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

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Wednesday, 21 November 2018

4:30pm

Local Board Office
2 Glen Road
Browns Bay

 

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Julia Parfitt, JP

 

Deputy Chairperson

Janet Fitzgerald, JP

 

Members

Chris Bettany

 

 

David Cooper

 

 

Gary Holmes

 

 

Caitlin Watson

 

 

Vicki Watson

 

 

Mike Williamson

 

 

(Quorum 4 members)

 

 

 

Vivienne Sullivan

Local Board Democracy Advisor

 

14 November 2018

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 427 3317

Email: vivienne.sullivan@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 

 DELEGATIONS HIBISCUS AND BAYS LOCAL BOARD 2016-2019

 

Portfolio

Description

Resolution

Local Board Members

Minor landowner approvals and landlord approvals including events

To confirm if the matter is minor for staff to exercise their delegation for landowner approvals

To approve minor landlord approvals

HB/2016/190

Julia Parfitt -Chairperson

Janet Fitzgerald - Deputy Chairperson  

Gary Holmes - Alternate

Transport Information Group

Discuss transport issues/projects

HB/2016/190

Julia Parfitt -Chairperson

Janet Fitzgerald - Deputy Chairperson  

David Cooper - Alternate

Resource consent applications 

Input into notification decisions for resource consent applications 

HB/2016/190

Gary Holmes 

Janet Fitzgerald  - Deputy Chairperson

David Cooper - Alternate

Notified Resource Consents

Notified Plan Changes

Notices of Requirement

To prepare and submit local board views and speak to those local board views at any hearings

HB/2018/55

Gary Holmes or

Julia Parfitt –Chairperson or

Janet Fitzgerald - Deputy Chairperson  

 

Urgent Decision Making

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

HB/2016/195

Julia Parfitt – Chairperson

Janet Fitzgerald-Deputy Chairperson

Christina Bettany - Alternates

Infrastructure and Environmental Services

To approve minor changes to 2018/2019 work programme

HB/2018/96

Chris Bettany

Julia Parfitt – Chairperson

Janet Fitzgerald - Deputy Chairperson

Arts, Community and Events

To approve minor changes to 2018/2019 work programme

HB/2018/99

Chris Bettany

Caitlin Watson

Mike Williamson - Alternates

Parks, Sport and Recreation

To approve minor changes to 2018/2019 work programme

HB/2018/99

David Cooper

Mike Williamson

Caitlin Watson - Alternate-

Service, Strategy and Information

To approve minor changes to 2018/2019 work programme

HB/2018/99

Gary Holmes

Julia Parfitt – Chairperson

Vicki Watson - Alternate

Economic Development

To approve minor changes to 2018/2019 work programme

HB/2018/100

Janet Fitzgerald – Deputy Chairperson

Gary Holmes

Vicki Watson - Alternate

Community Facilities and CF: Leases

To approve minor changes to 2018/2019 work programme/s

HB/2018/122

Julia Parfitt – Chairperson

Janet Fitzgerald-Deputy Chairperson

Caitlin Watson - Alternates

Silverdale Led Heritage Character Design Guidelines

To approve any minor changes

 

Janet Fitzgerald – Deputy Chairperson

Caitlin Watson

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Annual Report 2017/2018

To approve any minor changes

 

Janet Fitzgerald – Deputy Chairperson

 

 

Appointments to outside organisations

 

Organisation

Local Board Member

Vaughan Homestead (Torbay Historical Society)

Julia Parfitt - Chairperson

Chris Bettany - Alternate

Victor Eaves Management Committee

Mike Williamson

Local Government New Zealand Zone One (Auckland and Northland)

Janet Fitzgerald  - Deputy Chairperson

 

Business Improvement Districts (BIDS)

 

Destination Orewa Beach

Vicki Watson

David Cooper - Alternate

Torbay

Chris Bettany

Julia Parfitt - Chairperson- Alternate

Browns Bay

Chris Bettany

Gary Holmes - Alternate

Mairangi Bay

David Cooper

Julia Parfitt - Chairperson- Alternate

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                        PAGE

1          Welcome                                                                                                                         7

2          Apologies                                                                                                                        7

3          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   7

4          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               7

5          Leave of Absence                                                                                                          7

6          Acknowledgements                                                                                                       7

7          Petitions                                                                                                                          7

8          Deputations                                                                                                                    7

8.1     Dog Park - Hibiscus and Bays                                                                            7

8.2     Cars on Stanmore Bay Beach                                                                            8

8.3     Mairangi Bay Surf Life Saving Club                                                                   8

9          Public Forum                                                                                                                  8

10        Extraordinary Business                                                                                                8

11        Hibiscus and Bays Quick Response Grants Round Two 2018/2019 allocations 11

12        Trial of online voting at the 2019 local elections                                                     21

13        Local government elections 2019 – order of names on voting documents          35

14        Revocation of the Reserves Act 1977 Status over Long Bay Beach Road Reserve, 1045 Beach Road, Torbay                                                                                                    45

15        New Community Lease to Titoki Montessori School Incorporated at Stredwick Reserve, Torbay                                                                                                                           53

16        Application for Landlord Approval by the Manly Sailing Club Incorporated to Install a Boat Rack                                                                                                                     61

17        Auckland Transport Update to Hibiscus and Bays Local Board November 2018 69

18        Auckland Council's Quarterly Performance Report: Hibiscus and Bays Local Board for Quarter One 2018/2019                                                                                                97

19        Draft Contributions Policy                                                                                        131

20        Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan consultation feedback and recommended changes                                                                                                                       143

21        Feedback on proposed topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy   189

22        New road names in the 38 Moffat Limited subdivision at 38A Moffat Road, Red Beach                                                                                                                                     207

23        New road names in the Changda International New Zealand Limited subdivision at 44a Sunnyheights Road, Orewa                                                                                     215

24        Ward Councillors Update                                                                                         225

25        Governance Forward Work Calendar                                                                     227

26        Record of Workshop Meetings                                                                                233  

27        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

28        Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public                                                               241

C1       Acquisition of land for open space - Silverdale                                                     241  

 


1          Welcome

 

 

2          Apologies

 

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

 

 

3          Declaration of Interest

 

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

 

 

4          Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 17 October 2018, 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 Hibiscus and Bays Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

 

8.1       Dog Park - Hibiscus and Bays

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       Ms Claire Teirney and Ms Jill Parsons have requested a deputation to address the local board on the siting of a fenced dog part in the Hibiscus Coast area

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a)      thank Ms Teirney and Ms Parsons for their presentation.

 

 

8.2       Cars on Stanmore Bay Beach

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       Ms Claire Teirney has requested a deputation to the local board to discuss vehicles on Stanmore Bay Beach.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a)      thank Ms Teirney for her presentation on vehicles on Stanmore Bay Beach.

 

 

 

8.3       Mairangi Bay Surf Life Saving Club

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       Representatives of the Mairangi Bay Surf Life Saving Club have requested a deputation to discuss the proposed upgrade of the club.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a)      Thank the representatives of the Mairangi Bay Surf Life Saving Club for their presentation.

 

 

9          Public Forum

 

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

 

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

 

 

10        Extraordinary Business

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

Hibiscus and Bays Quick Response Grants Round Two 2018/2019 allocations

 

File No.: CP2018/20352

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To fund, part-fund or decline applications received for Hibiscus and Bays Quick Response Grants, Round Two 2018/2019.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       This report presents applications received in Hibiscus and Bays Quick Response Grants, Round Two 2018/2019 (see Attachment A).

3.       The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board adopted the Hibiscus and Bays Grants Programme 2018/2019 on 7 June 2018 (see Attachment B). The document sets application guidelines for contestable community grants submitted to the local board.

4.       The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $694,120 for the 2018/2019 financial year, including $195,274 carried over from the 2017/2018 financial year. 

5.       A total of $4,005 was allocated to Quick Response Grants, Round One and $287,238.24 was allocated to Local Grants, Round One 2018/2019. Additionally, $26,130 was allocated to other initiatives (HB/2018/168 and HB/2018/172). This leaves a total of $376,746.76 to be allocated between two quick response and one local grant round. 

6.       Twenty applications were received for Quick Response Grants, Round Two 2018/2019, requesting a total of $33,256.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a)      agree to fund, part-fund or decline each application received in Hibiscus and Bays Quick Response Round Two, listed in Table One.   

Application ID

Organisation

Main focus

Requesting funding for

Amount requested

Eligibility

QR1906-202

Caring Crew New Zealand

Community

Towards the purchase of 500 reusable water bottles for families in hospital.

$2,000.00

Eligible

QR1906-203

The Hibiscus Coast Elderly Peoples' Luncheon Club

Community

Towards the food and beverages for a Christmas luncheon.

$500.00

Eligible

QR1906-204

Auckland North Community and Development Incorporated

Community

Towards the venue hire and presenters’ fees to deliver three professional development workshops.

$1,724.00

Eligible

QR1906-205

Whangaparaoa Ladies Friendship Club

Community

Towards the bus hire costs for two day-trips to Birkenhead and Mangawhai.

$1,000.00

Eligible

QR1906-210

Taiaotea Air Scouts

Community

Towards the purchase of six folding tables and six life jackets.

$1,990.00

Eligible

QR1906-211

Bays Youth Community Trust

Community

Towards the youth workers’ salaries.

$2,000.00

Eligible

QR1906-212

Coast Youth Community Trust Incorporated

Community

Towards the overall costs to run youth camps in 2019.

$2,000.00

Eligible

QR1906-216

Youthline Auckland Charitable Trust

Community

Towards a contribution of the triage clinical staff salary.

$2,000.00

Eligible

QR1906-224

Orewa Sea Scout Group

Community

Towards the purchase of new camping equipment.

$2,000.00

Eligible

QR1906-229

YMCA North Incorporated

Community

Towards the purchase of new audio-visual equipment for the recreation hall at Shakespeare Lodge.

$2,000.00

Eligible

QR1906-231

Alcohol Healthwatch Trust

Community

Towards the overall costs to conduct an audit and produce a report detailing external signage at off-license premises.

$1,850.00

Ineligible

QR1906-222

The Sustainable North Trust trading as Hibiscus Coast Zero Waste

Environment

Towards the construction costs of a wooden recycling station for the Whangaparaoa Library.

$760.00

Eligible

QR1906-213

The Korean Society of Auckland

Events

Towards the North Shore Events Centre venue hire for Korean Day 2019.

$2,000.00

Eligible

QR1906-215

Hibiscus Coast Kindergarten

Events

Towards the costs to make the annual “Ducky Derby” a zero waste event.

$207.00

Eligible

QR1906-206

Mairangi Bay Tennis Club

Sport and recreation

Towards the purchase of a court sweeper and three tennis nets.

$1,952.00

Eligible

QR1906-209

Torbay Sailing Club

Sport and recreation

Towards the purchase of six waterproof, high frequency radios for the Sir Peter Blake Torbay Regatta.

$1,723.00

Eligible

QR1906-218

The Browns Bay Racquets Club Incorporated

Sport and recreation

Towards coaching fees and the purchase of tennis balls for junior and senior social nights.

$1,550.00

Eligible

QR1906-219

Hibiscus Coast Softball Club Incorporated

Sport and recreation

Towards the purchase of a backstop net.

$2,000.00

Eligible

QR1906-225

East Coast Bays and Districts Cricket Club Incorporated

Sport and recreation

Towards the coaching costs to deliver cricket programmes at the club and in local schools.

$2,000.00

Eligible

QR1906-226

Windsor Park Community and Multisport Hub Incorporated

Sport and recreation

Towards the project manager fees for the Windsor Park redevelopment project.

$2,000.00

Eligible

Total Requested

 

 

$33,256.00

 

 

Horopaki / Context

7.       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.

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

9.       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.

10.     The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board adopted their grants programme for 2018/2019 on 7 June 2018 and will operate three quick response, two multiboard and two local grant rounds for this financial year. 

11.     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.

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 Hibiscus and Bays Local Board is required to fund, part-fund or decline these grant applications against the local board priorities identified in the local board grant programme.

14.     The local 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 Hibiscus and Bays Quick Response Grants, Round Two 2018/2019 (see Attachment A) is provided.

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

17.     Five applicants applying to Hibiscus and Bays Quick Response Grants, Round Two 2018/2019 indicate projects that target Māori or Māori outcomes.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

18.     The allocation of grants to community groups is within the adopted 2018-2028 Long-term Plan and 2018/2019 local board agreement.

19.     The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board has set a total community grants budget of $694,120 for the 2018/2019 financial year, which includes $195,274 that was carried over from the 2017/2018 financial year. 

20.     A total of $4,005 was allocated to Quick Response Grants, Round One and $287,238.24 was allocated to Local Grants, Round One 2018/2019. Additionally, $26,130 was allocated to other initiatives (HB/2018/168 and HB/2018/172). This leaves a total of $376,746.76 to be allocated between two quick response and one local grant rounds. 

21.     Twenty applications were received for Quick Response Grants, Round Two 2018/2019, requesting a total of $33,256.

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 Hibiscus and Bays Local Board allocation of funding for Quick Response Grants Round Two, 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

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Grant Programme 2018/2019

17

b

Hibiscus and Bays Quick Response, Round Two 2018/2019 grant applications (Under Separate Cover)

 

      

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Makenzie Hirz - Senior Community Grants Advisor

Authorisers

Marion Davies - Grant Operations Manager

Shane King - Head of Operations Support

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

Trial of online voting at the 2019 local elections

 

File No.: CP2018/20497

 

  

 

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 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 paper 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 Hibiscus and Bays 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 have been organised in Wellington on 26 October 2018 and Auckland on 31 October 2018.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Why online voting?

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 for 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 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 Information and Communications Technology (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 paper 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, DHBs 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.     The 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 the 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; only three 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; about nine 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 that 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 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 paper, 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 consideration when making its 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

31

b

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

33

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Elodie Fontaine - Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - General Manager Democracy Services

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

Local government elections 2019 – order of names on voting documents

 

File No.: CP2018/20876

 

  

 

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 Hibiscus and Bays 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, easier to use and to 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 expected statistically 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 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. 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 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

39

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - General Manager Democracy Services

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

Revocation of the Reserves Act 1977 Status over Long Bay Beach Road Reserve, 1045 Beach Road, Torbay

 

File No.: CP2018/21321

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To endorse the revocation of the Reserves Act 1977 status over a parcel of land which constitutes part of the Long Bay Beach Road Reserve, 1045 Beach Road, Torbay.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       This report deals with the proposed endorsement of revocation of the Reserves Act 1977 status of a parcel of land located at 1045 Beach Road, Torbay.

3.       The parcel of land forms part of the Long Bay Beach Road Reserve and is known as Section 1 SO 522319. The entire reserve is a classified esplanade reserve.

4.       The land parcel is occupied by the Sir Peter Blake Marine Education and Recreation Board in terms of a community lease. The lease commenced in 1984 for a period of 33 years and the group is exercising their right of renewal for a further period of 33 years commencing in 2017 and affecting final expiry during 2050.

5.       The primary purpose of the revocation is to allow the group to continue occupying the site as the land classification does not allow for certain activities.

6.       The revocation of reserve status is necessary because the group’s activities and assets within the reserve conflict with the purposes of an esplanade reserve and make them illegal in terms of the Reserves Act 1977:

i)          buildings are not permitted on an esplanade reserve

ii)         overnight accommodation is not permitted on esplanade reserves

iii)         hiring out buildings for private functions and other commercial and revenue raising activities is not permitted on esplanade reserves.

7.       The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board, in terms of delegated authority under Section 24 (1) of the Reserves Act, has the power to endorse the revocation.

8.       After endorsing the revocation, a new lease can be issued to the group after the Department of Conservation approves the revocation.  Once revoked the land will revert to being held by the council under the Local Government Act 2002.

9.       Section 1 SO 522319 is the only portion of the reserve that requires its reserve classification to be revoked. The remainder of the reserve will retain its Reserves Act 1977 status.

10.     Public notification and iwi engagement regarding the proposed revocation has been completed with no submissions received.

11.     This report recommends the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board endorse the revocation of the Reserves Act 1977 status of the parcel of land situated at 1045 Beach Road, Torbay known as Section 1 SO 522319.

 


 

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a)      endorse the revocation of the Reserves Act 1977 status of that parcel of land known as Section 1 SO 522319 in terms of Section 24 (1) of the Reserves Act 1977 as represented by the survey office plan appended as Attachment A.

b)      direct staff to apply to the Department of Conservation requesting the proposed revocation be approved.

 

Horopaki / Context

12.     The parcel of land known as Section 1 SO 522319 to be revoked was historically part of Lot 3 DP 78206, situated at 1045 Beach Road, Torbay and is a classified esplanade reserve.

13.     The western portion of the reserve is currently occupied by the Sir Peter Blake Marine Education and Recreation Board in terms of a community occupancy agreement.

14.     The group operates a marine education and recreation centre which teaches principles of kaitiakitanga (guardianship and conservation). Some of the activities offered include:

i)          land based activities such as abseiling and orienteering

ii)         water based activities such as kayaking, sailing and raft building

iii)         activities aimed at strengthening team work capabilities based on physical and cognitive challenges.

15.     The group intends on renewing their lease to enable them to continue their activities as mentioned above.

16.     It was during the renewal process that staff discovered that the underlying land classification was not suited to the group’s building or their activities.

17.     To remedy the conflict between the use of the land and its classification, council staff have surveyed off a portion of the reserve to enable its reserve status to be revoked. The newly surveyed parcel is known as Section 1 SO 522319 and consists of those parts of the reserve which contains the group’s building.

18.     The remainder of the reserve will continue to enjoy reserve status and will not be affected by the revocation.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

19.     In order for the group to legally continue its occupation of the site the underlying land classification issue needs to be addressed.

20.     The group’s building and activities do not comply with the land classification due to:

i)          the inability of the land classification to reconcile itself with the group’s building

ii)         overnight accommodation, private functions and commercial activities are not tolerated by the current land classification.

21.     Council staff believe the most practical way to resolve this is to revoke the reserve classification of the parcel of land known as Section 1 SO 522319.

22.     The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board has the authority to endorse the revocation in terms of a delegation by Auckland Council’s Governing Body made on 28 September 2017.

 

23.     Subsequent to public notification and iwi engagement staff’s advice is to endorse the revocation of reserve status in terms of this report. The public notice was made available at the Browns Bay and Orewa Local Board offices and advertised in the North Shore Times for the legislated time period. A copy of the published notice is appended as Attachment B.

24.     Once the local board has resolved on this matter an application will be made to the Department of Conservation to approve the revocation by publication in the New Zealand Gazette.  Once published the parcel of land will revert to being held in fee simple by Auckland Council under the Local Government Act 2002.

25.     On completion of the revocation a new lease to the group can be considered.

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

26.     The continued use of the land parcel by the group supports the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Plan 2017 outcome relating to open spaces and quality recreation, creating opportunities to enhance community participation and to advance environmental protection.

27.     The local board has expressed its support for the group and the proposed revocation on 24 May 2018.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

28.     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, the Long-term Plan 2018-2028, the Unitary Plan and individual local board plans.

29.     Support for Māori initiatives and outcomes are detailed in Whiria Te Muka Tangata, Auckland Council’s Māori Responsiveness Framework. An aim of community leasing is to increase Māori wellbeing through targeted support for Māori community development projects. Additionally, it seeks to improve access to facilities and participation for Māori living in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area

30.     The activities of the group are open to all user groups which includes Māori.

31.     By enabling the group to continue offering educational activities Māori can benefit directly from the kaitiakitanga programmes offered.

32.     Engagement was undertaken from June to August 2018 with the iwi groups identified as having an interest in land in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area

33.     Engagement included:

i)          a mana whenua forum presentation held at the Orewa Local Board Offices on 6 June 2018

ii)         written notification of the proposed revocation to iwi groups representative of mana whenua in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area, specifically those with an interest in the Long Bay region.

34.     No objections to the proposed revocation were received.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

35.     Direct costs to community facilities have amounted to just over $1,077.00 for the public notification and survey costs of $7,130.00. The administrative fee payable to the Department Conservation is estimated to be between $3,000.00 and $4,000.00.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

36.     If the land classification is not rectified council will be unable to issue a new lease to the group. This potentially exposes council to a claim for damages as the group has a right of renewal for a further 33 years.

37.     No concerns were raised by the public or mana whenua, therefore council staff are of the opinion that the benefits of endorsing the revocation outweigh the risks.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

38.     If the local board resolves to endorse the revocation of the Reserves Act 1977 status over the parcel of land known as Section 1 SO 522319 council staff will apply to the Department of Conservation for approval of the revocation.

39.     Once revocation has been completed a new lease can be granted to the Sir Peter Blake Marine Education and Recreation Board.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment A Section 1 SO 522319

49

b

Attachment B Public Notice North Shore Times

51

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Gert van Staden - Community Lease Advisor

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

New Community Lease to Titoki Montessori School Incorporated at Stredwick Reserve, Torbay

 

File No.: CP2018/21329

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To grant a new community lease to Titoki Montessori School Incorporated at Stredwick Reserve, 70 Stredwick Drive, Torbay.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       Titoki Montessori School Incorporated holds a community lease for the council-owned building situated on Stredwick Reserve.

3.       The current lease commenced on 1 April 2008 and expired on 31 March 2018. The lease is currently holding over on a month-by-month basis. The school has applied for a new community lease over the premises to continue with their activities.

4.       The school provides Montessori preschool education for children in the local community and fosters independence, respect and creativity. The school is integral to the community which is reflected in the school’s roll remaining full over the years. There is currently a waiting list for new enrolments.

5.       This report recommends the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board grant a new community lease to Titoki Montessori School Incorporated. The recommendations within this report align with the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Plan 2017 outcome: people are involved and have a strong sense of pride in the look and feel of their local areas.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a)      grant a new community lease to Titoki Montessori School Incorporated for part of the land and council-owned building comprising 680m2 (more or less) at Stredwick Reserve, 70 Stredwick Drive, Torbay described as Part Lot 1 Deposited Plan 46825 (Attachment A) subject to the following terms and conditions:

i)        term:  five years commencing 1 April 2018 with one five-year right of renewal and a final expiry date of 31 March 2028

ii)       rent:  $1.00 plus GST per annum if requested

iii)      maintenance fee: $500.00 plus GST per annum

iv)      that part of the land and council-owned building comprising 585m2 (more or less) to be granted under section 61(2A) of the Reserves Act 1977 (marked A on Attachment A of the agenda report)

v)      that part of the land comprising 95m2 (more or less) to be granted under section 73(3) of the Reserves Act 1977 (marked B on Attachment A of the agenda report)

vi)      all other terms and conditions in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977 and the Auckland Council Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012

b)      approve Titoki Montessori School Incorporated community outcomes plan as attached (Attachment B of the agenda report).

 

 

 

 

Horopaki / Context

6.       This report considers the new community lease to Titoki Montessori School Incorporated (the school). 

7.       The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board is the allocated authority relating to local, recreation, sport and community facilities, including community leasing matters.

Land and buildings

8.       The school occupies part of the land and council-owned building at Stredwick Reserve, 70 Stredwick Drive, Torbay described as Part Lot 1 Deposited Plan 46825 on SO 63295 (Attachment A). Part Lot 1 is currently held in fee simple by Auckland Council and comprises of two parts, a 1184 square metre section classified as local purpose (community building) reserve and the remainder is classified as recreation reserve, subject to the Reserves Act 1977 (Attachment A).

Titoki Montessori School Incorporated

9.       The school was established in 1989 to provide for Montessori preschool education for children to foster independence, respect and creativity. The primary objective of the school is “to create a place where each child can reach their full potential”.

10.     The school registered as an incorporated society on 17 January 1989. The school is governed and administered by a committee comprising of parents whose children attend the school. 

11.     The school currently occupies the council-owned building on Stredwick Reserve. The building was formerly a community hall called “The Hut” and when the pre-school was granted a lease by the former North Shore City Council, it set out to repair and transform the building into a child-centred environment. The titoki tree planted in the playground commemorated the opening of the school and is reflected in the name of the school. Over the years, the school has made additions to the building for storage, office and classroom spaces.

12.     The school is currently licensed for 35 children and offers morning and afternoon sessions for children from three to six years of age. The roll has remained full over the years and there is currently a waiting list for new enrolments.

13.     The school has a three year cycle of development and management of its assets which is supported by the community, the governing committee and through the continuous professional development of its teaching staff. The school holds frequent working bees and fundraising initiatives to ensure that the school remains operational and is accessible to the community. 

14.     The most recent evaluation by the Education Review Office Te Tari Arotake Mātauranga (October 2014) assessed the school as "very well placed". This is the highest category of achievement with the next review scheduled later in 2018. The report noted that the school is well placed to promote positive learning outcomes for tamariki, has developed good education and community networks and collaborates well with teachers, parents and children.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

15.     Auckland Council’s Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012 sets out the criteria for community occupancy agreements. The procedure for a new lease of council-owned buildings is to call for expressions of interest from community groups. This allows an assessment of proposals to ensure the best community outcomes are delivered.

16.     Local boards, however, have the discretion to forego seeking expressions of interest where suitable tenants are identified. The school satisfies the required criteria specified in the Community Occupancy Guidelines in the following ways:

·        it is a registered incorporated society

·        it has complied with the terms of the current lease

·        it has a history of delivering its services to the local community

·        the school is managed appropriately as evidenced by the Education Review Office report

·        the school has provided a copy of its financial accounts which indicate that its funds are sufficient to meets its liabilities and that the school has adequate reserves.

17.     Under the respective guidelines, it is recommended that for leases over council-owned land and buildings the standard term is a five year lease with one five year right of renewal, providing a total term of 10 years. The local board has the discretion to vary the term if it wishes. However, the guidelines suggest that where the term is varied, it aligns to one of the recommended terms within the Community Occupancy Guidelines.

18.     Additionally, where community groups have exclusive occupancy of council-owned buildings, the guidelines state that such groups are required to pay an annual subsidised maintenance fee of $500 (plus GST) per annum for buildings between 100m2 and 500m2 in size. The current building is approximately 200m2.

19.     Public notification and iwi engagement have been completed with no submissions or objections received.

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

20.     At its workshop on 15 February 2018, the local board expressed support for the school and the proposed new lease.

21.     The activities provided by the school align with the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Plan 2017 outcome: Our people are involved and have a strong sense of pride in the look and feel of their local areas and the school provides opportunities to support community participation which is important to help shape people’s quality of life, creativity, health and wellbeing.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

22.     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, the Long-term Plan 2018-2028, the Unitary Plan and individual local board plans.

23.     Support for Māori initiatives and outcomes are detailed in Whiria Te Muka Tangata, Auckland Council’s Māori Responsiveness Framework. An aim of community leasing is to increase Māori wellbeing through targeted support for Māori community development projects. Additionally it seeks to improve access to facilities and participation for Māori living in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area.

24.     The pre-school acknowledges the place that Māori have as tangata whenua and continues to develop its bicultural curriculum. Teachers have worked to gain more in-depth knowledge of tikanga and te reo Māori. Most teachers use te reo with children and aspects of tikanga, such as karakia and waiata, are incorporated in the daily programme. Strengthening the bicultural curriculum is a priority for the school.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

25.     There are no direct cost implications associated with the grant of a new community lease to the school.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

26.     Should the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board resolve not to grant the school a new community lease, this decision will materially affect the school’s ability to provide its services to the local community. In addition, the school has invested significant funds in improving the premises to ensure that it creates an environment suitable to meet its primary objective.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

27.     Subject to the local board grant of a new community lease, council staff will work with the school.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment A Site Plan Titoki Montessori School

57

b

Attachment B - Community Outcomes Plan-Titoki Montessori School Inc

59

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Gert van Staden - Community Lease Advisor

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

Application for Landlord Approval by the Manly Sailing Club Incorporated to Install a Boat Rack

 

File No.: CP2018/21343

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To grant landlord approval to the Manly Sailing Club Incorporated to install a boat rack onto their building located at 65 Laurence Street, Manly Park.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       The Manly Sailing Club Incorporated holds a community lease for the premises at Manly Park,  65 Laurence Street, Manly.

3.       The lease commenced on the 1st of June 1992 for a period of 33 years expiring on the 31st of May 2025.  The Manly Sailing Club Incorporated has one right of renewal affecting final expiry on the 31st of May 2058.

4.       The Manly Sailing Club Incorporated has applied for landlord approval to install a boat rack to the eastern side of their building. This location is within the current leased area.

5.       The boat rack is required by the Manly Sailing Club Incorporated to address their storage needs and will lead to better utilisation of their leased space. 

6.       Feedback regarding this installation was sought from both Asset Management and Intelligence Support and Operational Management and Maintenance units within Community Facilities. Concerns were raised regarding the fixing of the top rack which has since been remedied by the applicant and is addressed in the landlord conditions point iii.

7.       This report recommends the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board grant landlord approval to the Manly Sailing Club Incorporated allowing them to install the boat rack.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a)      grant landlord approval to the Manly Sailing Club Incorporated for the installation of a boat rack on the following conditions:

i)          all work undertaken must accord with the group’s formal application for landlord approval, the details of which are contained in Attachment A and B

ii)         all work must be undertaken by qualified and professional trades-people with adequate public liability insurance

iii)         all work undertaken must be in accordance with the latest building codes and the screws are to be fixed into the timber wall studs

iv)        any work undertaken shall be controlled in a manner that protects the public from danger or undue inconvenience at all times. Any physical work must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 to ensure that appropriate safety measures are in place for the duration of the installation

v)         any damage to Manly Park shall, unless otherwise arranged, be repaired by council approved contractors to the satisfaction of the Area Manager, Operational Management and Maintenance, at the expense of the applicant

vi)        all necessary steps shall be taken to ensure that no other utility services are affected by the works and any such services shall be suitably protected

vii)       all work must be completed in a tidy, efficient, professional and timely manner

viii)       Manly Sailing Club Incorporated to provide council with the following after installation:

A)  a basic floor plan outlining where the boat rack is installed

B)  photographs of the improvement once installed

ix)        the landlord approval is valid for six (6) months from the date of issue.

 

 

Horopaki / Context

8.       This report considers the landlord approval application by the Manly Sailing Club Incorporated (the club).

9.       The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board holds authority relating to local, recreation, sport and community facilities, including landlord approval applications.

Land and lease

10.     Manly Park is held in fee simple by Auckland Council, the area leased to the club is described as Lot 1 DP 148441 which is yet to be classified, subject to the Reserves Act 1977.

11.     The club holds a ground lease for the premises at Manly Park, 65 Laurence Street, Manly. The buildings and improvements on the premises are owned and maintained by the club. 

12.     The lease allows the club to utilise the leased area for yachting and associated activities.

13.     Under the operative lease, the tenant is required to obtain landlord approval prior to commencing with building or improvement works.

Manly Sailing Club Incorporated landlord approval application

14.     The club has applied for landlord approval to install a boat rack on the eastern side of the building.

15.     The boat racks are designed to store 24 Bic Yachts in a manner which will improve the visual amenity and storage capacity of the premises. Refer to Attachment A.   

16.     As per the club’s plans the installation purports to be minimally invasive with no major earthworks required and taking place wholly within the leased area.

17.     From the information provided, the proposed installation will likely:

i)          improve the usage of the facility as it will free up valuable space

ii)         improve the visual amenity of the leased area

iii)         not alter the building structure in a permanent or irreparable way

iv)        be removable if reinstatement of the premises is desired

v)         align with the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Plan 2017 outcome: Our community enjoys access to quality parks, reserves and facilities for leisure, sport and recreation by providing better use of space.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

18.     The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board, in terms of the operative lease, is required to grant landlord approval for all works within the leased area.

19.     The proposed installation of the boat rack supports the activities for which the lease is intended and will enhance the usage of the facility.

20.     As per the club’s plans the installation purports to be minimally invasive with no major earthworks required and taking place wholly within the leased area. 

21.     Initial concerns, regarding the fixing of the top rack, have been remedied by the applicant and provided for in the landlord approval conditions under point iii.

22.     The concerns related to the load bearing capabilities and weather tightness of the external building cladding can be solved by fixing the top rack to the timber wall studs as per the building code, refer to Attachment B. 

23.     Under the operative lease, Auckland Council cannot unreasonably withhold its consent if the lease provisions relating to the proposed work have been complied with.

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

24.     The club offers a service to sailing enthusiasts and the boat rack will provide a sensible and rational approach to the storage of boats. Additionally, the rack will improve the utilisation of the leased area by allowing the club to store more boats and thereby increasing its ability to accommodate more members of the sailing community. 

25.     The approval application is seen as minor with no major earthworks required to affect the improvement.  

26.     The enhanced use and visual amenity offered by the proposed installation supports the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Plan 2017 outcome: Our community enjoys access to quality parks, reserves and facilities for leisure, sport and recreation by providing better use of space.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

27.     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, the Long-term Plan 2018-2028, the Unitary Plan and individual local board plans.

28.     Support for Māori initiatives and outcomes are detailed in Whiria Te Muka Tangata, Auckland Council’s Māori Responsiveness Framework. An aim of community leasing is to increase Māori wellbeing through targeted support for Māori community development projects. Additionally it seeks to improve access to facilities and participation for Māori living in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

29.     There are no direct cost implications associated with the grant of the landlord approval application.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

30.     Should the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board resolve not to grant the landlord approval application the club will be unable to make effective use of their space and will be unable to store the yachts in an orderly manner.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

31.     Subject to the local board resolving to grant landlord approval, staff will draft a landlord approval letter containing the relevant conditions.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Installation Detail

65

b

Top Rack Fixing

67

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Gert van Staden - Community Lease Advisor

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

Auckland Transport Update to Hibiscus and Bays Local Board November 2018

 

File No.: CP2018/21791

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To provide an update to Hibiscus and Bays Local Board members on transport related matters in their area, including the Local Board Transport Capital Fund.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       This report covers:

·        A summary of the local board’s transport capital fund.

·        A summary of consultation activity.

·        Traffic Control Committee decisions.

·        An update on issues raised.

·        Quarterly report on Auckland Transport projects and activities.

·        Hibiscus Coast Park and Ride - Pou unveiling.

·        Downtown Programme.

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a)      receive the Auckland Transport November 2018 update report.

 

Horopaki / Context

3.       This report updates the local board on Auckland Transport (AT) projects and operations in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area.  It summarises consultations and Traffic Control Committee results, and includes information on the status of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF).

4.       AT is responsible for all of Auckland’s transport services, excluding state highways. We report on a monthly basis to local boards, as set out in our Local Board Engagement Plan. This monthly reporting commitment acknowledges the important engagement role local boards play within the governance of Auckland on behalf of their local communities. 

5.       The LBTCF is a capital budget provided to all local boards by Auckland Council and delivered by AT. Local boards can use this fund to deliver transport infrastructure projects that they believe are important to their communities but are not part of AT’s work programme. Projects must also:

·        be safe

·        not impede network efficiency

·        be in the road corridor (although projects running in parks can be considered if there is a transport outcome).

 

 

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Local Board Transport Capital Fund

6.       The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board’s share of the LBTCF allocated with effect from 1 July 2018, as per the funding policy, is $1,237,015 per annum.

7.       The total remaining in the current electoral term to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board is $1,144,389. However, at the end of the previous term the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board elected to spend just 50% of the election year’s allocation. Should the local board choose to do so again, with 50% of $1,237,015 being $618,507.50, the balance available would be $525,881.50.

8.       The table below reflects the status of projects to which LBTCF has already been committed.

 

Status update on current of Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects

 

Project

Description

Current status

Changes since last  update

Funds allocated in current political term

091 – Mairangi Bay Art Walk

Construction of footpath amenities on Hastings Road, Mairangi Bay from the retail centre to Mairangi Bay Reserve.

Completed

No

$17,508

411 – Torbay Revitalisation

Upgrade of Torbay town centre.

Completed

No

$598,787

558 - Orewa Pedestrian Crossings

Facilities to improve pedestrian safety at the intersections of Moana and Moenui Avenues with the Hibiscus Coast Highway.

Completed

No

$127,510

578 - Orewa Boulevard Stage 3

Extension of existing Boulevard concept from Riverside Road to Empire Road.

Discussed at a workshop on 25 October. A second workshop to be scheduled for February 2019.

Yes

$1,330,000

579 - Torbay Parking Stage 2

Construction of 5 car park spaces on the Auckland Council reserve at 1022 Beach Road, Torbay.

 

Detailed design completed and contractor appointed. Work commenced in October and is expected to be completed mid-November.

Yes

$56,000

580 – Town Centre Slow Zones

Traffic Calming in the town centres of Mairangi Bay and Torbay

Discussed at a workshop on 1 November.

Yes

$689,731

644 - Centennial Park Path

Auckland Council led Greenways project

in Centennial Park, Campbells Bay.

Detailed design and

construction

Yes

$220,000

 

9.       Post construction Safety Audits following the completion of Project 558 - Orewa Pedestrian Crossings, have been undertaken for each of the intersections involved. Recommendations for minor changes at the intersection of Hibiscus Coast Highway / Moana Avenue have been addressed and this report has been shared with the local board and Destination Orewa Beach. The report on the Hibiscus Coast Highway / Moenui Avenue intersection will also be circulated once this becomes available.

10.     Construction of Project 579 - Torbay Parking Stage 2, began in early October 2018 and is expected to be completed ahead of the expected completion date, 15 November 2018. AT’s contractors, United Civil Construction Ltd, have avoided the need for a retaining structure but added an additional sub-soil drain to address overland flow from the adjacent driveway, which has cracked due to sub-soil flows.

11.     The photographs below show preparation for the base course during the early stages of the work.

12.     Project 578 - Orewa Boulevard Stage 3, was discussed with members at a workshop on 25 October 2018, with members suggesting changes to the draft design presented. A speed reduction on Hibiscus Coast Highway and those roads intersecting within the Boulevard area will be included in AT’s Speed Limit Bylaw Review which will be subject to public consultation during November 2018. A further update on this, design options and indicative costings will be discussed with members in February 2019.

13.     Project 580 – Town Centre Slow Zones for Mairangi Bay and Torbay was discussed with members at a workshop on 1 November 2018. Speed reductions in these town centres will be included in AT’s Speed Limit Bylaw Review which will be subject to public consultation during November 2018. A further update on this, design options and indicative costings will be discussed with members in early 2019.

14.     At its meeting on 19 September 2018 the local board resolved to allocate $5,400 from the funds remaining in its LBTCF towards the supply and installation of 14 arm rests on seven seats located in the area between 292 and 350 Hibiscus Coast Highway, Orewa (Resolution number HB/2018/171). Manufacture of the armrests is proceeding and it is anticipated that they will be installed prior to Christmas 2018.

 

15.     At its meeting on 17 October 2018 the local board resolved to allocate $220,000 from the funds remaining in its LBTCF to detailed design and construction for a Greenways path in Centennial Park, Campbells Bay (Resolution number HB/2018/166). The project is being led by Auckland Council’s Community Facilities team, which will provide progress updates to the local board.

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

Auckland Transport consultations

16.     Over the last reporting period, AT has invited the local board to provide their feedback on the following proposals:

Location

Proposal

Details and Local Board Feedback

938 /827 East Coast Road, Northcross

Proposed P120 parking spaces

Documentation explaining a proposal to implement  P120 parking spaces on East Coast Road, Northcross, in the location of 938 / 827 East Coast Road, to improve short term parking in this area, was forwarded to East Coast Bays subdivision members on 9 October 2018. Member Bettany expressed concern for local residents losing the street parking outside their homes and said she saw the current parking arrangement as satisfactory. No other objections were received from the local board.

Wainui Road, Silverdale

Proposed NSAAT restrictions

Documentation explaining a proposal to install NSAAT restrictions on Wainui Road, Silverdale, to improve safety for drivers and cyclists near the roundabout, was sent to Hibiscus Coast subdivision members on 10 October 2018. No objections to the proposal were received.

Donald Street, Stanmore Bay

Proposed NSAAT restrictions

Documentation explaining a proposal to install NSAAT restrictions near the entrance of Donald Street, Stanmore Bay, to improve visibility and accessibility for pedestrians using the nearby crossing facility, was forwarded to Hibiscus Coast subdivision members on 10 October 2018. Member Fitzgerald advised she considered this would be a positive move. No objections to the proposal were received.

Beach Road, Long Bay

Proposed summertime-only parking restrictions

Documentation describing new summertime-only parking restrictions on Beach Road, Long Bay, to minimise congestion and improve access on this narrow stretch of road, was forwarded to East Coast Bays subdivision members on 2 October 2018. Member Cooper said it made good sense to him and Member Fitzgerald said she agreed with the proposal as outlined. In response to queries from Members Parfitt and Bettany, they were advised that the proposals will be put in place on 1 December 2018 and removed on 31 March 2019, and that, because the car park is within an Auckland Council reserve, responsibility for the provision of any signage relating to it rests with Auckland Council Parks rather than AT. No objections to the proposals were received.

Jeanette Place, Mairangi Bay

Proposed NSAAT restrictions

A proposal to install NSAAT restrictions around the turning head of Jeanette Place in Mairangi Bay, to improve access and usability at the head of the cul-de-sac, particularly for emergency and larger vehicles was forwarded to East Coast Bays subdivision members on 11 October 2018. No objections to the proposal were received.

334 Arran Road, Browns Bay

Proposed NSAAT restrictions

Documentation describing a proposal to install NSAAT restrictions near 334 Arran Road, Browns Bay, to improve visibility and safety at this location, was forwarded to East Coast Bays subdivision members on 16 October 2018. Member Bettany expressed support for the proposal. No objections were received.

Torbay and Mairangi Bay Town Centres

Proposed speed limit reductions

Documentation describing proposed speed limit reductions for Torbay and Mairangi Bay Town Centres was forwarded to members on 16 October 2018with a request for response no later than Friday 19 November 2018. The speed reductions are associated with LBTCF projects requested by the local board and were discussed at a workshop on 1 November 2018. Member Cooper agreed with both proposals for the 30kph slow zones; Member Bettany advised she supported each of the speed limit reductions, noting that local residents and businesses in both Torbay and Mairangi Bay had asked for these. Member Parfitt said she supported the proposal but asked that the Mairangi Bay proposal be extended into Penzance Road. No objections to the proposals were received.

Fitzwilliam Drive, Torbay and Matipo Road, Mairangi Bay

Proposed side island installation

Information regarding the addition of side islands near two bus stops located at 1 and 2 Fitzwilliam Drive, Torbay, and opposite 1 Matipo Road (located on Ramsgate Terrace), Mairangi Bay were forwarded to East Coast subdivision members on 17 October 2018. No objections to the proposals were received.

Traffic Control Committee decisions

17.     AT's resolution and approval process ensures the most appropriate controls and restrictions are put in place and can be legally enforced. Decisions made by AT’s Traffic Control Committee in relation to regulatory processes relevant to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board during September are listed below:

Decision

Report Type

Nature of Restriction

Decision

East Coast Road, Galaxy Drive, Mairangi Bay

Permanent Traffic and Parking changes

No Stopping At All Times, Bus Stop, Bus Shelter, Lane Arrow Markings, Give-Way Control, Traffic Island, Flush Median, Edge Lines

Carried

Grand Drive, Arran Street, Flavell Drive, Orewa

Permanent Traffic and Parking changes

Lane Arrow Markings, No Stopping at All Times, Bus Stop, Traffic Island, Traffic Signal Control, Give-Way Control, Flush Median, Pedestrian Crossing, No Passing, Edge Line

Carried

Bute Road, Browns Bay

Permanent Traffic and Parking changes

Lane Arrow Markings, No Stopping At All Times, Angle Parking, Loading Zone, P120 Parking, Bus Stop, Small Passenger Service Stand, Traffic Island, Pedestrian Crossing, Give-Way Control, No Passing

Carried

Hastings Road, Mairangi Bay

Permanent Traffic and Parking changes

No Stopping At All Times, P60 Parking, Angle Parking, Mobile Library, P30 Parking, Give-Way Control, Traffic Island 

Carried

Maxwelton Drive, Amante Crescent, Mairangi Bay

Permanent Traffic and Parking changes

No Stopping At All Times, Bus Stop, Bus Shelter, Removal of Bus Stop, Give-Way Control

Carried

Ramsgate Terrace, Matipo Road, Mairangi Bay

Permanent Traffic and Parking changes

No Stopping At All Times, Bus Stop, Bus Shelter, Road Hump, Give-Way Control, Edge Lines

Carried

Fitzwilliam and Stredwick Drives, Torbay

Temporary Traffic and Parking Controls

Bus Stops

Carried

 

Issues Raised by Elected Members

 

18.     The following list summarises issues raised by elected members and local board services staff to 2 November 2018:

 

Location

Issue

Status

1

Silverdale General

Establishment of a Stillwater Bus Service - Guidance Required.

On 17 September 2018 in response to a request for guidance on the establishment of a bus service from Stillwater to the Silverdale Busway Station, Member Parfitt was advised that there needs to be a regular (e.g. daily) demand for the service, at least at peak times if not throughout the day, in order to justify the cost. It was acknowledged that 121 Stillwater residents had expressed interest in such a service; however, this is a relatively small number of people, fewer than three standard buses. If AT implemented a service comprised of a maximum of only three trips a day each way, it would be unlikely that many people would find such a limited, infrequent service attractive. The introduction of a new bus service would be subject to public consultation, investigation of a suitable route and funding. Safety would also be a consideration, with the steep, winding roads possibly not being suitable for standard public buses. However, AT is conscious of the ongoing growth taking place in northern Auckland and will continue to monitor growth in the Stillwater, considering implementing bus services in the future.

 

 

 

2

Hibiscus Coast

Request for statistics related to 991x and 992x bus services from the Hibiscus Coast.

On 10 August 2018 Member Caitlin Watson asked in relation to the 991x and 992x express bus services from the Hibiscus Coast, how well they are utilized and what the calculated travel times under the replacement service for commuters will be. On 7 September Member Watson was advised that removing the 991x and 992x enables AT to run the 981, 982 and NX1 more frequently than at present, the higher frequency providing customers more flexibility in terms of when they travel, particularly for local trips within the Hibiscus Coast.  AT is well aware that more people want to travel to the city centre, but the amount of kerb side space in the city centre suitable for buses remains unchanged, with not enough space to accommodate the increasing number of buses that would be required if AT continued to run direct services from every part of the wider Auckland region. The changes being made will make the bus network on the Hibiscus Coast more efficient, allowing customers to take more frequent local services to the Hibiscus Coast Station, where they will transfer to frequent NX1 services to the City Centre. A higher proportion of City Centre-bound trips will be run using double-deckers carrying approximately 100 passengers, more than twice the capacity of a standard bus. Regarding current use of the 991x and 992x services, morning boarding statistics were gathered during May, chosen as a typical month for public transport patronage with no school or public holidays. The average number of passengers boarding the 991x prior to Hibiscus Coast Station was 20, and for the 992x, 30. These passengers make up approximately 60% of all passengers travelling on the 991x and 992x, the remaining 40% boarding these services at Hibiscus Coast Station or at a Northern Busway station. The trade-off for passengers now having to transfer is the increased frequency, and therefore flexibility, together with the removal of duplicate services, which made for a confusing, irregular and inefficient bus network.

 

 

3

Nor’East Drive, Northcross

Footpath damage on Nor’East Drive, Northcross.

Further information was requested from Member Bettany on 2 November 2018with regard to the location of footpath damage on Nor’East Drive, Northcross, on 21 August 2018. To be referred back to Road Corridor Delivery.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4

Westhoe Road and Grand Drive, Orewa

Cars parked 'for sale' on Westhoe Road and Grand Drive, Orewa.

Member Parfitt forwarded a resident's concerns related to the sale of parked cars on Westhoe Road and Grand Drive, Orewa, on 26 August 2018. On 6 September 2018, Member Parfitt was advised that AT acknowledges that vehicles for sale can be a nuisance in some situations, particularly if there are number of such vehicles parked at a particular location. However, it is not considered these cause an issue for other road users if parked in a legal and safe manner.  In cases where parking occupancy and availability becomes an issue, AT will respond to the situation in accordance to AT's Parking Strategy. A Parking Officer attended this area on 28 August and saw that only one vehicle was not parked legally because the licence label was not affixed in the prescribed manner. All other vehicles were parked legally. In relation to cars parking on Grand Drive, if these are parked on broken yellow lines, AT's call centre staff should be advised on (09) 355 3553 so that a Parking Officer can be sent to investigate.

 

5

Hibiscus Coast

Cancellation of 991x and 992x bus services from Hibiscus Coast.

In response to queries raised by Mark Mitchell MP's Office in relation of the removal of the 991x (Waiwera to City Centre) and 992x (Gulf Harbour to City Centre), on 30 August 2018 the MP's Office was advised that from 1 October 2018, the 992x will no longer operate. Instead, the 982 between Gulf Harbour and Hibiscus Coast Station will run every 6-8 minutes in the morning peak, and every 7-10 minutes in the afternoon peak, a significant frequency increase. The Northern Express (NX) between Hibiscus Coast Station and the city centre will be renumbered NX1, and will also run more frequently, every 5-8 minutes. From 1 October, the best option for travelling to the city centre is to take the 982 to Hibiscus Coast Station, then transfer to the NX1. As both services will run frequently at peak times, any waiting or transfer times will be minimised. Removing the 992x enables AT to run the 982 and NX1 more frequently than at present. AT has to take into account the travel needs of all passenger trips, not just commuters travelling to and from the City Centre. The higher frequency services will give customers more flexibility regarding when they travel, and make the bus a more feasible option, particularly for local trips within the Hibiscus Coast.

 

6

Inverness Road, Browns Bay

Loading Zone at 8 Inverness Road, Browns Bay.

Member Cooper advised on 17 October 2018 that the staff of New World are using the loading zone adjacent to the supermarket at 8 Inverness Road, Browns Bay, for the storage of forklifts and waste bins, creating health and safety issues. Member Cooper was advised that AT's parking enforcement team’s warrants were limited to ticketing registered vehicles only and that forklifts are not registered vehicles. Referred to AT's Compliance Team for further assistance.

 

7

Hibiscus Coast

Removal of 991x and 992x Services from the Hibiscus Coast

At the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board meeting in October, Member Vicki Watson mentioned the travel delays on Whangaparāoa Road since the removal of the 991x and 992x buses, saying traffic is often backed up to Vipond Road. Member Watson asked if AT was monitoring this upsurge in vehicle use. Member Fitzgerald also forwarded an email from a resident using the New Network services who complained about the additional journey time since removal of the 991x and 992x buses. In response to Member Fitzgerald’s email, on 6 November it was acknowledged that additional time might be an issue for passengers travelling to Wellesley Street, who require three buses or an additional walk from Fanshawe Street; however, AT is endeavouring to balance the needs of all bus users on the Hibiscus Coast, not just those commuting into the city.  Actual travel time data for buses travelling through Silverdale has been compared to previous figures and between 4.00 p.m. and 7.00 p.m., the route 982 travelling through Silverdale shops was, on average, taking only two minutes longer than the 992x bus between Hibiscus Coast Busway Station and the first stop on Whangaparāoa Road. In relation to additional vehicle journey times, PT staff note that approximately 30,000 vehicles travel along Whangaparāoa Road on a weekday and that, if all the (former) express bus users were displaced into cars this would increase traffic numbers by just over 1 per cent. It is not clear what the reason for the additional traffic and time delays is, but many factors can be involved, the volume of traffic being only one of them. On the issue of monitoring, members were advised that traffic volumes on Whangaparāoa are being monitored as part of the Dynamic Laning Project.

 

8

East Coast Road, Torbay

Request for interim safety improvements at the intersection of east Coast and Glenvar Roads, Torbay.

Request for interim safety improvements at the intersection of east Coast and Glenvar Roads, Torbay. Referred to Network Management and Safety for response.

 

 

Quarterly report on Auckland Transport projects and activities

19.     Attachments A and B list information on Auckland Transport’s activities over the past quarter (July - September 2018).

Hibiscus Coast Busway Station - Pou unveiling

20.     The Hibiscus Coast Busway Station project will expand the existing facility to accommodate additional parking spaces, a bus platform and station buildings. The project was planned for implementation in two phases, with Stage 1 completed in July 2013.

21.     During completion of the detailed design for Stage 2, an opportunity to construct additional car parks within the project area was identified, subject to resource consent approval. Resource consent was granted in July 2018, with the condition that the existing two right turning lanes on Painton Road be modified before the 90 additional car parks are made operational. The construction of 37 of the additional 127 car parks was completed by AT in February 2018 and these are now open for public use.

22.     AT engaged Mana Whenua to submit expressions of interest for mahi toi (artwork) at the busway station in November 2016. Two expressions of interest were received and Ngati Manuhiri endorsed the Whaotapu Trust (kai mahi toi) application. The pou was carved by Nga Whaotapu o Tamaki Makaurau Trust, installed on 25 July 2018 and unveiled at a dawn ceremony on 7 November.

23.     The plan below shows the proposed bus station, the park and ride facility, with the blue dot at the bottom right corner representing the location of the pou.

 

Other Auckland Transport news

Downtown Programme

24.     The Downtown Programme project is Stage 1 of a longer-term plan to improve the customer experience for users of Auckland ferries and open up Queens Wharf to greater public access. Auckland Council (AC) and AT are collaborating to accelerate six key projects within the Downtown Programme that will see Quay Street become a revitalised waterfront boulevard by 2021. The six projects are:

·        Quay Street strengthening. 

·        Quay Street enhancement.

·        Public Transport Hubs – Britomart East and Lower Albert Street bus stops.

·        Downtown Ferry Basin redevelopment.

·        Waterfront Park.

·        Mooring dolphin. 

 

25.     Creating six new berths on the west side of Queens Wharf is the first step in the construction of a modern, consolidated ferry terminal for Auckland. It will be a world-class facility, suitable for Auckland’s growing transport needs, with improved accessibility and greater operational flexibility. The new berths enable piers 3 and 4 to be decommissioned and will help accommodate increased passenger numbers. In their place, a waterfront public space will be created in the ferry basin between Princes Wharf and Queens Wharf.

26.     The design for the ferry basin has been developed through consideration of different options and a series of navigational simulations which considered safety and efficiency:

·        Six new berths in a ‘saw-tooth’ arrangement, on the west side of Queens Wharf, replacing piers 3 and 4 and increasing capacity.

·        Piers 3 and 4 decommissioned and removed.

·        Construction of piles, pontoons, and a breakwater.

·        New gangways covered with a fixed shelter.

·        Changes to the ferry terminal, improving public access by moving the Hop Card barriers to gangway entrances.

·        Pedestrian and vehicle access to Queens Wharf West maintained.

·        Removal of the ‘eastern annex’ building (commercial offices), opening up Queens Wharf to improved public access.

27.     Next steps

·        October 2018 – Project lodges consent application to enable construction.

·        Mid-November 2018 – Public notification of consent application expected.

·        April 2019 – Consent decision expected.

·        Mid-2019 – mid-2020 – Construction.

 

28.     Downtown Programme drop-in sessions were held for elected members during October, providing an opportunity to learn more about the projects that comprise the programme and the design philosophy guiding their development. One-to-one engagement with the Quay Street community and ferry basin users is ongoing, and wider public engagement will take place in late 2018 using a variety of channels, including online, a printed brochure, pop-up events, and presentations.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

29.     The proposed decision of receiving the report has no impacts or opportunities for Māori. Any engagement with Māori, or consideration of impacts and opportunities, will be carried out on an individual project basis.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

30.     There are no financial implications in receiving this report.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

31.     There are no risks associated with receiving this report.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

32.     AT will provide a further report to the local board in November 2018.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Auckland Transport Quarterly Activity Report

81

b

Auckland Transport School Community Transport Quarterly Report

95

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Ellen Barrett – Elected Member Relationship Manager

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon – Elected Member Relationship Team Manager

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 


 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

Auckland Council's Quarterly Performance Report: Hibiscus and Bays Local Board for Quarter One 2018/2019

 

File No.: CP2018/21942

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To provide the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board with an integrated quarterly performance report for quarter one, 1 June – 30 September 2018.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       This report includes financial performance, progress against work programmes, key challenges the local board should be aware of and any risks to delivery against the 2018/2019 work programme.

3.       The work programme is produced annually, and aligns with the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Plan outcomes.

4.       The key activity updates from this quarter are:

·        new toilets have been installed at Red Beach Reserve, Gulf Harbour Reserve and Sherwood Reserve. Play equipment installations are also underway at Victor Eaves Reserve, Orewa Reserve and Gulf Harbour Reserve

·        the Mairangi Bay Reserves Development Plan, which will help guide staged delivery of the concept plan, was adopted in September

·        there was very high attendance at shows, exhibitions, classes and performances at Centrestage Theatre, Estuary Arts Centre and Mairangi Arts Centre

·        ecological restoration and environmental programmes have progressed with 1,200 hours of volunteer work recorded and 4,000 trees planted

·        development of an eco-tourism strategy continues to progress with New Zealand Tourism Research Institute undertaking a visitor survey and facilitating Visitor Strategy Group meetings

·        the North-West Wildlink corridor was improved through a planting day held in September on the Taiaotea Stream with 55 people planting 250 plants and undertaking water quality testing.

5.       All operating departments with agreed work programmes have provided a quarterly update against their work programme delivery. Most activities are reported with a status of green (on track), amber (some risk or issues, which are being managed) or grey (cancelled, deferred or merged).

6.       The financial performance report compared to budget 2018/2019 is included as Attachment A. There are some points for the local board to note.

7.       Overall, the net operational financial performance of the local board is tracking slightly above the revised year to date budget (106 percent). Revenue is favourable to budget for the year to date and is likely to be on target for the full financial year.  From the local board’s Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) funding, the majority of projects are underway and on track to be completed during the year.  Capital projects underway include; Metro Park East walkway development, Red Beach and Metro Park East toilet development, Deep Creek Reserve development and Amorino Park path renewal.

 

 

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a)      receive the Auckland Council’s Quarterly Performance Report for the financial quarter ending 30 September 2018.

 

 

Horopaki / Context

8.       The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board has an approved 2018/2019 work programme for the following operating departments:

·        Arts, Community and Events;

·        Parks, Sport and Recreation;

·        Libraries and Information;

·        Community Services: Service, Strategy and Integration;

·        Community Facilities: Build Maintain Renew;

·        Community Leases;

·        Infrastructure and Environmental Services;

·        Local Economic Development.

 

9.       The detailed work programme update is provided as Attachment B.

10.     Work programmes are produced annually, to meet the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board outcomes identified in the three-year Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Plan 2017. The local board plan outcomes are:

·        A strong local economy

·        Our communities have excellent transport choices

·        Our community enjoys access to quality parks, reserves and facilities for leisure, sport and recreation

·        Our people are involved and have a strong sense of pride in the look and feel of their local areas

·        A protected and enhanced environment.

 

11.     The following graph shows how the work programme activities support local board plan outcomes. Activities that are not part of the approved work programme but contribute towards the local board outcomes, such as advocacy by the local board, are not captured in this graph.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Graph 1: Work programme activities by outcome

 

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Local Board Work Programme Snapshot

12.     The work programme activities have two statuses; firstly RAG (red, amber, green and grey) status, which measures the performance of the activity (amber and red show issues and risks), and secondly the activity status, which shows the stage of the activity. These two statuses create a snapshot of the progress of the work programmes.

13.     The graph below identifies work programme activity by RAG status. It shows the percentage of work programme activities that are on track (green), in progress but with issues that are being managed (amber), activities that have significant issues (red) and activities that have been cancelled/deferred/merged (grey). There are currently no red status activities in this first quarter.

Graph 2: Work programme by RAG status

14.     The next graph identifies work programme activities by activity status and department. The number of activity lines differ by department as approved in the local board work programmes. 

 

 

 

 

Graph 3: Work programme activity by activity status and department

Capital expenditure carry forwards

15.     The Community Facilities capital expenditure carry forwards were approved by the Finance and Performance Committee on 17 October 2018. A list of the carry forwards has been provided (see Attachment C). However as this information was received after the end of quarter one, commentary was unable to be provided. Commentary will be included in the quarter two update.

Key activity updates from quarter one

16.     The following key initiatives have progressed during quarter one:

·        Local board plan key initiative: Improve parks and coastal facilities so they are adaptable for a range of activities, e.g. all-ability playgrounds, events, toilets, drinking water fountains, shade, barbeques, lighting, bicycle racks, and passive and family-friendly use”

          This key initiative progressed with the installation of poles at various locations in both subdivision areas in readiness for shade sails to be attached. Also, new toilets have been installed at Red Beach Reserve, Gulf Harbour Reserve and Sherwood Reserve. Play equipment installations commenced at Victor Eaves Reserve, Orewa Reserve and Gulf Harbour Reserve.

·        Local board plan key initiative: Implement the Mairangi Bay Reserves concept plan”

          This key initiative progressed with the adoption of the Mairangi Bay Reserves Development Plan in September, which will help guide staged delivery of the concept plan.

·        Local board plan key initiative: “Support our local arts centres to continue to be sustainable and inclusive and embrace diversity”

          This key initiative progressed during quarter one with very high attendance at shows, exhibitions, classes and performances at Centrestage Theatre, Estuary Arts Centre and Mairangi Arts Centre.

·        Local board agreement key initiative: “The Hibiscus and Bays Open Space Management Plan will be progressed to provide one reserve management plan for all parks and reserves in the local board area” (ID 1395)

          This key initiative progressed with notification of reserve classification proposals requiring public consultation. The notification processes was scheduled for early October release.

·        Local board agreement key initiative: “Ecological restoration and environmental programmes in local parks will be delivered and supported by volunteers”

          This key initiative progressed through 1,200 hours of volunteer work recorded during quarter one. School and community planting days have taken place across the local board area with a total of 4,000 trees planted on community parks during the quarter.

·        Local board agreement key initiative: “Continue to develop an eco-tourism strategy”

          This key initiative continues to progress with New Zealand Tourism Research Institute (NZTRI) undertaking a visitor survey and facilitating Visitor Strategy Group meetings.

·        Local board agreement key initiative: “Support the North-West Wildlink corridor including the protection of freshwater and terrestrial areas that have been identified as key “Wildlink Wonders”.

          This key initiative progressed through a planting day held on 8 September 2018 at the Taiaotea Stream with 55 people planting 250 plants and undertaking water quality testing. A winter and spring water quality survey was undertaken on the Nukumea Stream with two groups of volunteers, extending the number of sites monitored on the stream to four.

Activities on hold

17.     The following work programme activities have been identified by operating departments as on hold:

·        Actions from Browns Bay Centre Plan (ID 1916)

          This project is for the physical works that will be delivered when scoping is complete.  Works are expected to commence in 2020.

·        Silverdale War Memorial Park: Bowling Club Building – Prepare options report (ID 2856)

          Preliminary findings have been workshopped with the local board. Further information on renewals funding available and the need for community facilities in the area has been sought. Once determined, the needs assessment for the old bowling club site will be finalised.

 

·        R33 Watea Road, Torbay: Lease to Torbay Senior Citizens Incorporated (ID1277)

          The Torbay Senior Citizens Club Incorporated indicated that they will not be applying for a renewal of their lease. An asset assessment report is being compiled, which will highlight possible options for the site.

 

·        Edith Hopper Park, 34B Ladies Mile Manly: Renewal of lease to Hibiscus Coast Netball Association (ID 2469)

          The Hibiscus Coast Netball Association are in talks regarding a possible amalgamation with Netball North Harbour. The lease renewal will be progressed once deliberations have concluded.

 

·        Long Bay Beach Reserve, 1045 Beach Road Torbay: Lease renewal of Sir Peter Blake Marine Education and Recreation Board (ID 2472)

             Staff are addressing underlying land classification issues. This includes working through the process of revoking the Reserves Act 1977 status of the affected land parcel, public notification and iwi engagement. The notification period ended on 20 August 2018, with no submissions received. Following endorsement by the local board the Department of Conservation will be contacted to approve the revocation.

 

·        1/479 Whangaparaoa Road Stanmore Bay: New lease to Hibiscus Coast Radio Society Incorporated (ID 2476)

             Staff are in the final stages of establishing building ownership. The new lease is expected to be progressed during quarter two.

 

·        Mairangi Bay Beach Reserve, Sidmouth Street : Proposed new lease to Mairangi Bay Surf Lifesaving Club Incorporated for additional land (ID 2478).

             This item is on hold due to the full extent of the proposed development by the club being unknown. The Mairangi Bay Surf Life Saving Club Incorporated is still in the design and feasibility stage of their planned development.

 

Changes to the local board work programme

Deferred activities

18.     These activities are deferred from the 2018/2019 work programme:

·        Hibiscus and Bays Actions from Silverdale Centre Plan (ID 1917): The concept design and cost estimate is being delivered under a separate activity line (Hibiscus and Bays - stage one designs for actions from centre plans, (ID 1915) therefore construction has been deferred until FY20.

Activities merged with other activities for delivery

19.     These activities have been merged with other activities for efficient delivery:

·        Long Bay Reserve 11 – develop general park (ID 1932) Project record cancelled and merged with another activity line (Long Bay Reserves - develop parks), please refer to ID 1931 for an update

·        Long Bay Reserve 13 – develop general park (ID 1933) Project record cancelled and merged with another activity line (Long Bay Reserves - develop parks), please refer to ID 1931 for an update

·        Long Bay Reserve 6 – develop general park (ID 1934) Project record cancelled and merged with another activity line (Long Bay Reserves - develop parks), please refer to ID 1931 for an update

20.     Long Bay Reserve 7 – develop general park (ID 1935) Project record cancelled and merged with another activity line (Long Bay Reserves - develop parks), please refer to ID 1931 for an update.

Key performance indicators

21.     As most of the long-term plan key performance indicators are annual measures and do not change quarterly, staff have removed them from the quarterly performance report and will present the key performance indicators only once in the annual report at the end of the financial year.

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

22.     This report informs the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board of the performance for the quarter ending 30 September 2018.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

23.     Māori, as stakeholders of council, are affected and have an interest in any report on the quarterly financial results. However, the recommendation to the local board of receiving the report has no particular benefit to, or adverse effect on, Māori. Two specific work programme items of interest are outlined below.

·        The local board work programme item ID 1270 “Apply the empowered communities approach – connecting communities” includes an element “responding to the aspirations of mana whenua, mataawaka, marae and Māori organisations”

 

          The update on this work programme item advises that the strategic broker “supported and promoted the Future Whangaparaoa group in their learning about engaging in protocols in a marae setting and finding out about mana whenua aspirations”.

·        The local board work programme item ID 575 “Māori Naming of Reserves and Facilities Phase 2”

                   The update on this work programme project advises “mana whenua will progress their process to identify Māori names for the local parks selected. It is expected that, in most cases, the gifted names (and narratives) will be adopted by the local board for use as dual names to enrich the stories of parks and support the Māori language to be visible, heard, spoken and learnt.”

Financial Performance

24.     Operating expenditure relating to Asset Based Services is tracking above budget by $300,000 for the year to date, while the Local Discretionary Inititatives (LDI) operational projects are currently $81,000 below budget.  This is due to a variety of projects yet to draw down on financial allocations.

25.     Capital spend of $1.5 million represents investments in the Metro Park East walkway development, Red Beach and Metro Park East toilet development, Deep Creek Reserve development and Amorino Park path renewal. The local board has also seen progress on a number of projects from their discretionary LDI capital fund.

26.     Operating and capital projects that have been carried forward from 2017/2018 will be added to the revised budget in October and will be monitored closely to ensure they are completed in 2018/2019.

27.     The complete Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Financial Performance report can be found in Attachment A.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

28.     This report is for information only and therefore there are no financial implications associated with this report.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

29.     While the risk of non-delivery of the entire work programme is rare, the likelihood for risk relating to individual activities does vary. Capital projects for instance, are susceptible to more risk as on-time and on-budget delivery is dependent on weather conditions, approvals (e.g. building consents) and is susceptible to market conditions.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

30.     The local board will receive the next performance update following the end of quarter two, 31 December 2018.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Financial Report

105

b

Work Programme Update

111

c

Capital expenditure carry forwards

129

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Michelle Sanderson – Senior Local Board Advisor

Authoriser

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 


 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

Draft Contributions Policy

 

File No.: CP2018/20531

 

  

 

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 is short 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:

i)        location and nature of growth - through the Auckland Plan and Unitary Plan

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

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

3.       Growth related capex has risen from $5.1 billion in the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 to $7.2 billion in the current 10-Year Budget.  We have also updated our projection of development growth across the next ten 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.

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

5.       To recover the increased investment in growth related infrastructure the indicative urban development contribution price rises from around $21,000 to $26,000 (excl. GST).  As a result, the development contribution 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 development contributions on residential construction.  This will better align the time that residential builders pay their DCs with the time when they sell their developments

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

i)    transport to reflect areas where significant local infrastructure investment is planned

ii)   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 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 their feedback to inform the Governing Body’s decision making in December.

10.     Consultation is supported by a Consultation Document and Supporting Information, Attachments B and C respectively, which set out:

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

·        describes how we set development contributions charges

11.     Details the key changes in our draft Contributions Policy and why we have proposed them.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a)      resolve feedback on the Contributions Policy 2019.

 

 

Horopaki / Context

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

13.     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.

14.     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.

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

·        purpose and principles of development contributions 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.

 

 

 

16.     Schedule Five to the attached draft Contributions Policy 2019 considers the appropriateness of development contributions as a funding source in accordance with the requirements of section 101(3) of the Local Government Act 2002. Our 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 development contribution revenue

17.     The table below sets out the changes in development contribution (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

18.     The 10-Year Budget 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 development contributions.  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.

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

20.     Some infrastructure investments provide benefits across the region or respond to cost pressures driven by growth irrespective of location.  Under the proposed policy to recover these costs every development would pay $8,090 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 e.g.

·        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

21.     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.

22.     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.

23.     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)

-    Land development costs

-    Construction costs

-    Council cost including DCs

-    Profit margin

=   Price paid for land

Alternative options considered

24.     There are two alternatives to the proposed increase in development contributions;

·        defer or halt planned capital projects supporting growth

·        increase ratepayer funding of these projects.

25.     The increase in development contributions price over 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 development contributions make up varying proportions of the funding of individual projects[4].  This option was not adopted as these investments are vital to:

·        maintaining service levels in the face of growth pressures

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

26.     To maintain the planned level of investment without increasing development contributions would require an increase in rates funding of between $50 million and $200 million per annum.  This is equivalent to an additional general rates 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 development contributions not general ratepayers.

Possible legislative changes to funding of Community Infrastructure

27.     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 the 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

28.     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.

29.     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 30 per cent of the rate for transport that a residential dwelling pays i.e. 0.3 HUE.

Non-residential transport

30.     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.

31.     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 officers’ experience of case by case analysis undertaken by the former councils of the transport impacts of this type of development.

32.     The transport demand factors proposed are set out in the tables below.  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

33.     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.  Christchurch and Wellington also use higher factors for commercial and retail development.

34.     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.

35.     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 $2,900 for commercial if the proposed demand factors are used in comparison to the current factors.  It will fall by $1,450 per 100m2 for production and $500 for a standard residential dwelling.  The impact is illustrated with examples based on two recent developments below

·        5,000m2 retail mall development in the North would pay $1.3 million under the proposed demand factors whereas they would have paid $224k under the current demand factors.

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

36.     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.

37.     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.

 

 

38.     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.

39.     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

40.     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.

41.     Officers 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.  To ensure this survey provides the best information it needs to cover Aucklanders’ use across seasons.

42.     The results of the survey are expected to be available early next year.  Officers 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

43.     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.

44.     Officers 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.

45.     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.

46.     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.  Officers recommend that if the council wishes to consider extending support for DCs for social housing then 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.

 

47.     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.  Remissions of DCs for some developers do not change the level of demand for infrastructure from other developers.

48.     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.

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

Payment timing

50.     Developers prefer to pay development contributions 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 development contributions) are at the issue of:

·        land title for subdivisions – around one year before sale

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

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

51.     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. Officers propose to adjust the payment timing for residential developments as follows:

·        a consent that creates five or more dwelling units will be treated as non-residential development. This will allow the DCs to be invoiced at time the Code 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.

52.     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 consultation on the draft Contributions Policy 2019 in May and was supported by all of the 17 submissions that commented on it.

53.     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.

54.     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.

55.     Considered was also given to retaining the status quo.  However, preference was given to the easing of 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.

 

56.     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 8 years.  In this time the council has written off less than $100,000 of DC debt out of $740 million invoiced.

57.     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 issue of a code of compliance certificate (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 at the latest 24 months of issue of a building consent.  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

58.     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 Northwest, Dairy Flat/Wainui/Silverdale, Greater Tamaki and Albany, and transport infrastructure, solely, mainly road sealing, for the benefit of rural areas in the North, West and South.

59.     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, Northwest 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.

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

Development Types

61.     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 reduce the administration costs associated with customer confusion.

Student accommodation

62.     Create a new ‘student accommodation units’ category for student accommodation (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

63.     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

64.     Amend the definition of a ‘Retirement Village’ to align with the Unitary Plan to avoid customer confusion.

 

 

Accommodation units for short term rental

65.     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

66.     The 10-year Budget 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 the future urban areas to be developed now or all of the intensification projects to proceed immediately.

67.     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 it is planned within the next ten years, the policy describes the contribution to the cost of this infrastructure that will be charged to different types of development.

68.     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. We will continue to work on determining the cost and funding arrangements for the infrastructure required. The development charges for these areas 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.

69.     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. We continue to work on new ways to partner with others to build and finance infrastructure. If we can do this successfully this will enable more development areas to be supported earlier.

Public Consultation

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

71.     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).

72.     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 events 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.

73.     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.  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 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

74.     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.

75.     Officers provided briefings on the draft Contributions Policy 2019 to local board cluster meetings in October. 

76.     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.

77.     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.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

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

79.     Feedback from Māori received in the May 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.

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

81.     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.

82.     Māori have expressed aspirations for their land that includes 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.

83.     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 the councillors through the formal engagement for stakeholders referred to in the public consultation section above.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

85.     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

86.     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.  Officers would report on adoption of the final policy to the 13 December 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 Maori development and social housing (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Felipe Panteli - Senior Policy Advisor

Beth Sullivan - Principal Advisor Policy

Andrew Duncan - Manager Financial Policy

Authorisers

Ross Tucker - Acting General Manager, Financial Strategy and Planning

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan consultation feedback and recommended changes

 

File No.: CP2018/21008

 

  

 

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 local board on 4 October 2018 to discuss the consultation feedback and proposed staff responses.

5.       Hibiscus and Bays Local Board residents provided 85 submissions on the plan, representing seven percent 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 local 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 Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a)      receive a summary of consultation feedback from Hibiscus and Bays 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 Hibiscus and Bays 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 Hibiscus and Bays 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

30%

17%

Partial do not support

1%

3%

Full do not support

0%

2%

Other comments

57%

53%

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

Full support

16%

27%

Partial support

45%

29%

Partial do not support

0%

5%

Full do not support

2%

2%

Other comments

38%

37%

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

Full support

53%

46%

Partial support

13%

19%

Partial do not support

8%

12%

Full do not support

2%

2%

Other comments

23%

21%

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

Full support

31%

44%

Partial support

28%

20%

Partial do not support

5%

4%

Full do not support

0%

2%

Other comments

36%

30%

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

Full support

41%

43%

Partial support

28%

23%

Partial do not support

7%

7%

Full do not support

0%

4%

Other comments

24%

23%

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

Full support

51%

44%

Partial support

12%

21%

Partial do not support

6%

5%

Full do not support

2%

3%

Other comments

29%

28%

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

Full support

37%

38%

Partial support

37%

28%

Partial do not support

12%

7%

Full do not support

6%

4%

Other comments

10%

23%

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

Full support

58%

46%

Partial support

16%

23%

Partial do not support

4%

4%

Full do not support

0%

3%

Other comments

22%

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 local 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 Hibiscus and Bays 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 local board 29 June 2017. At its August 2017 business meeting the local 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 local board was held on 4 October 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 local board giving feedback on the Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan at this time. However, if the local 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

151

b

Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan 2018 - Summary Document

161

c

Attachment C - Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Feedback

173

      

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Dr Imogen Bassett – Biosecurity Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Gael Ogilvie – General Manager Environmental Services

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

Feedback on proposed topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy

 

File No.: CP2018/21232

 

  

 

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 ENV/2018/78). The strategy will provide strategic direction for the council group 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 (see 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 Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a)      provide feedback on the proposed topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy (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 stormwater, 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 group. This includes resolving the intersection of the strategy with the section 17A three waters review, mapping the council group’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 group, 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 (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 group in how tomeet 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 the Auckland Council family, 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. Local 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 a 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 was 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 General’s 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 group

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 group 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

195

b

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

203

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Andrew Chin – Auckland Waters Portfolio Manager

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Louise Mason - GM Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 


 


 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

New road names in the 38 Moffat Limited subdivision at 38A Moffat Road, Red Beach

 

File No.: CP2018/20382

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To seek approval for a new road name in the 38 Moffat Limited subdivision at 38A Moffat Road, Red Beach.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

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

3.       The applicant, 38 Moffat Limited, has submitted the following name for the commonly owned access lots serving the new subdivision at 38A Moffat Road, Red Beach:

            Odlin Lane (preferred name)

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a)      approve the name Odlin Lane for the new commonly owned access lots in the 38 Moffat Limited subdivision at 38A Moffat Road, Red Beach, in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 and as referenced in Attachment A to the agenda report.

 

Horopaki / Context

4.       This subdivision containing 22 residential lots at 38A Moffat Road, Red Beach has been approved and the council reference is BUN20456296.

5.       A condition of the subdivision consent was to suggest to council names for the new commonly owned access lots.

6.       In accordance with the national addressing standard commonly owned access lots require names if they serve more than five lots.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

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

8.       Auckland Council’s road naming criteria typically require that road names reflect:

·        A historical or ancestral linkage to an area;

·        A particular landscape, environment or biodiversity theme or feature; or

·        An existing (or introduced) thematic identity in the area.

·        The use of Māori names is actively encouraged.

 

9.       The applicant has submitted the following name for consideration

Preferred Name

Meaning

Odlin Lane

Remembering the former longstanding owner

 

No acceptable alternative names were provided and the applicant has been advised that if the local board does not accept the preferred name he would have to re-apply at a later date.

10.     The preferred name is the surname of the former owners of the land, Keith and June Odlin.

11.     The Odlins purchased the land in the early 1980’s as a lifestyle block and moved on an old villa from Remuera. They planted many trees, raised sheep, and their family grew up on this land.

12.     The Odlins, now in their 80’s, were asked for permission to use their name and were delighted as this will be a lasting legacy for their family where they enjoyed many years.

13.     The applicant has contacted Ngāti Manuhiri and sought their comment. Iwi has said that although they would prefer a Māori name they understand the developer’s choice and do not have a problem with it being used.

14.     The officer acknowledges that where possible the use of Māori names is encouraged in the Auckland Plan.

15.     Land Information New Zealand has confirmed that the proposed road name is unique and acceptable.

16.     The proposed name is deemed to meet the council’s road naming guidelines and the officer’s recommendation is to approve the applicant’s preference

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

17.     The decision sought for this report does not trigger the significance policy and is not considered to have any immediate impacts on the community.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

18.     The applicant has consulted with local iwi, Ngāti Manuhiri, and sought their comment. Iwi has said that although they would prefer a Māori name they understand the developer’s choice and do not have a problem with it being used.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

19.     The applicant has responsibility for ensuring that appropriate signage will be installed accordingly once approval is obtained for the new road names.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

20.     There are no significant risks to council as road naming is a routine part of the subdivision development process with consultation being a key part of the process.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

21.     Approved road names are notified to Land Information New Zealand who records them on their New Zealand wide land information database which includes street addresses issued by councils.

 

 


 

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Odlin Lane Locality Map

211

b

Odlin Lane Scheme Plan

213

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Frank Lovering, Senior Subdivision Advisor, Orewa

Authorisers

Trevor Cullen - Team Leader Subdivision

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

New road names in the Changda International New Zealand Limited subdivision at 44a Sunnyheights Road, Orewa

 

File No.: CP2018/20796

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To seek approval for new road names in the Changda International New Zealand Limited subdivision at 44a Sunnyheights Road, Orewa.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

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

3.       The applicant, Changda International New Zealand Limited, has submitted the following preferred and alternative names for the 21 roads in the new subdivision at 44a Sunnyheights Road, Orewa:

Number

Preferred Name

Meaning

Alternative Names

Meaning

1

Road

Pacific Heights Road

 

Nikau Ridge Road

native tree

3

Drive

Makomako Drive

small  native tree

Waitohu Drive

brand or logo

5

Drive

Matangi View Drive

wind, breeze

Whitinga Road

crossing, traversing

6

Road

Rockpool Road

 

Pourewa Way

elevated platform

7

Lane

Libertia Lane

 

Wharariki Road

mountain flax

9

Street

Kokoru Street

bay or cove

Nui Lane

plentiful, important

10

Drive

Gulfstream Drive

 

Tawhirimatea Way

 

12

Lane

Waimāru Lane

 

Hokimai Street

 

13

Lane

Cobalt Sea Lane

 

 

 

14

Lane

Ringi Lane

to pour out

 

 

17

Close

Kawau Close

 

Haki Way

flag or ensign

19

Lane

Rerekapua Lane

 

 

 

20

Terrace

Te Wai Terrace

tribe that lived at Tamaki

Pinatoro Grove

New Zealand Daphne

21

Road

Sapphire Sea Road

 

Tekaha Way

snare for catching birds

22

Road

Tahu Moana Road

main theme of sea

 

 

23

Road

Azure Ocean Road

 

Maia Street

bravery or courage

24

Lane

Moana Vista Lane

sea view

Tororaro Terrace

native twining climber

25

Lane

Cabbage Tree Lane

 

Fernbird Lane

 

26

Terrace

Brookhaven Lane

 

Aranga Way

arise, emerge

27

Lane

Karaka Tree Lane

Native tree

 

 

28

Way

Taurepo Way

New Zealand Gloxinia

 

 

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a)      approve the new names tabled at item 9, for the Changda International New Zealand Limited subdivision at 44a Sunnyheights Road, Orewa, in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 and as referenced in Attachment A to the agenda report

 

 

Horopaki / Context

4.       This subdivision of 570 residential lots at 44a Sunnyheights Road, Orewa has been approved under the Special Housing Area Legislation and the council reference is BUN20455171.

5.       A condition of the subdivision consent was to suggest to council names for the 21 new roads.

6.       In accordance with the national addressing standard the new roads require names.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

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

8.       Auckland Council’s road naming criteria typically require that road names reflect:

·        A historical or ancestral linkage to an area;

·        A particular landscape, environment or biodiversity theme or feature; or

·        An existing (or introduced) thematic identity in the area.

·        The use of Māori names is actively encouraged

9.       The applicant has submitted the following names for consideration:

Number

Preferred Name

Meaning

Alternative Names

Meaning

1

Road

Pacific Heights Road

 

Nikau Ridge Road

native tree

3

Drive

Makomako Drive

small  native tree

Waitohu Drive

brand or logo

5

Drive

Matangi View Drive

wind, breeze

Whitinga Road

crossing, traversing

6

Road

Rockpool Road

 

Pourewa Way

elevated platform

7

Lane

Libertia Lane

 

Wharariki Road

mountain flax

9

Street

Kokoru Street

bay or cove

Nui Lane

plentiful, important

10

Drive

Gulfstream Drive

 

Tawhirimatea Way

 

12

Lane

Waimāru Lane

 

Hokimai Street

 

13

Lane

Cobalt Sea Lane

 

 

 

14

Lane

Ringi Lane

to pour out

 

 

17

Close

Kawau Close

 

Haki Way

flag or ensign

19

Lane

Rerekapua Lane

 

 

 

20

Terrace

Te Wai Terrace

tribe that lived at Tamaki

Pinatoro Grove

New Zealand Daphne

21

Road

Sapphire Sea Road

 

Tekaha Way

snare for catching birds

22

Road

Tahu Moana Road

main theme of sea

 

 

23

Road

Azure Ocean Road

 

Maia Street

bravery or courage

24

Lane

Moana Vista Lane

sea view

Tororaro Terrace

native twining climber

25

Lane

Cabbage Tree Lane

 

Fernbird Lane

 

26

Terrace

Brookhaven Lane

 

Aranga Way

arise, emerge

27

Lane

Karaka Tree Lane

Native tree

 

 

28

Way

Taurepo Way

New Zealand Gloxinia

 

 

 

10.     The applicant has contacted Ngāti Manuhiri and sought their comment. As a result, iwi suggestions form some of the applicants preferred choices and alternatives. Meanings of the names have been added where available from the Māori dictionary.

11.     The officer acknowledges that where possible the use of Māori names is encouraged in the Auckland Plan.

12.     Land Information New Zealand has checked a large list of possible names, declined some and confirmed that the proposed road names above are unique and acceptable.

13.     The proposed names are deemed to meet the council’s road naming guidelines and the officer’s recommendation is to approve the applicant’s preferred names.

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

14.     The decision sought for this report does not trigger the significance policy and is not considered to have any immediate impacts on the community.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

15.     The applicant has consulted with local iwi, Ngāti Manuhiri, who have proposed many of the new names and alternatives.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

16.     The applicant has responsibility for ensuring that appropriate signage will be installed accordingly once approval is obtained for the new road names.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

17.     There are no significant risks to council as road naming is a routine part of the subdivision development process with consultation being a key part of the process.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

18.     Approved road names are notified to Land Information New Zealand who records them on their New Zealand wide land information database which includes street addresses issued by councils.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Sunnyheights Road Locality Map

221

b

Sunnyheights Road Scheme Plan

223

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Frank Lovering, Senior Subdivision Advisor, Orewa

Authorisers

Trevor Cullen - Team Leader Subdivision

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 



Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 



Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

Ward Councillors Update

 

File No.: CP2018/19442

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

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

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a)      thank Councillors Walker and Watson for their update.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Vivienne Sullivan - Local Board Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

Governance Forward Work Calendar

 

File No.: CP2018/19444

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

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

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

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

·    clarifying what advice is required

·    clarifying the rationale for reports.

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

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a)      receive the Governance Forward Work Calendar.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Governance Forward Work Calendar

229

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Vivienne Sullivan - Local Board Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 


 


 


 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

Record of Workshop Meetings

 

File No.: CP2018/19445

 

  

 

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

1.       The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board held workshop meetings on 11 and 25 October and 1 November 2018.

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a)      endorse the records of the workshop meetings held on 11 and 25 October and 1 November 2018.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Record of Workshop Meeting, 11 October 2018

235

b

Record of Workshop Meeting, 25 October 2018

237

c

Record of Workshop Meeting, 1 November 2018

239

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Vivienne Sullivan - Local Board Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 


 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 


 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 


 

     

 


Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

21 November 2018

 

 

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

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

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

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

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

 

C1       Acquisition of land for open space - Silverdale

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

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

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

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

s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

In particular, the report identifies land the council seeks to acquire for opens space purposes.

s48(1)(a)

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

 

   

 



[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.