of the barriers for non-voters.

Booth voting is not a viable option

35.     Booth voting is provided for in the Local Electoral Act 2001 and is authorised under regulations. However, reverting to booth voting on a single election day as an alternative or complementary option to postal voting is not a viable solution.

36.     Election day is increasingly losing its meaning for people as they want the convenience to vote when it suits them, as shown by the growth in advance voting in recent years’ general elections, with a significant 47 per cent of advance voting at the 2017 general election compared with 29 per cent in 2014 and 15 per cent in 2011.[3]

37.     A third argument against using booth voting for local elections is the complexity of the local election voting process. Compared with parliamentary elections, voting in local government elections takes more thought and more time, making booth voting impractical.

38.     In Auckland for instance, electors need to vote for the Mayor, one or two councillors for their ward, between five and eight local board members, as well as District Health Board (DHB) members and, in some cases, licensing trust members. Using an actual example from the 2016 local elections, a Waitākere Ward/Henderson-Massey Local Board elector had to make a choice between 74 candidates standing for 21 positions, as follows:

·        Mayor: 19 candidates for one position

·        Waitākere Ward: nine candidates for two positions

·        Henderson-Massey Local Board: 24 candidates for eight positions

·        Waitākere Licensing Trust (Ward 2): six candidates for three positions

·        Waitematā DHB: 16 candidates for seven positions.

Making the trial happen

39.     To organise the trial, Auckland Council is partnering with eight other councils. They are Gisborne District Council, Marlborough District Council, Matamata-Piako District Council, Palmerston North City Council, Selwyn District Council, Hamilton City Council, Tauranga City Council and Wellington City Council.

40.     The nine councils have obtained in-principle political and executive approval to trial online voting at the 2019 elections, have formally entered into a participation agreement and have formed an Online Voting Working Party.

41.     The working party is working closely with the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) to ensure the necessary legislative and regulatory framework is in place on time to enable the proposed trial in 2019.

42.     The working party is following a three-phase approach to organise the trial as detailed below.

Phase 1 – July to December 2018

43.     The working party is currently developing a business case, which will define the scope and costs of the proposed trial, and explain how any risks to the security and integrity of the solution will be managed. The business case will also outline how the nine councils will share the costs of the trial.

44.     As part of the business case development, the working party issued a request for a proposal to potential suppliers in September 2018. Responses are being evaluated by a panel of representatives from the working party and ICT experts. A preferred provider will be selected by mid-November 2018.

45.     Based on the business case, the governing bodies of the nine councils will be asked to confirm their participation in the trial in December 2018.

46.     In the case of Auckland Council, the business case and report seeking the approval of the Governing Body will be presented at the 13 December 2018 meeting and will include feedback from local boards.

47.     During this phase, the participating councils are also engaging with the parties that will be involved in the trial, including regional councils, district health boards (DHB) and licensing trusts. Auckland Council staff have started engaging with representatives from all Auckland DHBs and licensing trusts. Overall, their reaction to the trial has been positive, but the additional costs will ultimately be a decisive factor in securing their support.

Phase 2 – January to ‘go/no-go’ date

48.     After the list of participating councils has been confirmed, the councils will enter into an agreement with the provider and start developing the online voting solution.

49.     The trial can only proceed if the regulatory framework is in place on time, otherwise there will be insufficient time to be ready by October 2019. The working party and the supplier will agree the date by which regulations need to be in place for the trial to proceed – the ‘go/no‑go’ date.

50.     If the decision is ‘no-go’, the working party will negotiate with the supplier how to proceed. Options will be to either continue to develop a system to use for any by-elections, or shelve the work for a future trial.

Phase 3 – ‘Go’ date to October 2019

51.     If regulations are in place on time, phase 3 will include:

·        development, testing and audit of the online voting solution

·        deployment of the solution for the elections

·        evaluation of the trial after the elections. 

How it will work in practice

52.     Full details of how the online solution will work and how it will integrate with the election providers’ systems to ensure the integrity of the whole election process is maintained will only be available once the tender process is completed and a vendor has been selected.

53.     The chart below provides an overview of the experience of an elector choosing to cast their vote online:

Security and integrity

54.     No information technology (IT) or voting system is 100 per cent secure, but the Online Voting Working Party is committed to developing an online voting solution that will guarantee a similar or higher level of security than currently offered by postal voting.

55.     The request for proposal to vendors includes stringent requirements to ensure that the integrity and security of the online voting solution will be maintained at all times.

56.     The solution will be independently audited by international IT security experts.

57.     The participating councils are assisted by the former Chief Information Officer for the New South Wales Electoral Commission, which has been using online voting in their state elections, as well as ICT security experts from the Government Chief Digital Office. The participating councils have also enlisted additional external ICT security resources to assist with the evaluation of the vendors’ proposals and, in a later stage, with the design, implementation and testing of the online voting solution.

Selecting a subset of electors eligible to vote online

Why a subset, and what subset

58.     Any new voting system must meet the test of being free, fair and regular, provide for universal, equal and secret suffrage, and be fully trusted by voters. It therefore needs to be robustly tested and trialled.

59.     A trial will also increase public awareness of online voting and enable users to become familiar with the new technology, thereby building trust and credibility in the system. Building trust and gaining support is one of the most critical parts of the process. Without trust, the system will be unusable, and the integrity of the whole electoral system could be called into question.

60.     Central government  considers that trialling online voting for the whole Auckland electorate, equalling approximately a third of the New Zealand electorate, is too big a risk. Auckland Council will only be allowed to trial online voting with a specified class of electors (a subset). Choosing a representative sample of eligible voters is therefore important to ensure that evaluation of the trial is robust.

61.     The other eight councils participating in the trial intend to offer online voting to all their voters. In all cases, voters will retain the ability to vote by post.

62.     The Local Electoral Matters Bill states that it is the regulations that will authorise the use of online voting by a specified class of elector for the trial. The bill defines a class of electors as:

·        an area or subdivision in which the specified class of electors is eligible to vote, or

·        any other characteristic that makes online voting suitable for the specified class of electors.

63.     The recommendation to the Governing Body will be to ask central government that the subset of Auckland electors eligible to vote online be made of:

·        overseas voters

·        people with a disability

·        voters in specific local board areas.

Selection parameters for the subset

Size

64.     The first consideration for defining the subset is its size. The subset should be of reasonable size for implementation and risks to be manageable, but significant enough to enable testing, research and a robust evaluation.

65.     The initial thinking presented to the Governing Body was to include in the sample approximately 110,000 voters, or 10 per cent of the voting population. Estimating the potential uptake based on overseas experience with online voting, it is believed a maximum of 30 per cent of voters within the subset would actually use the solution and vote online. This means an online voting solution would be built for a potential 33,000 voters using the solution; or only around 3 per cent of the overall Auckland electorate.

66.     It is now being considered to increase the size of the subset to approximately 330,000 voters, or 30 per cent of the voting population. With the same estimated uptake of 30 per cent, approximately 99,000 voters would use the online voting solution; or about 9 per cent of the overall Auckland electorate.

67.     Confirmation is pending from the DIA as to how large a subset the Minister of Local Government would allow Auckland Council to include in the trial.

68.     For comparison purposes, the other larger participating councils are the Wellington city and Hamilton city councils, with respectively an approximate 153,000 and 103,000 voters eligible to participate in the online voting trial.

Accessibility

69.     It is considered the trial should benefit those who are most disproportionately impacted in their ability to participate with the single postal method. Therefore, it is recommended having overseas and disabled voters as part of the subset. This group constitutes an estimated 30,000 voters.

70.     Because overseas and disabled voters will be enrolled across the Auckland region, they will potentially vote online for all the wards and local boards.

Representativeness

71.     The subset must be defined in such a way that it cannot call into question the neutrality and integrity of the electoral process or of the elections results.

72.     It needs to be representative of the Auckland voting population, based on a range of criteria that correlate with voter turnout. These include:

·        age

·        ethnicity

·        income

·        education level.

73.     Having a representative sample will also help conduct a more robust evaluation of the trial.

Other considerations

74.     The cost and ease of implementation of the solution must also be considered. The more voters take part in the trial, the higher the cost. Offering online voting as an option to a subset of electors will also require a targeted communication campaign. A complex subset will make communication and logistics costlier and has the potential to confuse voters. Therefore, it is preferable to avoid geographical areas where the boundaries between wards and local boards are no longer aligned, following the review of representation arrangements which is to be implemented for the 2019 local elections.

75.     It was considered whether internet accessibility needed to be a criterion. The most recent data available, which comes from the State of the Internet report released by Internet New Zealand in 2017, shows that 93 per cent of New Zealanders have access to the internet, either at home, work or both. Therefore, it is not a belief that internet accessibility will be an issue for Auckland, except for Great Barrier Island.

Selecting the geographic area(s)

76.     The council’s Research and Evaluation Unit (RIMU) has conducted in-depth statistical analysis of the population across Auckland’s 21 local boards. The analysis compares the population in each local board area against the overall Auckland population using age, ethnicity, income and qualification levels. The results of the analysis are included in Attachments A and B.

77.     The analysis considered the average voter turnout in each area compared to Auckland overall, but this added parameter did not impact the results, so it was therefore removed from the graphs provided for simplicity purposes.

78.     The analysis shows that certain local board areas have a more diverse population make up than others, and that no single board is perfectly representative of the overall Auckland population. The subset will therefore need to be made up of a combination of local board areas, allowing larger discrepancies to cancel each other out and making the sample representative as a whole.

79.     The final combination will depend on the total number of voters allowed in the subset and will be finalised once DIA confirms that number.

80.     The final recommendation on the subset will be presented to the Governing Body at its 13 December 2018 meeting. As part of this report, local board feedback is being sought on the possibility of this local board area being included in the final subset, to be reported to the Governing Body when they are considering the final recommendation.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe / Local impacts and local board views

81.     Trialling online voting will impact elections in all local boards areas.

82.     Local board feedback will be reported to the Governing Body for its consideration when making the final decision regarding the selection of the subset and the continued participation in the trial.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

83.     Voting turnout has historically been lower among Māori than non-Māori. Māori who are younger and less well-off are the least likely to vote.

84.     Findings from a recent qualitative research project focusing on Pacific and Māori revealed that online voting was popular among a large majority of participants. Participants did not express concerns about online voting and some saw the solution as more secure than postal voting.

85.     A representative sample of the Auckland Māori population will be included in the subset to participate in the trial as Māori ethnicity is one of the criteria used to choose the geographic subset.

86.     At this stage, no formal engagement has been conducted with Māori groups and community.  Staff will engage with communities and stakeholders, including Māori, as part of the development of an online voting system should a trial be confirmed to proceed for the 2019 local elections.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

87.     The full costs of implementing an online voting solution will be known after the tender process is completed and a vendor selected.

88.     The budget for the online voting trial is not included in the long-term plan and will require approval from the Governing Body, as the financial decisions relating to election costs is part of its responsibilities. A business case detailing the costs and benefits of participating in the trial will be presented to the Governing Body at its 13 December 2018 meeting.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

89.     Risks and mitigation measures are covered in the analysis section of this paper.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

90.     Feedback from the local boards will be reported to the meeting of the Governing Body on 13 December 2018.


 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Relative percentage differences to Auckland for selected Census 2013 variables: Local boards A-M

17

b

Relative percentage differences to Auckland for selected Census 2013 variables: Local boards O-W

19

      

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Elodie Fontaine - Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - General Manager Democracy Services

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

Local government elections 2019 – order of names on voting documents

 

File No.: CP2018/20890

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To provide feedback to the Governing Body on how names should be arranged on the voting documents for the Auckland Council 2019 elections.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       The Local Electoral Regulations 2001 provide a local authority the opportunity to decide by resolution whether the names on voting documents are arranged in:

·        alphabetical order of surname,

·        pseudo-random order, or

·        random order.

3.       Pseudo-random order means names are listed in a random order and the same random order is used on every voting document.

4.       Random order means names are listed in a random order and a different random order is used on every voting document.

5.       The order of names has been alphabetical for the 2010, 2013 and 2016 Auckland Council elections. An analysis conducted on these election results shows there is no compelling evidence that candidates being listed first were more likely to be elected. The analysis is contained in Attachment A.

6.       Staff recommend that the current approach of alphabetical printing is retained for the 2019 council elections, as the benefits to the voter outweigh any perception of a name order bias problem. 

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board:

a)      recommend to the Governing Body that candidate names on voting documents should be arranged in alphabetical order of surname.

 

 

Horopaki / ContextOptions available

7.       Clause 31 of The Local Electoral Regulations 2001 states:

(1)       The names under which each candidate is seeking election may be arranged on the voting document in alphabetical order of surname, pseudo-random order, or random order.

(2)       Before the electoral officer gives further public notice under section 65(1) of the Act, a local authority may determine, by a resolution, which order, as set out in subclause (1), the candidates' names are to be arranged on the voting document.

(3)       If there is no applicable resolution, the candidates' names must be arranged in alphabetical order of surname.

(4)       If a local authority has determined that pseudo-random order is to be used, the electoral officer must state, in the notice given under section 65(1) of the Act, the date, time, and place at which the order of the candidates' names will be arranged and any person is entitled to attend.

(5)       In this regulation,—

pseudo-random order means an arrangement where—

(a) the order of the names of the candidates is determined randomly; and

(b) all voting documents use that order

random order means an arrangement where the order of the names of the candidates is determined randomly or nearly randomly for each voting document by, for example, the process used to print each voting document.

Previous elections

8.       In 2013, the council resolved to use alphabetical order of names. A key consideration was an additional cost of $100,000 if the council chose the random order.

9.       In 2016, there was only a minimal additional cost to use random order due to changes in printing technology. An analysis of the 2013 election results was conducted to assess whether there were any effects due to being listed first. The analysis showed there was no compelling evidence of bias towards those listed first. Most local board feedback was to continue listing candidates alphabetically and the Governing Body resolved to use alphabetical order.

10.     All district health boards in the Auckland Council area decided to use random order of names. In the voting pack that Auckland electors received, voting documents for Auckland Council elections were alphabetical and voting documents for district health board elections were random.

11.     The following table shows the order decided by city and regional councils for the 2016 elections:

Auckland Council

Alphabetical

Hawke's Bay Regional Council

Alphabetical

Invercargill City Council

Alphabetical

Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council

Alphabetical

Northland Regional Council

Alphabetical

Southland Regional Council

Alphabetical

Taranaki Regional Council

Alphabetical

Upper Hutt City Council

Alphabetical

West Coast Regional Council

Alphabetical

Bay of Plenty Regional Council

Random

Christchurch City Council

Random

Dunedin City Council

Random

Canterbury Regional Council

Random

Hamilton City Council

Random

Hutt City Council

Random

Napier City Council

Random

Nelson City Council

Random

Otago Regional Council

Random

Palmerston North City Council

Random

Porirua City Council

Random

Tauranga City Council

Random

Waikato Regional Council

Random

Wellington City Council

Random

Wellington Regional Council

Random

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Options for 2019

Pseudo-random order and random order

12.     Random order printing removes the perception of name order bias, but the pseudo-random order of names simply substitutes a different order for an alphabetical order. Any perceived first-name bias will transfer to the name at the top of the pseudo-random list. The only effective alternative to alphabetical order is random order.

13.     A disadvantage to both the random printing options is voter confusion, as it is not possible for the supporting documents (such as the directory of candidate profile statements) to follow the order of a random voting paper. Making voting more difficult carries the risk of deterring the voter from taking part.

Alphabetical order

14.     The advantage of the alphabetical order printing is that it is familiar and easier to use and  understand. When there is a large number of candidates competing for a position, it is easier for a voter to find the candidate the voter wishes to support if names are listed alphabetically.

15.     It is also easier for a voter if the order of names on the voting documents follows the order of names in the directory of candidate profile statements accompanying the voting document. The directory is listed in alphabetical order. It is not possible to print it in such a way that each copy aligns with the random order of names on the accompanying voting documents.

16.     The disadvantage of alphabetical printing is that there is some documented evidence, mainly from overseas, of voter bias to those at the top of a voting list.

Analysis of previous election results

17.     An analysis of the council’s election results for 2010, 2013 and 2016 is contained in Attachment A. It shows that any bias to those at the top of the voting lists is very small. The analysis looked at:

·        impact on vote share (did the candidate at the top of the list receive more votes than might be expected?)

·        impact on election outcome (did being at the top of list result in the candidate being elected more often than might be expected?).

18.     The analysis shows that for local boards, being listed first increased a candidate’s vote share by approximately 1 percentage point above that which would be statistically expected if voting was random. There was no detectable impact of being listed first on the share of votes received in ward elections.

19.     There is no compelling evidence that candidates being listed first were more likely to be elected in the last three elections.

20.     Staff recommend that the current approach of alphabetical printing is retained for the 2019 council elections, as the noted benefits to the voter outweigh any perception of a name order bias problem that statistical analysis of previous election results show does not exist. 

Online voting

21.     Auckland Council intends to offer online voting to specified classes of electors for the 2019 elections, which is the subject of a separate report on this agenda. An online voting solution has the potential to improve the voting experience, even if names are ordered randomly.

22.     Online voting should present the same voting document to users as the paper equivalent. If names are in random order on the voting document, then the same random order will need to be presented to the online user. This could increase the complexity of the voting solution.

23.     On balance, staff consider that alphabetical order of names is preferable for an online voting trial.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe / Local impacts and local board views

24.     Feedback from local boards will be reported to the Governing Body when the Governing Body is asked to determine the matter by resolution.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

25.     The order of names on voting documents does not specifically impact on the Māori community. It is noted that candidates can provide their profile statements both in English and Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

26.     There are no financial implications associated with the options for order of names.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

27.     If names are ordered alphabetically, there is the risk of perceived bias. If names are randomised, there is the risk of increasing the complexity of the voting experience and deterring voters. The statistical analysis that has been conducted shows that the risk of bias is very small.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

28.     The feedback from the local board will be reported to the Governing Body.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Order of names on voting documents

25

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - General Manager Democracy Services

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

Auckland Transport monthly update - November 2018

 

File No.: CP2018/21284

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To receive the November 2018 Auckland Transport monthly update.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board:

a)      receive the Auckland Transport November 2018 monthly update report and thank Marilyn Nicholls, for her presentation and attendance.

 

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board - Auckland Transport November 2018 update

33

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Heather Skinner - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator



Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

Devonport- Takapuna Strategic Play and Sunsmart Provision

 

File No.: CP2018/19695

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report guidance

1.         To adopt the Devonport-Takapuna Strategic Play and Sunsmart Provision Assessment 2018 as set out in Attachment A of the agenda report.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary guidance

2.         The Devonport-Takapuna Strategic Play and Sunsmart Provision Assessment 2018 was undertaken to identify opportunities to improve the network of play experiences and shade provision across playgrounds within the local board area. The assessment identifies key outcomes through the analysis of the current parks play network and shade provision at these facilities. 

3.         The purpose of the assessment is to:

·                    analyse and assess the current parks network provision in the board area, to identify areas where projected population increase will place a demand on the parks network.

·                    identify and evaluate opportunities and gaps in the network, to prioritise areas with most opportunity for development.

·                    highlight opportunities for improving the diversity of experience across the network, including expression of mana whenua values, provision for cultural diversity, accessibility and environmental considerations in any potential upgrade.

·                    develop high-level options, illustrating opportunities in the priority areas.

·                    provide a tool for discussion and feedback between the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board, Auckland Council, mana whenua and communities.

4.         The assesment proposes a programme to improve levels of service and provision, responding to key outcomes in the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board Plan 2017 and the council’s nationally and internationally accepted strategic documents. The assessment provides strategic planning context to the provision of play equipment and shade across the parks network.

5.         The assessment will guide parks specific improvements to the provision of play experiences and shading of play areas in the local board area. Feedback received from the local board has been incorporated into the assessment and has informed the next steps that will enable projects to progress to investigation and design, including detailed engagement with the local board.

6.         Broad indicative costings within the assessment are intended as a guide only, to inform members of the scale of proposed service provision opportunities.  The detailed investigation and design phase will identify accurate costings for future work programmes.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board:

a)         adopt the Devonport Takapuna Strategic Play and Sunsmart Provision Assessment 2018 as set out in Attachment A,  to inform the improvement of network play experiences and shade provision at playgrounds.

 

 

Horopaki / Context guidance

7.         Play is what children and young people do when they follow their ideas and interests in their own way and for their own reasons. It is how they explore and make sense of the world and learn to take responsibility for their own decisions. Play takes many varied forms and happens in a wide variety of settings. Play can be boisterous and noisy, quiet and contemplative, creative, imaginative, physically challenging, thoughtful, enjoyed alone or in the company of others, and may seem to have no purpose at all to the outside onlooker.

8.         Places people play, range from individual backyards, neighbourhood streets, local parks to formal play spaces, beaches, regional parks and town centres. A play network consists of a group of interconnected places, where play is encouraged both formally and informally, throughout a neighbourhood, community and the wider city.

9.         Playgrounds, particularly good quality playgrounds, attract children, resulting in increased exposure to the sun and harmful UV rays.  Medical professionals continue to release studies that show the harmful effects caused by too much exposure to the sun. Any sunburn can increase the chances of the development of skin cancer, making it a necessity to protect children and adults. Sun safety often requires more than simply applying sunscreen. Parents want to do as much as possible to keep their children safe and playing in naturally or structure formed shade is one way that they can do so.

10.      The parameters in the Devonport-Takapuna Strategic Play Provision Assessment enabled the appraisal and classification of play and SunSmart provision relative to the following categories:

·           Planned Renewal

·           Type (Open Space Typology)

·           Location and Access

·           Age Group

·           Play Value

·           Overall Condition

·           SunSmart Provision

·           Site Amenity and Heritage Provision.

11.      The provision assessment was executed in five stages to establish gaps in provision and priorities at playspace and network level:

·           establish assessment parameters, as outlined above, to form the basis of individual site assessments

·           visit each site to conduct individual playspace assessments to collect raw data on play and SunSmart provision, resulting in detailed Individual Playspace Assessment Sheets included within the document

·           collate raw data and prepare a network map to articulate gaps in play provision and relationships between individual playspaces

·           undertake analysis of play and SunSmart provision based on site observations, evaluating data to establish priorities based on relevant scoring criteria specific to each category.

·           prepare commentary and recommendations at network and individual playspace level, moderating priority outcomes where necessary to accurately reflect network relationships and condition assessment renewal triggers.

12.      The assessment is aligned strategically to the following Auckland Council guiding documents:

·           The Devonport-Takapuna Local Board Plan 2017

·           Tākaro - Investing in Play (draft)

·           The Auckland Plan

·           Parks and Open Spaces Acquisition Policy 2013

·           Auckland Council Open Space Provision Policy 2016

·           Open Space Strategic Asset Management Plan 2015-2025

·           Parks and Open Space Strategic Action Plan 2013

·           Sport and Recreation Strategic Action Plan 2014-2024

·           Auckland Design Manual

·           Greenwood JS, Soulos GP, Thomas ND (1998). Under cover: Guidelines for shade planning and design. NSW Cancer Council and NSW Health Department Sydney.  (Adapted for New Zealand use by the Cancer Society of New Zealand, 2000)

13.      The purpose of the potential development options is to provide a starting point for discussion with the local board and community and guide renewals and potential improvements, to fulfil an even distribution of play and Sunsmart provision across the network. These potential development options are high-level only and require further feasibility studies to fully understand the site opportunities and constraints.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice guidance

14.      Play and Sunsmart network assessment synopsis:

·           there are clear gaps in play provision in northern Hauraki, Belmont, Castor Bay, Westlake and Milford areas. Without acquisition of property, there are limited opportunities to install new playspaces to address gaps in these areas.

·           conversely, there are also instances of oversupply due to the close proximity and associated catchment overlap of facilities. Where appropriate, it is recommended that facilities in close proximity to each other should be developed in a complementary manner, or considered for decommission.

·           facilities within the Devonport-Takapuna network to be considered for developed in a complementary manner, or decommission include:

                                    i.Kiwi Reserve

                                   ii.Plymouth Reserve

                                  iii.Selwyn Reserve

                                 iv.William Souter Reserve.

·           overall however, analysis illustrates that playspaces are appropriately distributed and in line with the council’s Open Space Provision Policy walking distance provision targets.

·           provision of shade within the Devonport-Takapuna study area is predominantly in the form of respite provided by mature tree planting, with limited provision of supplementary structures (such as shade sails).  Most playspaces require investment to improve existing shade provision.

·                There are several gaps in activity play provision in the Devonport – Takapuna study area including:

                                 i.   creative, sound / music play activities that are consistently absent in play facilities.

                                ii.   considerable gaps in balance / jumping activities (40 per cent  of playspaces).

                               iii.   role play / collaborative play, although accommodated in several instances, the provision and quality of elements is limited.

                              iv.   this is generally symptomatic of limitations associated with the provision of legacy modular equipment, the era of manufacture and style of implementation.

·           age provision within the Devonport-Takapuna study area has minor gaps in early childhood (0-4 years) and no gaps in childhood (5-9 years), with majority of age gap associated with the Junior (10-12 years) and Senior (13+ years) age group categories.

·           a range of approaches to investment are identified, from full redevelopment to installation of additional equipment to address gaps in provision.

15.      Specific areas of opportunity for playspaces are outlined in the ‘Play Space Audit’ section (pages 9-26) and ‘Sunsmart Audit’ section (pages 29-34) and detailed in Appendix B ‘Individual Playspace Assessment Sheets’.  This informs Appendix C ‘Play and Sunsmart Priority Schedule’, which provides a well-informed basis for renewal and development priorities.

16.      Staff are recommending that the local board resolves to adopt the Devonport-Takapuna Strategic Play Provision Assessment 2018, to inform future playground and Sunsmart renewal and development, and help guide the decision-making process. This will also enable informed responses to enquiries about the provision of play experiences in Devonport-Takapuna.

17.      There is an opportunity in the future to undertake community consultation to include community aspirations in the document.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views guidance

18.      The projects align to outcomes in the Devonport Takapuna Local Board Plan 2017; specifically, Outcome 1: Quality parks, beaches and open spaces that everyone can enjoy.

19.      The Park Sport and Recreation  2017/2018 Work Programme was approved by the local board  on 07 June 2017 ( resolution number DT/2017/56). A strategic assessment of play provision in the local board area was included in the programme.

20.      Subject to formal local board approval of the outcomes defined for play in the local board area, and inclusion within the Community Facilities Work Programme, detailed investigation and design will be initiated.

21.      A workshop was held with the local board on 5 June 2018  (90 per cent  draft) and 7 August 2018, when the Parks and Places Specialist presented draft Strategic Play Provision Assessment  Based on feedback received at these workshops, staff prepared the attached amended draft as set out in Attachment A

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement guidance

22.      The Park, Sport and Recreation 2017/201818 Work Programme was presented to the Parks Sport and Recreation North-Western area mana whenua Hui on 2 September 2017.

23.      The work undertaken in the Parks and Places Team Work Programme has been designed to enable meaningful engagement with Iwi by outlining the potential project and the how it will deliver on the outcomes identified in the  local board plan. The intention is to provide enough information for iwi to efficiently provide input into the direction of the project before the design process begins.

24.      The projects that are initiated by the programme will be presented again to the North-Western area hui. Iwi will have the opportunity to express interest in the projects and indicate how they would like to be involved in the project.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications guidance

25.      Broad indicative costings within the assessment are intended as a guide only, to inform Members of the scale of proposed service provision opportunities.  The detailed investigation and design phase will identify accurate costings for future work programmes.

26.      To initiate projects based on activities in Community Parks and Places work programme further Locally-driven initiatives (LDI) investment may be required. If recommended outcomes are agreed, staff will work with the local board to identify possible opportunities for funding as part of the proposed Community Facilities Work Programme.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks guidance

27.      There is an inherent risk in investing in investigation and design to initiate a project when there is no capital funding identified to deliver the physical work components.

28.      The investigation and design phase of project delivery may identify issues that require the feasibility of the project to be reassessed.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps guidance

29.      The assesement is designed to agree on desired play and SunSmart outcomes at a network level. Detail on the activities that will deliver on the agreed outcomes will require detailed investigation and community engagement.

30.      The adopted Community Facilities 2018/2019 Work Programme includes investigation and design across a number of the identified playspaces. Staff will continue to work with the local board to progress the projects and where applicable undertake public engagement to refine the scope of each project and inform design elements.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Provision and Sunsmart and Study (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Don Lawson - Parks & Places Specialist

Authorisers

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

Funding food scraps collection service through a targeted rate

 

File No.: CP2018/20864

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To provide feedback on providing a food scrap collection service to the North Shore trial area households and funding this through a targeted rate.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       Auckland Council’s Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018 commits to a weekly food scraps collection service to be introduced to urban areas from 2018, starting in Papakura. The service will be delivered to 85 per cent of the region’s population.

3.       To support the development of a region wide service, a trial collection service was introduced to 2,000 North Shore households in May 2014, including parts of Northcote, Milford and Takapuna. It included 1,450 houses in the Devonport-Takapuna area.

4.       The aim of the trial was to generate data and learnings that could then be applied to the wider regional service roll out.

5.       Since this trial started a food scraps collection service has also been provided to approximately 18,000 households in the Papakura Local Board area since March 2018.

6.       As part of the Long-Term Plan 2018-2028, the council agreed to fund the kerbside collection of food scraps through a new targeted rate. This is currently $67 per household per year.

7.       With regards to the North Shore trial, the council is now considering three options:

·     Option one: Continue to deliver the food scraps collection service to households in the trial area and continue to fund this through the waste levy.

·     Option two: Continue to deliver the food scraps collection service to households in the trial area and fund this through introduction of a new targeted rate of $67 per year

·     Option three: Discontinue the food scraps trial in the North Shore area. Households will not receive a service or pay a targeted rate until the full regional roll out in 2021.

8.       Option two: To continue the food scraps collection and levy a targeted rate is recommended. This is because it will:

·     Support residents to continue their current positive waste minimisation behaviours, diverting 170 tonnes of waste from landfill per year.

·     Be consistent with the provision of the service in the Papakura Local Board area (where it is funded through a targeted rate) and other areas, as the service is rolled out.

·     Respond to strong public and elected member support for continuing the service.

9.       Staff will recommend to the Finance and Performance Committee at a workshop on 29 November 2018 that a proposal to continue the food scraps collection service in the trial area and fund this through a targeted rate be included in the consultation on the Annual Plan 2019/2020. The local board’s feedback is sought to inform governing body decision making.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation

That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board:

a)      support option two to consult in the 2019/2020 annual plan on providing a food scrap collection service to households in the trial area by levying a targeted rate of $67 per annum and all households within the trial area to fund this.

 

Horopaki / Context

10.     In June 2018, Auckland Council approved Te Mahere Whakahaere me to Whakaiti Tukunga Para i Tāmaki Makaurau: Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan: Working Together for Zero Waste (referred to throughout this document as the Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan).

11.     The Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan outlines how Auckland aspires to be zero waste by 2040, while taking care of our people and the environment, and turning waste into resources.

12.     Organic material, particularly food scraps, makes up the largest portion of waste (by weight) in the average Auckland household refuse bin. It is the largest domestic contributor to greenhouse gas emissions from waste. Auckland Council’s Waste Management and Minimisation Plan outlines a four-tiered approach to food waste to ensure it is valued as a resource:

·    prevent food waste in the first place

·    support redistribution of food through food rescue initiatives

·    encourage home composting and community composting where possible

·    collect the remainder with the kerbside collection of food scraps service.

13.     Auckland will continue leading on the management and minimisation of domestic waste by introducing a three-bin system for refuse, recycling and food scraps across the region. The Waste Management and Minimisation Plan outlines that refuse will be funded through a pay-as-you-throw system whereas recycling and food scraps will be funded through a targeted rate.

14.     One key action in the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan is that a weekly food scraps collection service will be introduced to urban areas from 2018. The service will be delivered to 85 per cent of the region’s population.

North Shore trial

15.     In preparation for this food scraps service, in May 2014 an organics pilot trial was introduced to 2,000 households across the Milford, Takapuna and Northcote areas of the North Shore. The areas chosen were representative of the wider regional Auckland demographic.

16.     The intention of the trial was to establish best practice for an Auckland food scraps collection and the service was funded through waste levy funding. Overall, the trial has had high satisfaction and participation rates of 78 per cent.

17.     Findings from the trial have also provided data and learnings for the full-scale roll-out.

18.     Although the May 2014 trial was initially designed to cover a 12-month period its success, and the learning opportunities gathered from participants, has seen this timeframe extended up until the present day.

19.     The current cost of the food scraps collection in the trial area is approximately $190,000 per annum. The service is funded through waste levy funding.

Integration with regional service roll out

20.     In June 2018 the food scraps collection service was started in Papakura, this signaled the beginning of the regional service roll out, which is due to be fully implemented by 2021.

21.     Given that the food scraps collection service is now being rolled out regionally this raises the issue of whether, and how, to best deliver and fund the North Shore trial. Initial discussions and recommendations proposed that the trial finish in September 2018.

22.     A memo regarding the proposal to finish the trial was issued to the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board in July 2018. No formal feedback was received from local board members who were advised that further information on funding options would be forthcoming.

23.     The local community has also expressed strong support for the service, with qualitative research conducted in 2016 suggesting that 83 per cent of respondents would be unhappy if the service stopped. The research also showed that residents are motivated and understand the personal benefits to their household and Auckland’s environment from reducing their household waste and diverting waste from landfill.

24.     To respond to this feedback, staff have engaged in an analysis of various options relating to whether to continue the collection, and if it is continued, how it should be funded.

25.     This report outlines the options that will be presented to the Finance and Performance Committee at a workshop on 29 November 2018. The local board’s feedback is sought to inform governing body decision making.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

26.     Staff have analysed three options for funding the food scraps collection on the North Shore. The three options that were analysed are shown below in Table 1.

Table 1. Options analysis for food scraps collection service and funding

Option

Pros

Cons

One: Keep the service and continue to fund it from the waste levy (status quo)

 

The residents in the trial area continue to receive the service.

170 tonnes of waste diverted from landfill per year

Inconsistency: The trial area residents receive this service at no cost whilst residents in other parts of Auckland receiving the same service pay a targeted rate.

$190,000 funds from waste levy cannot be used for other purposes.

Two: Keep the service and charge a food scraps targeted rate to these properties ($67+inflation) with no opt out (recommended)

 

A regionally consistent approach to charging for this service.

Residents who have been a part of the food scraps trial since 2014 can continue their waste diversion behavior and do not have to stop and wait until the regional roll out is applied in their area.

170 tonnes of waste diverted from landfill.

Some residents in the trial area may be unhappy about being charged for the service, after receiving this for free for several years.

Administrative burden: The trial households are spread across three suburbs. The targeted rate will need to be applied to each of the individual properties within the trial area, whether they use the service or not.

Three: Discontinue the service and wait for the regional roll out in this area

Households in the trial area would not need to pay any additional rates.

The full $190,000 cost of the trial service will become available to Auckland Council to use for other waste minimisation initiatives.

Residents who have been a part of the food scraps trial since 2014 will have to stop their food scraps diversion behavior and wait for the service to be rolled out regionally. This is inconsistent with overall zero waste goal of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018.

170 additional tonnes of waste will go to landfill. The cost of this will fall to residents, as this area has an user-pays system for rubbish collections.

27.     Option one is not preferred, as it is not in alignment with the service funding decisions made through the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2018. It also creates an inconsistency in charging methodology for the food scraps collection throughout the region. Continuing to fund the food scraps trial through waste levy funding also means this funding cannot be used for other waste minimisation initiatives.

28.     Option three is also not recommended, as it is not reflective of the feedback received to date from residents, local board members and councilors expressing strong support for continuing the service. While this option does not require residents to pay an additional rate, it will have other financial implications as they will need to cover the costs of the disposal of food scraps through their user-pays funded rubbish collection. There is also a risk that residents will become disengaged from waste minimisation behaviours and revert to poor waste disposal practices.

Recommended option

29.     Option two is recommended as it allows for residents in the North Shore trial area to continue proactively diverting their waste in a way that is in alignment with the regional service roll out. While residents in the trial area will see an increase in their rates they will be able to continue using the food scraps service.

30.     There is a risk that some of the residents within the trial area, who are not currently utilising the service, will be unhappy about the charge. This is a risk that the governing body considered during adoption of the last Long-term Plan. They determined that the food scraps service should be regionally consistent and applied to all residents, to achieve the best outcomes in terms of participation rates and diversion of waste from landfill.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

31.     As outlined above, feedback from local residents and informal feedback from the local board has shown support for retaining the food scraps collection service.

32.     The purpose of this report is to formally request local board feedback on the proposal to consult in the next Annual Plan on continuing the food scraps collection service and levying a targeted rate to fund this.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

33.     Although no consultation has been undertaken with iwi on this specific decision, extensive discussions were held with iwi through the development of the Waste Management and Minimsation Plan.

34.     The adopted Waste Management and Minimisation Plan recognises the intrinsic connection between mātauranga and tikanga Māori and how the proposed model of reusing food scraps aligns with a Te Ao Māori world view in which resources should be reused, rather than being treated as ‘waste’.

35.     Feedback on waste targeted rates was also sought through the recent Long-term Plan consultation. Of the 15 iwi organisations who made submissions only one commented specifically about the proposed changes to waste rates. Ngāti Tamaoho expressed support for both the food scraps collection targeted rate and the pay as you throw waste charge.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

36.     At present the trial is fully funded by Auckland Council and is free of charge to the 2,000 North Shore trial participants. The trial operating cost is $190,000 per year. This is funded through income that Auckland Council receives from the national waste levy.

37.     If Auckland Council introduces a food scraps targeted rate (currently set at $67 per year) to the 2,000 households in the trial area, as per option two, this will raise $134,000 per year. Approximately $54,000 of the costs will still need to be funded through the national waste levy.

38.     The shortfall in funding from the targeted rate is because the trial collection service does not have the same economies of scale as the larger service in Papakura or regionwide. When the food scraps collection is introduced to the whole North Shore area the cost of providing the service per household will likely decrease.

39.     If the trial was discontinued, as per option three, then households in the trial area would not need to pay any additional rate. However, householders would likely have to pay more to dispose of their food scraps through the user-pays refuse collection. The full $190,000 cost of the trial service will also become available to Auckland Council to use for other waste minimisation initiatives.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

40.     There are relatively few risks for the local board in providing feedback on the proposal to continue the food scraps collection service and levy a targeted rate at this stage.

41.     Any final decision will be subject to a full consultation process through the Annual Plan 2019/2020. This will enable the local board to hear from their community before giving final feedback on the proposal.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

42.     Local board views provided in response to this report will be presented to the governing body to inform their decision making on annual plan consultation documents.

43.     If the governing body supports the staff recommendation, a proposal to continue the food waste trial and levy the associated targeted rate will be included in the draft Annual Plan 2019/2020 for public consultation and feedback.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Map of Proposed Pilot Area 1

75

b

Map of Proposed Pilot Area 2

77

c

Map of Proposed Pilot Area 3

79

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Sophien Brockbank, Team Leader Strategic Planning, Waste Solutions  

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 



Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 


Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 


Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 



Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

Feedback on proposed topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy

 

File No.: CP2018/21262

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To provide formal feedback on the proposed topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       Both freshwater and marine environments in Auckland are under pressure from historic under-investment, climate change and rapid growth. The Auckland Plan 2050 identifies the need to proactively adapt to a changing water future and develop long-term solutions.

3.       In response to these challenges, the Environment and Community Committee approved the scope of a strategy for Auckland’s waters at its June 2018 meeting (resolution number ENV/2018/78). The strategy will provide strategic direction for the council to meet the challenges and opportunities for improved management for water in all its forms. It will establish the outcomes needed for Auckland’s waters, as part of implementation of the Auckland Plan.

4.       Staff from across Auckland Council, Watercare and Auckland Transport have started developing the draft Auckland Water Strategy by first identifying Auckland’s water issues.

5.       A comprehensive engagement programme has also commenced. This has included mana whenua engagement through the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum as well as separate workshops with operational kaitiaki.

6.       Staff have also attended workshops with all 21 local boards, the Governing Body and subject matter experts to present the progress of the strategy, and to introduce key topics to be addressed in the strategy.

7.       A draft discussion document is now being developed. This document will set out the key water topics, and propose a framework for the water strategy, for public feedback. 

8.       This report provides an update on the development of the strategy and requests formal feedback from the local board on the proposed topics for inclusion in the strategy as set out in Attachment A. A template to guide local board feedback has been included as Attachment B to this report.

9.       Feedback from local boards will be summarised as part of a report to the Environment and Community Committee in December 2018, seeking approval of a water strategy discussion document, ahead of public consultation from February to April 2019.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board:

a)      provide feedback on the proposed topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy as set out in Attachment A of the agenda report.

b)      note that local board feedback on proposed topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy will be included in a report to the Environmental and Community Committee in December 2018, seeking approval of the draft Auckland Water Strategy discussion document for public consultation in early 2019.

 

Horopaki / Context

10.     The health of Auckland’s waters is a significant issue. Decades of pressure have had negative impacts on water quality, and on freshwater and marine environments. This pressure will continue to increase if changes are not made to the way that water is valued and managed. Population growth and climate change will further amplify the challenges, with greater demand for water services, and an increased risk of flooding and coastal inundation.

11.     The Auckland Plan notes a key challenge of ‘environmental degradation’ and identifies the need to proactively adapt to a changing water future and develop long-term solutions (focus area five of the Auckland Plan’s environment and cultural heritage outcome). Other focus areas of the Auckland Plan speak to the need to future-proof Auckland’s infrastructure, make sustainable choices, and fully account for past and future impacts of growth.

12.     The Environment and Community Committee agreed to the development of the Auckland Water Strategy at its 12 September 2017 meeting. The committee noted that water is often described and managed in categories, such as storm water, wastewater and drinking water. An overarching strategy for Auckland’s waters, in all their forms, was identified as a way of ensuring the full range of desired outcomes for water are defined and achieved in an integrated way.

13.     Several drivers give weight to the timely development of this strategy. These include heightened public awareness of water quality risks, and strong support from the public for improvements to water quality through the ten-year budget, central government initiatives (such as the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management and the Department of Internal Affairs review of three waters outcomes) and the need to update existing strategies due to significant population growth. It also responds to mana whenua aspirations surrounding te mauri o te wai.

14.     Since the strategy’s initiation in September 2017, staff have undertaken preliminary analytical work and engagement across the council. This includes resolving the intersection of the strategy with the section 17A three waters review, mapping the council’s current water-related activities, and analysing the public feedback on the proposed Auckland Plan and 10-year budget.

15.     An extensive local board and mana whenua engagement programme has been undertaken. In September and October 2018, staff presented the proposed topics to be addressed through the water strategy to all 21 local boards. Mana whenua have been engaged at both a governance and operational level. The Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum provided strategic direction while operational kaitiaki provided direction on the values. Subject matter experts from across the council, local boards and the Governing Body have also provided feedback on the key topics.

16.     This report provides a progress update on the development of the strategy, and also provides an opportunity for the local board to provide formal feedback on the proposed topics for inclusion in the strategy as set out in Attachment A. 

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Purpose and proposed topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy

17.     The Auckland Water Strategy will provide strategic direction for the council in how to meet the challenges and opportunities for improved water management. It is expected that the strategy will define the approaches taken around water in other strategies and plans as they are subsequently developed and reviewed.

18.     The proposed topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy (see Attachment A) were developed through the review of the existing policies and strategies, and through a series of workshops and discussions with staff from Auckland Council, including Watercare and Auckland Transport.

19.     Attachment A describes the current strategic context, purpose, vision, values, issues, processes and principles that are proposed to inform the development of the discussion document for the draft Auckland Water Strategy.

Request for local board feedback

20.     Further to the workshops held with local boards in September and October 2018, local boards are formally requested to provide feedback on the draft topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy, ahead of the Environment and Community Committee’s consideration in December 2018. Attachment B provides a template to guide local board feedback.

21.     The draft vision for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy is ‘Te mauri o te wai – the life supporting capacity of water – is protected and enhanced’. Local boards are requested to provide feedback on whether this vision is right for the communities they represent.

22.     The draft values for inclusion in the strategy are detailed below. Local boards are requested to provide feedback around whether these values cover the aspects of water that are most important to the boards:

·    ecology

·    water use

·    culture

·    recreation and amenity

·    resilience.

23.     The draft issues to be addressed through the strategy are detailed below. Local boards are requested to provide feedback on whether these categories capture the issues that are of greatest concern to them:

·    cleaning up our waterways

·    meeting future water needs

·    growth in the right places

·    adapting to a changing water future.

24.     The draft processes to be worked on through the strategy are detailed below. Local boards are requested to provide feedback on whether these categories capture the processes that they are most concerned with:

·    creating our water future together

·    setting priorities for investment

·    achieving net benefits for catchments

·    applying a Māori world view.

25.     The draft principles to be included in the strategy are detailed below. Local boards are requested to provide feedback on whether or not they agree with these principles:

·    recognise that water is a taonga

·    work with natural ecosystems

·    deliver catchment scale thinking and action

·    focus on achieving the right-sized solutions with multiple benefits

·    work together to plan and deliver better water quality outcomes

·    look to the future.

26.     As the development of the strategy has progressed, it has become clear that it will need to be developed in stages. Many of the water challenges that have been identified require more analysis and public engagement before a strategy can be agreed. For this reason, the discussion document that is proposed to be released early 2019 will be focused on identifying and agreeing the water issues that Auckland faces within a proposed framework of vision, values and principles. From there, the governing body will be able to review and agree a staged programme that builds on the framework towards a final strategy.

27.     Local board feedback on the draft topics outlined in Attachment B will be summarised as part of the report to the Environment and Community Committee in December 2018, requesting approval of a draft discussion document for public consultation. A further update on the Auckland Water Strategy will be provided to local boards in February 2019.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /

Local impacts and local board views

28.     Local boards have a strong interest in improving water quality across the Auckland region and currently fund many local projects focused on restoration of local waterways.

29.     Staff attended a local board chairs’ meeting on 13 November 2017 to introduce the concept of the strategy and expected range of activities arising from the strategy. Board chairs indicated their interest in continued involvement.

30.     Staff presented the scope, summary and the progress on the strategy’s development to all 21 local boards between 30 August 2018 and 23 October 2018. Key themes in the feedback provided by local boards at these workshops included the need to:

·    acknowledge water as being a precious commodity that needs to be preserved as the population grows

·    increase the focus on the health of Auckland’s harbours

·    identify future drinking water sources

·    educate people around resilience, water usage, and the impacts of their activities on the environment

·    strengthen regulation and compliance to protect waterways.

31.     This report presents the proposed topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy, and seeks formal feedback from the local board ahead of Environment and Community Committee approval of a discussion document in December 2018 for public consultation in early 2019. Key questions to guide local board feedback have been included as Attachment B.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

32.     Mauri (life force) is a fundamental concept of the Māori world view. The state of mauri is an indicator of overall environmental, cultural and social wellbeing. All water sources have an inherent mauri that can be diminished or enhanced.

33.     Enhancing the mauri of waterways is of key significance to mana whenua in their role as kaitiaki of Auckland’s waters. Early engagement with mana whenua to promote kaitiakitanga and embed mana whenua values into this work will be critical to the success of the actions outlined in this report.

34.     The development of the Auckland Water Strategy has been guided by the strategic advice provided by the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Governance Forum. The forum has determined it will provide its own strategic advice, to ensure that core mana whenua principles and values are given the attention they need. The forum requested that one of their members be included on the governance group for the development of the strategy. This has been achieved with the Auckland’s Water Political Reference Group, and recognises the longstanding whakaaro and kōrero that mana whenua have provided on this kaupapa.


 

 

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

35.     The budget to develop the Auckland Water Strategy is included as part of the Long-term Plan 2018-2028. This budget covers operational expenses, primarily staff time, and will be used to support public engagement.

36.     The budget required to deliver any actions arising from the strategy will be sought through the Long-term Plan 2021-2031 process. 

 

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

37.     An initial risk assessment for the programme has been carried out, as shown in Table 1 below.      

 

Table 1: Auckland Water Strategy work programme risks and proposed mitigations

Risk type

Risk description

Consequence description

Rating

(High-Medium-Low)

Mitigation/Control

Scope expansion

Water is a broad subject, and the level of detail and number of topics to cover can grow and change rapidly

Unable to deliver to time and cost

Medium

Guidance from the Political Reference Group and Executive Steering Group

Central government changes to legislation and policy

There are several central government work programmes focusing on water underway such as the Department of Internal Affairs Three Waters review and the Office of the Auditor Generals Water Programme. The strategy will need to adapt to any changes in direction from central government.

Unable to deliver to time and cost

Medium

Anticipate where possible, communication plans to include government stakeholders

Inconsistent practices and adoption of the strategy

The strategy is not adopted and reflected in the plans of the operational and delivery organisations of the council.

Outcomes of the strategy are not delivered, substantive actions to deliver the strategy are not undertaken

Medium

Ensure that the delivery teams of the council are engaged in the development of the strategy

 

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

38.     The next steps in the development of the Auckland Water Strategy have been outlined in Table 2:


 

 

Table 2. Timeframes for the development of the Auckland Water Strategy

Activity

Expected timeframe

Formal local board feedback sought on proposed topics of the Auckland Water Strategy for the discussion document

November 2018

Internal discussions on the topics for inclusion in the draft discussion document, and presentations to the Watercare and Auckland Transport boards

November-December 2018

Draft discussion document reported to Environment and Community Committee for approval ahead of public consultation

December 2018

Public consultation on the Auckland Water Strategy discussion document

February-April 2019

Public engagement feedback presented to elected members

April 2019

Draft options for the finalisation of the Auckland Water Strategy, and associated work programmes to be presented to the Environment and Community Committee

June 2019

 

39.     Local boards will receive a further update on the Auckland Water Strategy in February 2019.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Proposed topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy

87

b

Local board feedback template for proposed topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy

95

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

 

Author

Andrew Chin – Auckland Waters Portfolio Manager

Authorisers

Barry Potter – Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Louise Mason – General Manager Local Board Services

[Local Board Relationship Manager]


Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 


 


 


Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan consultation feedback and recommended changes

 

File No.: CP2018/21003

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To receive a summary of consultation feedback from local board residents on the Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan, and to provide feedback on recommended changes to the document.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       Auckland Council is currently developing a new Regional Pest Management Plan. This plan is prepared under the Biosecurity Act 1993, and describes the pest plants, animals and pathogens that will be managed in Auckland. It provides a framework to minimise the spread and impact of those pests and manage them through a regional approach. Once operative, the Regional Pest Management Plan will provide a regulatory framework to support the council’s biosecurity activities, including those funded through the natural environment targeted rate.

3.       The Proposed Regional Pest Management plan was approved for public consultation by the Environment and Community Committee in November 2017 (resolution numbers ENV/2017/161 to ENV/2017/167) and consulted on in February and March 2018 alongside the Long-term Plan 2018-2028.

4.       A workshop was held with the board on 25 September 2018 to discuss the consultation feedback and proposed staff responses.

5.       Devonport-Takapuna Local Board residents provided 50 submissions on the plan, representing four per cent of overall submissions. The views of local board residents were similar to regional views, with high levels of support across all topics excluding the addition of cats as a pest. The extent of cat control resulting from the plan is likely to be less extensive than the concerns noted in many submissions. Staff are exploring options to mitigate submitter concerns in the wording of the final plan.

6.       This report requests the board’s formal feedback on recommended changes to the Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan arising from key submission themes. Submission themes and corresponding changes are summarised in Attachment A.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board:

a)      receive a summary of consultation feedback from Devonport-Takapuna residents on the Proposed Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan.

b)      provide feedback on the recommended changes to the Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan based on consultation feedback.

 

 

Horopaki / Context

7.       Auckland Council is currently reviewing its 2007 Regional Pest Management Strategy. The new Regional Pest Management Plan will prescribe council’s approach to pest management to reflect best practice and changes to various pest plants and animals in the Auckland region. The review is also in direct response to, and compliant with, the National Policy Direction for Pest Management 2015.

8.       The review of the Regional Pest Management Plan began with an issues and options paper discussed with elected members, followed by a public discussion document which was used as a basis for engagement with mana whenua, stakeholders and elected members.

9.       At its November 2017 meeting, the Environment and Community Committee approved the proposed Regional Pest Management Plan for public consultation alongside the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 (resolution numbers ENV/2017/161 to ENV/2017/167).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

10.     Consultation on the proposed Regional Pest Management Plan took place in February to March 2018 alongside consultation on the Long-term Plan and other statutory planning documents. A total of 1,262 submissions were received, which represents a significant increase on the approximately 400 submissions that were received on the 2015 discussion document. The breakdown by submission type is shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan breakdown by submission type (Auckland-wide)

Submission type

Number of submissions

Percentage of submissions

Online form

1035

82%

Hardcopy form

183

15%

Non-form (e.g. email, letter)

44

3%

 

11.     Of the 1,262 submissions received, 23 were pro-forma submissions from Forest and Bird. The number of submissions received by local board area is shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Breakdown of Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan submissions by local board area

Local board

Number of submitters

Percentage of submitters

Albert-Eden

116

9%

Devonport-Takapuna

53

4%

Franklin

50

4%

Great Barrier

24

2%

Henderson-Massey

46

4%

Hibiscus and Bays

85

7%

Howick

52

4%

Kaipātiki

98

8%

Māngere-Ōtāhuhu

17

1%

Manurewa

18

1%

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki

51

4%

Ōrākei

64

5%

Ōtara-Papatoetoe

7

1%

Papakura

21

2%

Puketāpapa

12

1%

Rodney

162

13%

Upper Harbour

41

3%

Waiheke

37

3%

Waitākere Ranges

87

7%

Waitematā

51

4%

Whau

41

3%

Regional

5

0%

Not Supplied

69

5%

Outside Auckland

55

4%

Total

1,262

 

 

12.     The consultation feedback form included eight questions relating to key programmes in the Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan that were described in a summary document (see Attachment B for details around each of the proposed approaches). The responses received for each question from residents of the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board area are summarised below in Table 3 and show a high level of support across all these topic areas.

Table 3: Feedback from Devonport-Takapuna residents on the Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan

Question

Response

Percentage of submissions local board

Percentage of submissions regional

1. What is your view on the proposed approach to pest plant management in parks?

Full support

12%

26%

Partial support

17%

17%

Partial do not support

4%

3%

Full do not support

4%

2%

Other comments

63%

53%

2. What is your view on the proposed approach to managing kauri dieback?

Full support

23%

27%

Partial support

21%

29%

Partial do not support

8%

5%

Full do not support

0%

2%

Other comments

49%

37%

3. What is your view on the proposed approach to prevent the spread of pests to the Hauraki Gulf Islands?

Full support

49%

46%

Partial support

17%

19%

Partial do not support

22%

12%

Full do not support

2%

2%

Other comments

10%

21%

4. What is your view on the proposed approach to managing pests on Aotea/Great Barrier?

Full support

29%

44%

Partial support

23%

20%

Partial do not support

3%

4%

Full do not support

3%

2%

Other comments

42%

30%

5. What is your view on the proposed approach to managing pests on Kawau Island?

Full support

42%

43%

Partial support

16%

23%

Partial do not support

9%

7%

Full do not support

2%

4%

Other comments

30%

23%

6. What is your view on the proposed approach to managing pests on Waiheke Island?

Full support

35%

44%

Partial support

21%

21%

Partial do not support

9%

5%

Full do not support

0%

3%

Other comments

35%

28%

7. What is your view on the proposed approach to the management of rural possums?

Full support

41%

38%

Partial support

32%

28%

Partial do not support

5%

7%

Full do not support

8%

4%

Other comments

14%

23%

8. What is your view on the proposed approach to the management of freshwater pests?

Full support

56%

46%

Partial support

13%

23%

Partial do not support

3%

4%

Full do not support

3%

3%

Other comments

25%

25%

 

13.     In addition to the eight themed questions covered in Table 3, a further open-ended question elicited responses about a wide range of other topics covered in the proposed plan.

14.     The most commonly raised topic in the open-ended question was the issue of cat management. A wide range of views on this topic were expressed, including requests for increased cat management beyond that in the proposed plan. The majority of submissions on this topic voiced concerns about cats being included as pests. These submitters cited animal welfare issues and concerns that domestic cats throughout Auckland would be at risk under the proposed plan. Staff are exploring options for mitigating these concerns, which in many cases reflect a perception of more extensive cat control than was envisaged in the plan. Options for mitigating concerns include clarifying the spatial extent of the proposed approach in the final plan, and alternatives to the use of the term ‘pest cat’.

15.     Staff have worked through submissions to determine any changes to be recommended for the final plan. Attachment A identifies key themes where amendments to pest management programmes in the proposed plan were sought by submitters, along with proposed staff responses. Feedback themes have been grouped according to the questions in Table 3 (above), along with an ‘other’ category to capture feedback related to other topics.

16.     This report seeks formal feedback from the board at its November 2018 business meeting on the recommended changes to the Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan in response to consultation feedback.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

17.     During engagement on the issues and options paper and wider public consultation on the discussion document, key issues were raised in relation to cats, possums, widespread pest plants, and the ban of sale of some pest species. In addition to these regional issues, the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board provided feedback on locally specific issues of importance to the area, including pigeons, weeds on council land, rabbits, and the importance of education around pests.

18.     Proposed approaches to be taken in relation to these issues were workshopped with the board 25 July 2017. At its August 2017 business meeting the board provided formal feedback on these proposed management approaches. A copy of this feedback is appended in Attachment C.

19.     A recent workshop with the board was held on 25 September 2018 to discuss the consultation feedback and the recommended amendments to the plan, as set out in Attachment A.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

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

21.     Engagement has been undertaken with interested mana whenua in the Auckland region during development of the plan, and formal submissions were received from the mana whenua groups listed below. In addition, staff are working closely with mana whenua on the development and implementation of a range of biosecurity programmes, providing opportunities for mana whenua to exercise kaitiakitanga, through direct involvement in the protection of culturally significant sites and taonga species.

·        Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum

·        Te Kawerau ā Maki

·        Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua

·        Te Uri o Hau

·        Te Tira Whakamātaki - Māori Biosecurity Network

22.     Submissions were largely supportive of the approaches set out in the proposed plan, and key themes noted in feedback from mana whenua included:

·        the need to enhance rather than protect ecosystem function and resilience

·        the need to recognise ecological value outside Significant Ecological Areas

·        the need to identify performance measures to enable people to readily evaluate success

·        the need to adopt management strategies that incentivise good management approaches

·        the importance of community education and involvement in pest management

·        mana whenua participation in pest management in collaboration with Auckland Council.

23.     Staff have prepared a summary of mana whenua feedback, including proposed staff responses. This document will be circulated to mana whenua submitters for their consideration in November and December 2018. This content will be included in the final submission summary that is reported to the Environment and Community Committee in March 2019, alongside the final plan. This content will be made available to all local boards prior to the committee meeting.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

24.     The Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan presents a major change in pest management in Auckland, and therefore requires a significant increase in investment. As part of consultation on the Long-term Plan 2018-2028, the council sought community views on two options for increased investment in the natural environment funded by a targeted rate.

25.     On 31 May 2018 the Governing Body approved the introduction of a natural environment targeted rate to raise $311 million for environmental initiatives. These initiatives include addressing kauri dieback and targeted ecological protection (resolution GB/2018/91).

26.     This level of investment allows substantial (approximately 80 per cent), but not full, implementation of the Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan. Some changes to the proposed plan will be made to fit the funding envelope, most notably reducing the spatial extent of parks supported by pest plant control in buffer zones and removing the moth plant good neighbour rule from the Hauraki Gulf Islands. These changes are addressed in further detail in Attachment A.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

27.     There are no significant risks arising from the board giving feedback on the Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan at this time. However, if the board chooses not to give feedback this would create a risk that their views will not be reflected in the final Regional Pest Management Plan.

28.     If adoption of the Regional Pest Management Plan is delayed, this will create significant risks to the council’s ability to achieve targets for protecting native biodiversity, through effectively regulating the control of pest plants, animals and pathogens.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

29.     Attachment A has been prepared to facilitate local board feedback on the recommended changes to the proposed Regional Pest Management Plan.

30.     Staff will progress development of the final Regional Pest Management Plan in line with the process and indicative timeframes outlined in Table 4 below. A copy of the final plan and supporting information (including a full submissions analysis report and staff recommendations) will be provided to local boards for information prior to Environment and Community Committee adoption in March 2019.

Table 4: Timeframes for the finalisation of the Regional Pest Management Plan

Action/Milestone

Indicative timeframe

Mana whenua engagement to address changes proposed in submissions

September – October 2018

Local boards resolve formal feedback at business meetings

November – December 2018

 

Environment and Community Committee workshop

November 2018

Staff draft final plan

December 2018 – February 2019

Environment and Community Committee adopt plan

March 2019

 

Closing the loop with local boards and submitters

April – May 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Key submission themes and recommended amendments to the Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan consultation feedback

107

b

Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan 2018 - Summary Document

117

c

Attachment C Devonport-Takapuna Feedback Summary

129

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Dr Imogen Bassett – Biosecurity Principal Advisor  

Authorisers

Gael Ogilvie – General Manager Envornmental Services

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Louise Mason – General Manager Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

Devonport-Takapuna Quick Response, Round Two 2018/2019 grant applications

 

File No.: CP2018/20440

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.    To fund, part-fund or decline applications received for Devonport-Takapuna Quick Response, Round Two 2018/2019.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.     This report presents applications received in Devonport-Takapuna Quick Response Round Two 2018/2019 as set out in Attachment B.

 

3.     The local board adopted the Devonport-Takapuna Grants Programme 2018/2019 on 17 April 2018 as set out in Attachment A. The document sets application guidelines for community contestable grants.

 

4.     The local board has set a total community grants budget of $ 237,500 for the 2018/2019 financial year.

 

5.     The Devonport-Takapuna Local Board has allocated $77,795.99 from the 2018/2019 grants budget for Local Grants Round One and Quick Response Round One, leaving a total of $159,704.01 to be allocated to one local grants round and two quick response rounds.

 

6.   Nine applications were received for Devonport-Takapuna Quick Response, Round Two 2018/2019, requesting a total of $14,894.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendations

That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board:

a)    agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application in Devonport-Takapuna Quick Response, Round Two, listed in Table One below:    

App ID

Applicant

Project

Amount requested

Eligibility

QR1902-211

Michael King Writers' Studio Trust

Towards the purchase of a new laptop including installation and transfer of data for the Michael King Writers' Centre.

$1,870.00

Eligible

QR1902-212

Act One Productions Limited

Towards venue and costume hire, Māori content advisor and printing costs for a Christmas show "A Very Merry Kiwimas" at the Pumphouse Theatre.

$2,000.00

Eligible

QR1902-201

Wairau Valley Special School Board of Trustees Account

Towards two teardrop flags and twenty-four high visibility vests to identify and promote student volunteers participating in the "Enterprise Programme".

$475.00

Eligible

QR1902-202

Takapuna Play Centre Incorporated

Towards the accommodation costs at Camp Bentzon and the ferry costs to travel to Kawau Island in April 2018.

$2,000.00

Eligible

QR1902-207

Takapuna Community Facilities Trust

Towards the printing costs for "Welcome to Sunnynook information pack.”

$1,594.00

Eligible

QR1902-208

Takapuna Community Facilities Trust

Towards the costs of advertising, catering, performers, karakia koha, decorations and venue hire for the Womens Network Festival at the Positive Ageing Centre, Takapuna on 25 May 2019.

$1,205.00

Eligible

QR1902-213

Harbour Sport Trust

Towards the costs of buses and printing promotional flyers for the "Shore to Shore five kilometre Fun Run, Walk" event on 31 March 2019.

$2,000.00

Eligible

QR1902-209

Rotary Club of Devonport Charitable Trust

Towards reprinting costs of 20,000 copies of the Devonport Heritage Walk tour brochure.

$2,000.00

Eligible

QR1902-214

Alcohol Healthwatch Trust

Towards costs to conduct an audit and produce a report detailing external alcohol signage at Devonport-Takapuna off-license premises.

$1,750.00

Ineligible

Total

 

 

$14,894.00

 

 

 

Horopaki / Context

6.       The local board allocates grants to groups and organisations delivering projects, activities and services that benefit Aucklanders and contribute to the vision of being a world class city.

7.       The Auckland Council Community Grants Policy supports each local board to adopt a grants programme. 

8.       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.

 

9.       The Devonport-Takapuna Local Board adopted their grants programme for 2018/2019 on 17 April 2018 and will operate three quick response and two local grant rounds for this financial year. 

10.     The community grant programmes have been extensively advertised through the council grants webpage, local board webpages, local board e-newsletters, Facebook pages, council publications, radio, and community networks.

 

11.    The local board has set a total community grants budget of $ 237,500 for the 2018/2019 financial year and will operate three quick response and two local grant rounds. The second quick response round closed on 19 October 2018.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

12.     The aim of the local board grant programme is to deliver projects and activities which align with the outcomes identified in the local board plan. All applications have been assessed utilising the Community Grants Policy and the local board grant programme criteria. The eligibility of each application is identified in the report recommendations.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

13.     Local boards are responsible for the decision-making and allocation of local board community grants.  The Devonport-Takapuna 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.

14.     The board is requested to note that Section 48 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”.

15.     A summary of each application received through Devonport-Takapuna Quick Response, Round Two 2018/2019 is provided in Attachment B.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

16.     The local board grants programme aims to respond to Auckland Council’s commitment to improving Māori wellbeing by providing grants to individuals and groups who deliver positive outcomes for Māori.

17.     Auckland Council’s Māori Responsiveness Unit has provided input and support towards the development of the community grant processes.

18.    Five organisations applying to quick response round two have indicated that their project targets Māori or Māori outcomes.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

19.     The allocation of grants to community groups or individuals is within the adopted Long-term Plan 2018-2028 and local board agreements.

20.     The local board has set a total community grants budget of $ 237,500. The Devonport-Takapuna Local Board has allocated $77,795.99 from the 2018/2019 grants budget for Local Grants Round One and Quick Response Round One, leaving a total of $159,704.01 to be allocated to one local grant round and two quick response rounds.

21.     Nine applications were received for Devonport-Takapuna Quick Response, Round Two 2018/2019, requesting a total of $14,894.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

22.     The allocation of grants occurs within the guidelines and criteria of the Community Grants Policy and the local board grants programme. The assessment process has identified a low risk associated with funding the applications in this round.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

23.     Following the local board allocating funding for quick response round two 2018/2019, Commercial and Finance staff will notify the applicants of the local board’s decision and facilitate payment of the grant.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board Community Grants Programme 2018/2019 (Under Separate Cover)

 

b

Devonport-Takapuna Quick Response Round Two 2018/2019 grant applications (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Moumita Dutta - Community Grants Coordinator

Authorisers

Marion Davies - Grant Operations Manager

Shane King - Head of Operations Support

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

Public notification and proposed granting of a new community lease and licence to The Lake House Trust at Barrys Point Reserve, Takapuna.

 

File No.: CP2018/21540

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To approve public notification of Auckland Council’s intention to grant a community lease and licence to The Lake House Trust for the site occupied on Barrys Point Reserve, 37 Fred Thomas Drive, Takapuna and provided there are no objections to grant the lease and licence.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       The Lake House Trust owns and manages the premises known as the Lake House Arts Centre on part of the council-owned Barrys Point Reserve, Fred Thomas Drive, Takapuna under the terms of a community lease and licence.

3.       A ground lease for the site of the main art centre building was granted by the former North Shore City Council in 1996 for a period of 10 years with one right of renewal for a further 10 years. The lease expired on 20 June 2016 and is currently holding over on a month by month basis.

4.       A licence to occupy the gardens and car park area immediately adjacent to the art centre was granted by the former North Shore City Council in 2005. The terms of the licence mirror those of the ground lease and it has also expired and is holding over on a month by month basis.

5.       The Lake House Trust has applied for a new community lease and licence.

6.       The portion of the reserve occupied by the Lake House Trust is held in fee simple by Auckland Council as a classified recreation reserve. As this classification does not support the activities of the trust, iwi engagement and public notification of council’s intention to grant a new lease and licence is required under the Reserves Act 1977 and the Conservation Act 1987.

7.       Although the matter has been presented to the Mana Whenua Forum, iwi engagement with the individual iwi groups with an interest in the land is still required.

8.       This report recommends that the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board approve a new community lease and licence to The Lake House Trust each for a period of 10 years with one right of renewal for a further 10 years in accordance with Auckland Council’s Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012 subject to the outcome of the public notification process.

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board:

a)      approve iwi consultation and public notification of Auckland Council’s intention to grant a community lease and licence to The Lake House Trust for Part Lot 2 DP 61305 at Barrys Point Reserve, Takapuna (Attachment A).

b)      delegate to the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board Chair to appoint a panel to consider, if required, submissions or objections received and for the panel to make a decision;

c)      grant subject to there being no objections or objections received being resolved, a new lease to The Lake House Trust for the areas marked A and B being 1020m2 (more or less) on Part Lot 2 DP 61305 at Barrys Point Reserve, Takapuna on the following terms and conditions:

i)        Term – 10 (ten) years commencing from the date of final approval by the Minister of Conservation (or her delegate) with one 10 (ten) year right of renewal

ii)       Rent - $1.00 plus GST per annum if requested;

d)      grant subject to there being no objections, or objections received being resolved, a community licence to The Lake House Trust for 8,226m2 (more or less) on Part Lot 2 DP 61305 at Barrys Point Reserve, Takapuna on the following terms and conditions:

i)        Term – 10 (ten) years commencing from the date of final approval by the Minister of Conservation (or her delegate) with one 10 (ten) year right of renewal

ii)       Rent - $1.00 plus GST per annum if requested;

e)      all other terms and conditions in accord with the Auckland Council Community Occupancy Guidelines July 2012 and the Reserves Act 1977.

 

 

Horopaki / Context

9.       The lease and licence to the The Lake House Trust for their occupation of land at Barrys Point Reserve finally expired in 2016. The trust has applied for a new lease and licence to continue their activities.

10.     This report deals with this and the process to consider granting a new lease.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Barrys Point Reserve

11.     Barrys Point Reserve is at the northern end of Little Shoal Bay and covers an area of almost 19 Hectares. 2.43 Hectares was taken under the Public Works Act 1981 to provide for the Akoranga Bus Station and link road through the reserve. Most of the land comprising the reserve was reclaimed from the bay by refuse landfilling. Therefore, there are restrictions on the types of recreational and community uses which can occur on the site and how the site is managed.

Draft Barrys Point Reserve Development Plan 2010

12.     A refresh of the Barrys Point Reserve Draft Development Plan 2010 has been completed and will be considered by the local board at the 11 December 2018 business meeting for adoption.

13.     This plan notes that “public open space and community facilities such as Barrys Point Reserve play a crucial part in providing a world class quality of life and ensuring that Auckland remains resilient to changes, including population pressure from unprecedented growth, and the effects of climate change”.

14.     The plan also helps move Auckland towards the vision of a world class city and the Auckland Plan target to:

·    Maintain and extend an integrated network of quality open spaces across the region that meet community needs and provide a diverse range of recreational opportunities by 2040.

15.     The draft plan identifies the Lake House Arts Centre within Activity Zone A- Arts, culture and heritage, along with other community uses.

16.     The draft development plan contemplates several possible outcomes for the reserve.

17.     The report on the plan will also recommend provision of overflow parking spaces for occasional events on the reserve.

The Lake House Trust

18.     A ground lease for the footprint of the main art centre building was granted to The Lake House Trust by the former North Shore City Council in 1996 for a term of 10 years with one right of renewal for a further 10 years. The renewal was exercised. The lease finally expired on 20 June 2016 and is currently holding over on a month by month basis.

19.     The part of Barrys Point Reserve occupied by the Lake House Trust is held in fee simple by Auckland Council as a classified recreation reserve.

20.     A licence to occupy for the gardens and car park area immediately adjacent to the art centre was granted by the former North Shore City Council in 2005. The terms of the licence mirror the ground lease. It has also expired and is holding over on a month by month basis.

21.    The licence covers the area used to provide landscaping, parking and the barracks buildings which are used as studio space.

22.     The trust has submitted a comprehensive application in support of its request for a new community lease and licence for the area occupied.

The Lake House Arts Centre 

23.     The Lake House Art Centre is the operational name for the complex which comprises three relocated and restored heritage buildings surrounded by landscaped gardens on Barrys Point Reserve.

24.     The main building is a two-storey 19th century building that was relocated from Takapuna Beach to its current site in 2006. The building has been restored and provides gallery space, artists’ studios, administration space, meeting rooms, a café and gift shop.

25.     Two barracks buildings were later relocated to the site and now provide additional studio space.

26.     The landscaped gardens and side car park area that are the subject of the licence to occupy, create a setting complimenting the art centre and accommodates outdoor sculptures and several events throughout the year. The trust has also invested approximately $1,000 in the car park by replacing gravel.

27.     A small on-site café is popular with visitors wishing to visit the gallery spaces that change exhibitions frequently. Visitor numbers are growing, with recent counts at 5,000-6000 people per month.

28.     The centre offers a comprehensive art education programme for adults and children in line with the four school terms and across different visual and applied artistic media, which now includes a virtual reality studio. It also hosts weekend workshops, school holiday classes, opportunities for local schools to visit and benefit from the facilities and programmes and is popular as a venue for hire for small meetings and conferences. An ESOL school, theatre production company and a printmakers group have regular occupation arrangements.

The Lake House Trust

29.     The Lake House Trust was previously known as The Coach House Trust and was incorporated under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 on 4 March 1996. The Trust changed its name on 3 April 2000 (No. 800512, CC20256). 

30.     The primary purpose of the Trust is to provide a vibrant community arts centre and gallery in a heritage setting.

31.     The Lake House Arts Centre employs a small team of full-time and part-time staff including a caretaker, who undertake the day to day administration of the venue, together with fundraising and managing the maintenance of the heritage structures.

32.     A strategic plan has been developed that identifies four main goals;

·        maintain the centre's heritage attributes while providing modern amenities that are valued by the community

·        provide innovative programmes, activities and services that appeal to a wide cross-section of the community

·        deliver a business model that enables the Lake House to maintain its stability, autonomy and independence

·        market the programmes, activities and services to increase visitor numbers visitor experience and revenue.

Requirement for iwi engagement and public notification

33.     The operative reserve management plan for Barrys Point Reserve adopted in August 2006 contemplates the occupation of the site by the Lake House Arts Centre. However, as the site is classified as a recreation reserve, this classification does not legally support the local purpose nature of The Lake House Trust’s activities and the proposed lease or licence.

34.     Section 3.1.2 of the reserve management plan states;

·        The area leased and licensed to the Lake House Trust will be reclassified as a local purpose (community buildings) reserve.

Until this action is completed the proposed lease and license must be issued under section 73(3) of the Reserves Act 1977.

35.     Prior to approving a new lease and licence, engagement with iwi identified as having an interest in the land in the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board area is required by Section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987 and public notification of council’s intention to consider grating the lease and licence is required under Section 73(4) of the Reserves Act 1977.

36.     With regard to this community lease proposal, a community outcomes plan has not been negotiated because the Trust is required to submit annual reports to council relating to its funding agreement. This includes criteria that would be included in a community outcomes plan.

37.     The financial accounts provided indicate that the trusts funds are sufficient to meet its liabilities and the accounts are being managed appropriately.

38.     The trust has all necessary insurance cover, including public liability insurance in place.

39.     A site visit to the premises on 11 October 2018 confirmed the buildings are well used, managed and maintained, with the leased area in a neat and tidy condition. 

Parking

40.     The Lake House Trust has requested an extension of their licensed area to include the gravel car park on the south side of the complex as it provides vital parking and access to the Lake House.

41.     This existing car parking is provided for all users of the reserve. With the future development of the reserve, Auckland Council will investigate extending and improving the car parking to cater for users. This improvement will be undertaken to serve the whole reserve rather than individual occupant needs. It may be at that time that the Lake House Trust wishes to discuss with the council extending their car parking area.

42.     Any extension to the licensed area to incorporate additional parking for the Lake House Trust over what has previously been approved, is not supported by Park and Places staff because of the need to provide parking for all reserve users in the future.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

43.     The Devonport Takapuna Local Board has delegated authority to approve public notification and to grant community leases and licences.

44.     The proposed new community lease and licence to the Lake House Trust is an item on the Community Lease 2018/2019 Work Programme (Resolution number DT/2018/112).

45.     The local board was advised of the need for public notification of a new lease and licence at its workshop on 3 April 2018. This was noted and supported.

46.     The recommendations within this report support the 2017 Devonport-Takapuna Local Board Plan outcomes, in particular:

·    Outcome 2: A place of natural beauty and rich culture

·    Outcome 4: Our communities are empowered, engaged and inclusive

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

47.     Auckland Council is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its broader legal obligations to Māori. The council recognises these responsibilities are distinct from the Crown’s Treaty obligations and fall within a local government Tāmaki Makaurau context. These commitments are articulated in the council’s key strategic planning documents, the Auckland Plan 2050, the Long-term Plan 2018-2028, the Unitary Plan and Local Board Plans.

48.     Engagement with iwi identified as having an interest in land in the Devonport Takapuna Local Board geographical area is required regarding the proposal to grant the community lease and licence at Barrys Point Reserve. Council staff attended the Mana Whenua Forum held on 15 March 2017 where the proposal was presented to iwi representatives in attendance. There were no objections received to the proposal.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

49.     There is no cost to the local board for the iwi engagement and public notification which is borne by the Community Facilities department.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

50.     As the activities occur on a former landfill site, staff recommend a special conditions clause be inserted into the lease and licence to provide that the tenant agrees to adhere to the health and safety recommendations as instructed by Auckland Council’s Contaminated Land Team.

51.     There are no other known risks associated with the granting of a new lease.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

52.     Subject to the granting of a new community lease, council staff will work with key representatives of the trust to finalise the deed of lease and licence and any special conditions required in connection to the landfill.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment A:  Site Plan for The Lake House Arts Centre, 37 Fred Thomas Drive, Takapuna

155

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Wendy Zapart - Community Lease Advisor

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

Draft Contributions Policy

 

File No.: CP2018/20821

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To seek feedback from local boards on the draft Contributions Policy 2019.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       It is estimated that the Auckland region has a shortfall of 45,000 dwellings to meet current demand for housing. A further 313,000 dwellings and work places to support 250,000 jobs will be required by 2050 to meet expected growth. To manage this growth, the council has identified the:

·        location and nature of growth - through the Auckland Plan and Unitary Plan

·        location and type of infrastructure required to support growth - through the Development Strategy and structure plans

·        when and where it will invest $7.2 billion of growth-related infrastructure in the next 10 years to support development - through the Long-term Plan 2018-2028 (10-Year Budget).

3.       Growth-related capital expenditure has risen from $5.1 billion in the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 to $7.2 billion in the current 10-Year Budget. The council has also updated its projection of development growth across the next 10 years. The council will repay the borrowing raised to pay for the investment in infrastructure through general rates, targeted rates, user charges, third party funding (like New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) subsidies) and development contributions (DCs).

4.       A review has been undertaken of the current contributions policy and the council has adopted a draft Contributions Policy 2019 (refer Attachment A) for consultation, which includes a number of changes.

5.       To recover the increased investment in growth-related infrastructure, the indicative urban DC price rises from around $21,000 to $26,000 (excluding GST).  As a result, the DC revenue the council expects to collect will rise to $2.7 billion, from $2.23 billion under the current policy.

6.       The demand placed on transport by different types of development has been reviewed. The analysis shows that retail and commercial development place substantially higher demand on transport infrastructure than is reflected in the current policy. The draft policy includes higher unit of demand factors for transport, and hence prices, for retail and commercial development, with smaller decreases for other development types. This would more fairly reflect the demand different development types place on the need to invest in infrastructure.

7.       The draft Contributions Policy 2019 also proposes:

·        extending the timeframe for the payment of DCs on residential construction; this will better align the time that residential builders pay DCs to the time they sell the developments

·        refining and changing funding areas to better match investment with beneficiaries, including adding areas for:

transport, to reflect areas where significant local infrastructure investment is planned

reserves, to provide more detail on projects and their location

·        minor amendments, including changes to development types.

8.       Consultation on the draft Contributions Policy 2019 is taking place from 19 October until 15 November 2018, including:

·        five have-your-say events held across the region

·        engagement with the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum

·        opportunity for submitters to personally present their feedback to councillors on 23 November 2018.

9.       Local board November meetings will consider the draft Contribution Policy 2019 and resolve feedback to inform the Governing Body’s decision-making in December.

10.     Consultation is supported by consultation document and supporting information (refer Attachments B and C respectively), which set out:

·        an overview of how the council is responding to growth and how DCs fit within this context

·        a description of how the council sets DC charges

·        the key changes in our draft Contributions Policy and why these have been proposed.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board:

a)      resolve feedback on the Contributions Policy 2019.

 

 

Horopaki / Context

11.     The current policy is known as the Contributions Policy 2015 (Variation A) and reflects the Long-term Plan 2015-2025. DCs have recovered approximately $400 million of funding for growth projects in the last three years.

12.     Council reviewed the current policy and recommended that it be amended to reflect changes to capital expenditure in the 10-Year Budget. At its meeting on 30 April 2018, the Governing Body agreed to consult on the draft Contributions Policy 2019 in May 2018.

13.     Feedback from the development community requested more detailed supporting information and a longer period for consultation on the draft policy. In response, at its meeting on 27 June 2018, the Governing Body agreed to extend the current policy until 31 January 2019 so that additional supporting information for the policy could be prepared and further consultation on the 2019 policy undertaken.

14.     The policy has been reviewed in accordance with the following principles:

·        purpose and principles of DCs under the Local Government Act 2002

·        equitable sharing of costs of growth between ratepayers, developers and other members of the community, having regard to such matters as who causes the costs and who receives the benefits

·        equitable sharing of costs of growth between different types of development and different funding areas

·        revenue predictability for the council and cost certainty for developers

·        administrative simplicity

·        ensuring legislative compliance.

15.     Schedule Five to the attached draft Contributions Policy 2019 considers the appropriateness of DCs as a funding source in accordance with the requirements of Section 101(3) of the Local Government Act 2002. Auckland Council’s Revenue and Financing Policy sets out how the council will fund capital and operating expenditure for each of its activities, including its decisions to use DCs to fund growth capital expenditure.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Capital expenditure and funding for Auckland’s growth

Capital investment and DC revenue

16.     The following table below sets out the changes in DC revenue by activity between the current policy and the draft Contributions Policy 2019.

DC revenue by activity ($ billion)

Current DC policy

Draft DC policy 2019

 Transport

0.7

1.1

 Stormwater

0.5

0.5

 Parks and community infrastructure

1.0

1.1

Total

2.2

2.7

Contributions pricing

17.     The 10-Year Budget 2018-2028 assumes that a Contributions Policy 2019 will be adopted reflecting the Revenue and Financing Policy position that growth-related infrastructure investment should be funded from DCs. The 10-Year Budget assumes that the policy will provide for DCs to recover $2.7 billion of the cost of the planned investment in growth infrastructure.

18.     The indicative urban DC will rise from around $21,000 to $26,000 (excluding GST). DCs vary widely depending on the type of development and the infrastructure needed to support growth in different locations.

19.     Some infrastructure investments provide benefits across the region or respond to cost pressures driven by growth, regardless of location. Under the proposed policy to recover these costs, every development would pay $8090 per housing unit equivalent (HUE) for regional infrastructure. However, the sub-regional and local requirements for infrastructure vary depending on the infrastructure required to support growth in that area and the capacity of existing infrastructure. As a result, DC prices would vary across the region, for example:

·        Manurewa-Papakura - new DC price will be $42,182 to reflect increase in stormwater and parks investment

·        Manukau Central - new DC price will be $22,572 as there is capacity available in existing network infrastructure.

Impact of increasing DC price

20.     Raising the price of DCs:

·        better aligns DCs with actual cost of infrastructure

·        increases certainty that infrastructure will be delivered

·        encourages developers to more accurately price land purchased for development to reflect future DC costs

·        negatively impacts developers who have paid for land based on current DC prices.

21.     Economic research indicates that increasing the DC price does not generally increase house prices. House prices are determined by the balance of supply and demand. Development is only cost plus where the value of land for housing is the same as its value in alternative uses, i.e. agriculture. The price of land that can be developed for housing or business use in Auckland is much higher than its value in agricultural use.

22.     Developers generally establish the price they will pay for land based on:

·        expected sale price of finished house (as set by the market – supply and demand)

-    less land development costs

-    less construction costs

-    less council cost, including DCs

-    less profit margin

-    equals the price paid for land.

Alternative options considered

23.     There are two alternatives to the proposed increase in DCs:

·        defer or halt planned capital projects supporting growth

·        increase ratepayer funding of these projects.

24.     The increase in DC price over the period of the 10-Year Budget is forecast to provide an additional $500 million of revenue. Without this revenue, the council would need to reduce its planned capital expenditure by between $1 billion and $4 billion, depending on which projects were prioritised. This sum exceeds the loss in revenue because DCs make up varying proportions of the funding of individual projects[4]. This option was not adopted as these investments are vital to:

·        maintain service levels in the face of growth pressures

·        support making land available for new development in both the greenfields and brownfields.

25.     To maintain the planned level of investment without increasing DCs would require an increase in rates funding of between $50 million and $200 million per annum. This is equivalent to an additional general rate increase of between 3 and 13 per cent. Land owners, developers and the owners of new construction are the beneficiaries of the portion of investment in infrastructure that supports growth. This option was not proposed as it is appropriate that the growth share of funding comes from the beneficiaries via DCs, not general ratepayers.

Possible legislative changes to funding of community infrastructure

26.     Central government has recently introduced the Local Government (Community Well-being) Amendment Bill which would restore the council’s ability to use DCs to fund a broader range of community infrastructure (including for example, public swimming pools and libraries). If this legislation passes, the council can consider changing its capital budgets and amending the policy to include the growth component of any qualifying expenditure.

Unit of demand factors

27.     Different types of development place different demands on infrastructure. The council uses unit of demand factors to fairly share the cost of infrastructure across development types.

28.     Demand factors are set relative to the standard residential dwelling of between 100m2 and 249m2. A standard residential dwelling is referred to as a household equivalent unit (HUE).  For example, a retirement unit is charged at 30 per cent of the rate for transport that a residential dwelling pays, i.e. 0.3 HUE.

Non-residential transport

29.     Transport demand factors are calculated using data on the daily volume of trips generated from each development type. For residential development, the demand factor is adjusted for relative occupancy levels between residential development types.

30.     A review of the statistical trip generation data shows that retail and commercial developments generate substantially more trips than residential and other development types. These results are consistent with staff experience of case-by-case analysis undertaken by the former councils of the transport impacts from this type of development.

31.     The transport demand factors proposed are set out in the following table. Because non-residential developments are usually larger than residential dwellings, the demand factors are translated into HUEs per 100m2.

Units of demand per 100m2

Development type

Current DC Policy

Draft DC Policy 2019

Commercial

0.37 HUE

0.73 HUE

Retail

0.47 HUE

2.79 HUE

Education and health

0.37 HUE

0.37 HUE

Production and distribution

0.29 HUE

0.10 HUE

Other non-residential not specified above

0.36 HUE

1.00 HUE

32.     These transport demand factors are comparable with those for other councils. Hamilton sets the rate for high demand non-residential at 2.75 HUEs (which includes retail), and Queenstown 2.83 HUEs. Christchurch and Wellington also use higher factors for commercial and retail development.

33.     The demand factors derived from the analysis above produce substantial price changes for retail and commercial development. As this type of development represents a small proportion of overall development, the price reduction for other development types is lower.

34.     As the transport component of DCs varies across the region based on the need for investment in each area, the exact price effects will vary. In broad average terms, the DC transport price for retail will rise by $18,000 per 100m2, and $2900 for commercial, if the proposed demand factors are used in comparison to the current factors. These will fall by $1450 per 100m2 for production and $500 for a standard residential dwelling. The impact is illustrated below with examples based on two recent developments:

·        5,000m2 retail mall development in the north would pay $1.3 million under the proposed demand factors, whereas it would be $224,000 under the current demand factors

·        50,000m2 production development in the south would pay $410,000 under the proposed demand factors, whereas they would pay $1.15 million under the current demand factors.

35.     Two alternative options to making the changes to non-residential transport unit of demand factors were considered:

·        retaining the status quo

·        move to the new factors in equal steps over a three-year period.

36.     Retaining the status quo was rejected on the basis that the evidence clearly shows that transport demand is much higher for retail and commercial development than for other development types. At present, other development is effectively subsidising retail and commercial development. Large developers operating nationwide will be aware of these differences in DC prices.

37.     As the price increases are substantial, the council could consider a three-year transition.  This option was rejected as it would extend the current subsidisation. The price changes are substantial; however, the subsidisation is also large. It is likely that developers operating nationwide will have been expecting this change for some time.

38.     It was also noted that a transition could create administration issues and present revenue risks that may be difficult to forecast. Developers often lodge consents early when they become aware of pending changes to contributions prices. A transition of this nature would create incentives for all development types around the staging of transitional price changes.  Retail developers may try to lodge consents prior to the date of changes and others may delay applications. This is likely to have implications for both our revenue forecasts and our consenting and DC assessment teams.

Reserves acquisition, reserve development and community facilities

39.     The council’s unit of demand factors for reserves acquisition, reserve development and community facilities are based primarily on the relative occupancy of different types of residential development compared to a standard residential dwelling.

40.     Council staff are reviewing the relative use of reserves and community facilities by the occupants of different residential development types. Part of this review involves undertaking an extensive survey of usage of reserves and community facilities by Aucklanders. This is to ensure this survey provides the best information it needs to cover Aucklanders’ use across seasons.

41.     The results of the survey are expected to be available early next year. Council staff will report the results of the review, including the survey data, in the first quarter of next year. If the review suggests changes should be considered to the units of demand for reserves acquisition, reserve development and community facilities, the policy can be amended at that time following consultation, if appropriate.

Remissions for Māori development and social housing

42.     The current contributions policy does not provide for remissions or waivers of DCs.  Feedback from Māori and social housing developers is that the requirement to pay DCs is an additional challenge to overcome that presents a further barrier to development. Iwi have raised the many difficulties associated with developing Māori land, as well as noting their recent gifting of land for parks and the historic confiscation of land for public works.

43.     Council staff do not recommend the use of DC remissions. Support for Māori development and social housing is better made transparently from a fixed grant budget or considered on a case-by-case basis. Grants enable the council to make decisions on the relative merits of individual proposals rather than automatically supporting or rejecting applications on predetermined criteria.

44.     The council currently offers support for DCs for Māori development through the Marae and Papakāinga grant made available through the Māori Cultural Initiatives Fund. The policies governing the fund are currently being reviewed and will be considered by the Community Development and Safety Committee later this year.

45.     Council does not currently offer a regional grant scheme that enables funding of DCs for social housing. The council’s position to date has been that social housing is a government responsibility. However, the council did provide a one-off grant of $475,000 to the City Mission for the development of the HomeGround facility. The grant was based on an estimate of DCs and consenting costs. Council staff recommend that if the council wishes to consider extending support for DCs for social housing, this should be through the development of a grants scheme as part of the Annual Plan 2019/2020. A grant can be used to fund any development costs and not just council fees, as was the case with the HomeGround grant.

46.     DCs are set to recover the cost of planned growth infrastructure from developers. Any remission of DCs would reduce revenue. The loss of revenue from a remission scheme cannot be recovered from other developers as they are only required to pay the cost of the demand they place on infrastructure. Remission of DCs for some developers do not change the level of demand for infrastructure from other developers.

47.     Revenue would instead need to be made up by reductions in expenditure or increases in general rates. Remissions administered under the Contributions Policy would need to provide for automatic trigger tests and hence an unconstrained budget.

48.     Further discussion of remissions for Māori development and social housing is set out in Attachment D.

Payment timing

49.     Developers prefer to pay DCs as close as possible to the potential realisation of their investment e.g. sale of land or buildings. The current payment timing for the main development types (other triggers make up a very small proportion of DCs) are at the issue of:

·        land title for subdivisions – around one year before sale

·        building consent for residential development – around six to 12 months before sale

·        code compliance certificate for non-residential development – around time of sale.

50.     DCs invoiced on building consent for residential development are approximately 25 per cent of total DC revenue. Residential developments are currently required to pay DCs when the building consent is issued. Council staff propose to adjust the payment timing for residential developments as follows:

·        A consent that creates five or more dwelling units will be treated as a non-residential development. This will allow the DCs to be invoiced at the time the Code of Compliance Certificate (CCC) is applied for. This will extend the time until council receives payment by an average of 12 months.

·        All other residential consents will be invoiced six months after building consent is issued.

51.     This change will support residential developers by better aligning the requirement to pay DCs with developers’ cash flows. Reducing the amount of capital investment required prior to construction will make it easier for developers to finance and progress residential projects.  This proposal formed part of the consultation on the draft Contributions Policy 2019 in May 2018 and was supported by all 17 submissions that commented on it.

52.     The proposed changes will lead to a one-off reduction in the council’s DC revenue of $10 million for 2018/2019. The council can manage this change within its present budget. The change is not material over the 10-Year Budget period as all developments will still pay, just slightly later.

53.     The council includes the interest cost of the difference between the receipt of DCs and the timing of investment in growth-related projects. The cost of receiving DC payments on residential building development slightly later will be factored into the DC price. The proposal will increase the DC price by between $100 and $200 (or less than 1 per cent) on average, depending on the units of demand used for transport.

54.     Consideration was also given to retaining the status quo. However, preference was given to easing the cash flow demands on residential builders, rather than land developers focusing on subdivision and non-residential builders. Residential builders are often operating at a smaller scale with more limited access to capital. Providing them additional time eases their cash flow demands and supports the dwelling construction the council is seeking.

55.     Neither the proposal or the status quo present any risk to the council in terms of payment security. The council has statutory powers to recover unpaid DCs, including registering a statutory charge on property where DCs have not been paid. While the council has some aged DC debt, this is a very small proportion of the DCs invoiced over the last eight years. In this time, the council has written off less than $100,000 of DC debt out of $740 million invoiced.

56.     Two administrative changes are also proposed to payment timing and enforcement.  Developers who require a land use consent, but cannot be assessed for DCs on a resource consent or building consent, will be required to pay on land use consent. At present, non-residential developments are required to pay on the issue of a CCC or certificate of public use (CPU). Some developments do not require a CCC or CPU to operate and are avoiding payment. It is proposed that all non-residential developments will be required to pay 24 months after the issue of a building consent at the latest. This provides sufficient time for developers to realise their investment whilst ensuring securing of payment for council.

Other proposed changes to the Policy

Funding areas

57.     The draft Contributions Policy 2019 includes seven additional funding areas for transport. These funding areas allocate the cost of transport infrastructure to the priority growth areas in the north-west, Dairy Flat/Wainui/Silverdale, Greater Tamaki and Albany, and transport infrastructure (mainly road sealing) for the benefit of rural areas in the north, west and south.

58.     Changes have also been made to the funding areas for reserves to provide a more refined allocation of these costs to development areas. The greenfield, urban and rural funding areas have been replaced with Northern Greenfield, Southern Greenfield, North-west Greenfield and Urban funding areas. As a result, the DC costs better reflect the differences in investment required to meet the needs of future growth. A new funding area has also been created for reserves and community facilities in Greater Tamaki to reflect the specific needs and plans for that area.

59.     Two new stormwater funding areas have also been added where investment is now planned; Hauraki Gulf Islands and Omaha/Matakana.

Development Types

60.     Amendments are also proposed to the following development types to better reflect the demand they place on infrastructure or clarify definitions. Maintaining the status quo for these areas was rejected to ensure an appropriate level of cost was recovered and to reduce the administration costs associated with customer confusion.

Student accommodation

61.     Create a new ‘student accommodation units’ category for student accommodation (to be administered by schools/universities). This category will have a lower price for transport and open space than a standard residential dwelling because of lower occupancy.

Small ancillary dwelling units

62.     Change the size definition of small ancillary dwelling units to those with a gross floor area less than or equal to 65m². This aligns the Contributions Policy with the definition in the Unitary Plan to avoid customer confusion.

Retirement villages

63.     Amend the definition of a retirement village to align with the Unitary Plan to avoid customer confusion.

Accommodation units for short term rental

64.     Amend the definition of accommodation units to clarify that they include properties used for short term rental. Long-term rentals will continue to be treated as dwelling units.

A long-term view of growth infrastructure costs

65.     The Auckland Council Long-term Plan 2018-2028 includes over $26 billion of investment for Auckland including significant investment to support new development over the next 10 years. This investment is not, however, sufficient to enable all future urban areas to be developed now or all of the intensification projects to proceed immediately.

66.     The proposed contributions policy seeks to recover a fair share of the infrastructure costs currently planned from developments that are enabled by or benefit from this planned infrastructure. In areas that already have sufficient infrastructure, or where it is planned within the next 10 years, the policy describes the contribution to the cost of this infrastructure that will be charged to different types of development.

67.     For areas where the infrastructure provision is not already provided or scheduled for the 2018-2028 period, development cannot yet proceed due to the infrastructure constraints. The council will continue to work on determining the cost and funding arrangements for the infrastructure required. The development charges included in the draft Contributions Policy 2019 do not yet fully reflect the true cost of providing infrastructure in those areas. For some of these development areas, particularly greenfield areas, the council infrastructure cost per house has been estimated at around $70,000. Once the costs and funding arrangements are clear, growth charges will be updated to ensure they are paying their fair share when the areas are able to be developed.

68.     Limits on the council’s ability to borrow mean that additional investment, even if it is eventually funded by developers, would require new or alternative financing mechanisms. Council continues to work on new ways to partner with others to build and finance infrastructure. If council can do this successfully, it will enable more development areas to be supported earlier.

Public consultation

69.     Public consultation will run from 19 October to 4pm on 15 November 2018.

70.     Five have-your-say events (HYSE) have been planned to take place during the public consultation period:

·        South - Manukau

·        North - Takapuna

·        Central – CBD

·        Retirement village developers - CBD

·        Western Springs Garden Hall (evening).

71.     The location and timing of HYSE are scheduled to provide for developers and the public to engage with the council at locations and timings organised to suit their needs and preferences. These five HYSE provide an opportunity for developers and other interested parties to learn more about the draft policy and provide feedback. All comments will be captured and reported through to the Finance and Performance Committee to help inform decision-making on the final policy.

72.     It is planned to ask those providing written feedback if they would like to register their interest in personally presenting their feedback to councillors on Friday 23 November 2018. This will provide time for 30 presentations, allowing 15 minutes for each presentation including questions. Seventeen submitters expressed an interest to be heard following the May 2018 consultation. The invitation will note that it may not be possible to make time to hear everyone if the event is over-subscribed given the need to manage costs and limitations on councillors’ available time. If necessary, slots would be allocated on a ‘first come, first served’ basis.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

73.     The DC price varies by location depending on the cost of infrastructure required to support development in an area. The funding areas are set out in the attached policy documents.

74.     Council staff provided briefings on the draft Contributions Policy 2019 to local board cluster meetings in October 2018. 

75.     Local boards have a statutory responsibility for identifying and communicating the interests and preferences of the people in its local board area in relation to the context of the strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws of Auckland Council. This report provides an opportunity for the local board to give input on the draft Contributions Policy 2019.

76.     Local board decisions and feedback are being sought in this report to inform the Governing Body’s consideration of the adoption of the Contribution Policy 2019 in December 2018.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

77.     Council does not hold information on the ethnicity of developers. The impact on Māori will be similar to the impact on other developers.

78.     Feedback from Māori received in the May 2018 consultation has been considered as part of the development of the revised draft Contributions Policy 2019. Key issues raised were that the Contributions Policy should:

·        reflect the Auckland Plan 2050 outcome to support Māori identify and wellbeing, for example by exempting (remitting) DCs for Māori developments 

·        include specific development types for Māori development.

79.     The remission of DCs for Māori development is discussed in this report.

80.     Development types are created based on evidence that different types of development generate different levels of demand for infrastructure. The policy does not currently contain specific Māori development types. Māori developments are categorised under broader development types based on the demand they generate. For example, kaumātua housing is treated the same as retirement villages, and marae fall under community facilities. As more Māori developments occur, evidence of demand generation can be used to reclassify developments or create new development types.

81.     Māori have expressed aspirations for their land that include new forms of development that may not fit into existing development types. Legislation provides for the reconsideration of DC assessments for individual developments where evidence is available to show that the demand it will generate is less than its classification under the existing policy. Council also proactively reviews the availability of evidence for demand, and amends the Contributions Policy for new or adjusted development types and demand factors as evidence becomes available. Council will continue to work with Māori to ensure that the Contributions Policy, in its design and its application, appropriately reflects the realities of Māori development.

82.     Feedback from iwi on the draft Contributions Policy 2019 will be sought as part of public consultation and via engagement with the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum. Mana whenua will also be invited to present their feedback to councillors through the formal engagement for stakeholders referred to in the public consultation section above.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

83.     The financial implications are set out in the report.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

84.     Investment in DC funded growth-related infrastructure carries the risk of development projections, and therefore DC revenue, not being met. These risks will be managed through monitoring consent applications and DC revenue.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

85.     Public consultation on the draft Contributions Policy 2019 is to be held from 19 October to 15 November 2018 as above.  Feedback would be reported to the Governing Body workshop on 29 November 2018. Council staff would report on adoption of the final policy to the 13 December 2018 meeting of the Governing Body.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Draft Contributions Policy 2019 (Under Separate Cover)

 

b

Consultation document (Under Separate Cover)

 

c

Supporting information (Under Separate Cover)

 

d

Remissions of development contributions for Māori development and social housing (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Felipe Panteli - Senior Policy Advisor

Beth Sullivan - Principal Advisor Policy

Andrew Duncan - Manager Financial Policy

Authorisers

Matthew Walker - Group Chief Financial Officer

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

Chairpersons' Report

 

File No.: CP2018/21286

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       An opportunity is provided for the Chairperson of the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board to provide updates on the projects and issues relevant to the board. 

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board:

a)      receive and thank Chairperson G Wood for his verbal report.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Heather Skinner - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

Elected Members' Reports

 

File No.: CP2018/21289

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       An opportunity is provided for the members of the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board to provide updates on the projects and issues they have been involved in since the October meeting.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board:

a)      receive and thank members for their verbal reports.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Heather Skinner - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board - Record of Workshops October 2018

 

File No.: CP2018/21295

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To provide a record of Devonport-Takapuna Local Board workshops held during October 2018.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       At the workshop held on 02 October 2018, the board was briefed on:

·        Arts Community and Events work programme

-     Update on Community Centres  

·        Community Facilities work programme

-     SunSmart Project

-      Windsor Reserve, Bean Rock Tower

-      Operational and maintenance update

·        Parks, Sports and Recreation work programme.

 

3.       At the workshop held on 09 October 2018, the board was briefed on:

·    Arts Community and Events work programme

-     Takapuna Beach Polo   

·    Auckland Transport

-     Auckland Transport forward work programme

-      Devonport on demand rideshare service    

·    Infrastructure and Environmental Services Work Programme

-     Eco-neighbourhoods.

 

4.       At the workshop held on 30 October 2018, the board was briefed on:

·    3 Victoria Road, Devonport

 

5.       Records of these workshops are attached to this report.

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board:

a)      receive the records of the workshops held in October 2018.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board - 02 October 2018 Workshop Record

175

b

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board - 09 October 2018 Workshop Record

177

c

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board - 30 October 2018 Workshop Record

179

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Heather Skinner - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

Governance Forward Work Calendar

 

File No.: CP2018/21411

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To provide an update on reports to be presented to the board for 2018. 

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       The governance forward work calendar was introduced in 2016 as part of Auckland Council’s quality advice programme. The calendar aims to support local boards’ governance role by:

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

·    clarifying what advice is expected and when

·    clarifying the rationale for reports.

3.       The calendar also aims to provide guidance to staff supporting local boards and greater transparency for the public. The calendar is updated monthly, reported to local board business meetings, and distributed to council staff.

4.       The November 2018 governance forward work calendar for the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board is provided as Attachment A.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board:

a)      note the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board governance forward work calendar for November 2018 as set out in Attachment A of this agenda report. 

 

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Devonport-Takapuna Local Board Governance Forward Work Calendar November 2018

183

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Heather Skinner - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

 


Devonport-Takapuna Local Board

20 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

    

    

 



[1] Awareness of and attitudes towards voting in the 2016 Auckland Council elections, by Auckland Council, Citizen Insight and Engagement, 2017. Available on http://www.knowledgeauckland.org.nz/publication/?mid=1657&DocumentType=1&

[2] Frequently Asked Questions on i-voting, https://e-estonia.com/wp-content/uploads/faq-a4-v02-i-voting-1.pdf

[3] Report of the Electoral Commission on the 2017 General Election: Provided in accordance with section 8(1) of the Electoral Act 1993 (April 2018) p.13

[4] The proportion of DC funding differs for different projects i.e. reserve acquisitions are primarily DC funded whereas transport projects have a mix of general rates, NZTA and DC funding.  Lower DC funding for parks would reduce capex by a similar amount.  Lower DC funding for transport would remove projects of a higher value as we would lose access to the associated NZTA funding.