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

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Thursday, 15 November 2018

4.00pm

Local Board Office
560 Mt Albert Road
Three Kings

 

Puketāpapa Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Harry Doig

 

Deputy Chairperson

Julie Fairey

 

Members

Anne-Marie Coury

 

 

David Holm

 

 

Shail Kaushal

 

 

Ella Kumar, JP

 

 

(Quorum 3 members)

 

 

 

Selina Powell

Democracy Advisor - Puketapapa

 

6 November 2018

 

Contact Telephone: 021 531 686

Email: selina.powell@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                         PAGE

1          Welcome                                                                                                                         5

2          Apologies                                                                                                                        5

3          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   5

4          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               5

5          Leave of Absence                                                                                                          5

6          Acknowledgements                                                                                                       5

7          Petitions                                                                                                                          5

8          Deputations                                                                                                                    5

9          Public Forum                                                                                                                  5

10        Extraordinary Business                                                                                                5

11        Trial of online voting at the 2019 local elections                                                       7

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

13        Puketāpapa Youth Board Update                                                                              31

14        Auckland Transport's Monthly Update                                                                     33

15        Increasing activation by diverse communities of parks within Puketāpapa        59

16        Renewal and variation of community lease to Royal New Zealand Plunket Trust, 50 Buckley Road, Epsom                                                                                                 87

17        Draft Contributions Policy                                                                                          95

18        Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan consultation feedback and recommended changes                                                                                            107

19        Feedback on proposed topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy   141

20        Quarterly Performance Report for quarter one 2018/2019: Puketāpapa Local Board                                                                                                                                     159

21        Chairperson's Report                                                                                                193

22        Board Member Reports                                                                                             197

23        Albert-Eden-Roskill Ward Councillor Update                                                         213

24        Urgent Decision - Local Board feedback on the healthy homes standards       215

25        Governance Forward Work Programme Calendar                                                225

26        Record of Puketāpapa Local Board Workshop Notes                                          229  

27        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

28        Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public                                                               239

C1       Acquisition of land for open space  -  Mount Eden                                               239  

 


1          Welcome

 

Member Shail Kaushal will deliver the welcome message.

 

2          Apologies

 

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

 

3          Declaration of Interest

 

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

 

4          Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 18 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 Puketāpapa Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

 

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

 

9          Public Forum

 

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

 

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

 

10        Extraordinary Business

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 

Trial of online voting at the 2019 local elections

 

File No.: CP2018/20686

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To seek local board feedback on:

·        the trial of online voting at the 2019 local elections

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11.     This 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 Puketāpapa 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 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 3 per cent of the overall Auckland electorate.

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

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

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

Accessibility

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

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

Representativeness

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

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

·        age

·        ethnicity

·        income

·        education level.

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

Other considerations

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

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

Selecting the geographic area(s)

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

77.     The analysis considered the average voter turnout in each area compared to Auckland overall, but this added parameter did not impact the results, so it was 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

17

b

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

19

      

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Elodie Fontaine - Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - General Manager Democracy Services

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 

Local government elections 2019 – order of names on voting documents

 

File No.: CP2018/21445

 

  

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

·        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 Puketāpapa 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 (DHBs) in the Auckland Council area decided to use random order of names. In the voting pack that Auckland electors received, voting documents for Auckland Council elections were alphabetical and voting documents for district health board elections were random.

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

Auckland Council

Alphabetical

Hawke's Bay Regional Council

Alphabetical

Invercargill City Council

Alphabetical

Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council

Alphabetical

Northland Regional Council

Alphabetical

Southland Regional Council

Alphabetical

Taranaki Regional Council

Alphabetical

Upper Hutt City Council

Alphabetical

West Coast Regional Council

Alphabetical

Bay of Plenty Regional Council

Random

Christchurch City Council

Random

Dunedin City Council

Random

Canterbury Regional Council

Random

Hamilton City Council

Random

Hutt City Council

Random

Napier City Council

Random

Nelson City Council

Random

Otago Regional Council

Random

Palmerston North City Council

Random

Porirua City Council

Random

Tauranga City Council

Random

Waikato Regional Council

Random

Wellington City Council

Random

Wellington Regional Council

Random

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Options for 2019

Pseudo-random order and random order

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

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

Alphabetical order

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

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

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

Analysis of previous election results

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

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

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

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

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

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

Online voting

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

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

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

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

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

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Order of names on voting documents

25

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - General Manager Democracy Services

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 

Puketāpapa Youth Board Update

 

File No.: CP2018/19865

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       The purpose of this report is for the Puketāpapa Youth Board to provide a verbal update to the Board.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)      thank the Puketāpapa Youth Board for their update.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Selina Powell - Democracy Advisor - Puketapapa

Authoriser

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 

Auckland Transport's Monthly Update

 

File No.: CP2018/20301

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To provide an update to the Puketāpapa Local Board (the Board) on transport related matters in their area.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       This report updates the Board on significant projects and investigations taking place in the Board area and progress on its local board transport capital fund (LBTCF).

3.       An update on Board advocacy as stated in the Puketāpapa Local Board Plan 2017, is included.

4.       Auckland Transport’s (AT) quarterly report on its activities in the Board area and regionally for the period of July to September 2018 is attached to this report.

5.       AT has also investigated a number of transport related issues brought to their attention by the Board.  These are reported back weekly by email and addressed monthly at the Board’s Infrastructure, Heritage Working Group Cluster.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)      receive the Auckland Transport November 2018 update report.

Horopaki / Context

6.       This report addresses transport related matters in the local board area.

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

8.       The LBTCF is a capital budget provided to all local boards by Auckland Council and delivered by Auckland Transport (AT).  Local boards can use this fund to deliver transport infrastructure projects that they believe are important 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 through parks can be considered if there is a transport outcome).


 

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF)

 

Puketāpapa Local Board Transport Capital Fund Financial Summary

Total Funds Available in current political term

2,702,161

Remaining Budget left

$676,164

9.       The remaining budget includes the Puketāpapa Local Board’s allowance as of 1 July 2018. The requirement for the new amount is for the Board to allocate the money before 30 June 2019, rather than to have it spent by then.

10.     The Board is advised that after costs for the Greenway cycling route are established, further projects may need to be identified.  A report back on the Greenways project is scheduled for the November Infrastructure and Heritage cluster meeting.

Update on Puketāpapa Local Board Transport Capital Fund Projects

11.     The table below reflects the status of projects which are progressing using the LBTCF.

Project

Description

Status

Projected Cost

Fearon Park Pathway

A shared path to be constructed through Fearon Park.

 

This is being managed by Auckland Council Community Facilities. First stage of the greenway path is completeThe second stage which will take the shared path through to Parau St has been delayed by contaminated land issues and is now due for completion in November.

$190,000

Richardson Road carpark realignment and Lighting project

A project to shift parking in the carpark to facilitate the construction of a shared path past the kindergarten. This will complete the missing link in the Mt Roskill safe route scheme.

This project is being delivered by Auckland Council Community Facilities who advise that the contract is to be awarded in a week’s time.   When the contract is awarded, a start date can be confirmed.

$220,000

Keith Hay Park Lighting – Southern Section

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

This project is being delivered by Auckland Council Community Facilities who advise that the contract is to be awarded in a week’s time.  When tender is awarded, a start date can be confirmed.

$350,000

Smart Studs

Installation of flashing studs at the pedestrian zebra on Mt Albert Rd, vicinity of Three Kings Plaza.

This has now been completed.

$60,000

Greenway Cycling Project – Route D (modified)

This route includes shared paths on Frost Road and then a combination of traffic calming measures, signs, markings along Britton and Dornwell Roads, shared paths through the laneways and then traffic calming on Hayr Road and Haughey Avenue through to, but not across Hillsborough Rd.

The scheme design work will be presented to the Board in November, together with a more focused rough order of costs.

$600,000 (allocated)

Responses to resolutions

12.     At its October meeting, the Board asked AT to report back to the Infrastructure and Heritage Cluster on the scooter trial underway in Auckland.

13.     The Code of Practice for the scooter trial can be found on AT’s website:

https://at.govt.nz/about-us/working-with-at/bike-and-e-scooter-share-services/

14.     The scooter trial has a street trading licence from Auckland Council and is subject to regulations set by New Zealand Transport Authority (NZTA).

15.     AT and Auckland Council will report back once the trial is completed.

Local Board Advocacy

16.     Progress update on Puketāpapa Local Board advocacy, as stated in the Local Board Plan 2017.

Affordable and frequent public transport options that are well linked and easy to access.

Central New Network launched in July 2018.  The project simplified the bus network and provided frequent routes to make connections between services convenient, attractive and simple.

Changes in the Puketāpapa area included frequent routes connecting New Lynn and Onehunga, Pt Chevalier and Sylvia Park, renumbering of services to improve legibility and frequency, and a service on Stoddard Road.

AT has confirmed that a new bus route, numbered 191, will start to connect Lynfield to Blockhouse Bay, Rosebank Rd and New Lynn.

Work has begun on Dominion Road to increase bus lane lengths and to clear the route for double deckers, due to start at the end of 2018.

Mt Eden Rd bus lane priority improvements will soon launch.  Work on the corridor to improve bus lane lengths, increase bus lane operating hours and provide new crossing points will start toward the end of 2018.

AT has upgraded the bus shelter at the Three Kings stop to provide better facilities for customers. 

More bus shelters are being delivered to support the new network as resources allow.

 

 

An expanded network of safe and well-connected walking and cycling routes.

Improved cycle crossing has been provided at Hillsborough Road/SH 20 motorway ramps.

Two new pedestrian crossing facilities are to be provided on Mt Eden Rd as part of the buslane upgrade work.

A signalised mid-block crossing will be provided on Queenstown Rd, near Onehunga High School to replace the current pedestrian refuge.

Puketāpapa Local Board and AT are working together to investigate and deliver a safer  walking and cycling connection linking the Mt Albert School campus to Hillsborough Road.  This will be discussed with Infrastructure and Heritage Cluster in November 2018.

AT is working on a project in Mt Roskill called Safer Communities.  This project focuses on areas that the community has highlighted as causing concern when moving around Mt Roskill on foot or cycle.

A second round of consultation on the proposals to improve safety and walkability around Hayr/Frost/Carr Rds will go out for consultation in November 2018.

AT will report back to the Board in early 2019 on walking and safety proposals for the area around Mt Albert Road and Three Kings Plaza.

The Board is funding cycle connections in Fearon Park and a missing link in the Mt Roskill Safe Route cycleway with its transport capital fund.

AT is investigating three proposals for new pedestrian crossing points on Hillsborough Road.

A project to improve safety for pedestrians at the Mt Albert/Hillsborough Rd intersection is in design.

 

Better roads and improved road safety.

AT continues to act to bring sharper focus to improving road safety outcomes. This includes minor safety investigations and targeted programmes such as the Safer Communities project.

The Board has funded minor safety works at the intersection of Commodore / Hillsborough and Griffen Park Rds.  AT will undertake a safety investigation of this intersection and report back to the Board in 2019.

Safety improvements are planned for the Hayr Rd roundabout and Kingsway Rd.

15 active Travelwise School Programmes and 13 active walking school buses, along with re-engaging inactive Travelwise schools and walking school buses.

Traffic calming devices will soon be introduced to Duke Street to address reports of speeding in this street.

Safe Speed education campaign is underway.

 

 

More environmentally sensitive transport.

AT is trialing electric buses in its City Link route and newer buses including more double decker buses are being added to the fleet.

Auckland Council has licensed a bike share scheme in the city.

Auckland Council has licensed a three month trial for a scooter share scheme in the city.  AT and AC will report back on this trial.

AT continues to deliver the Auckland Cycle Network and add to cycle infrastructure in the city.

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

Local Board Workshop – October 2018

17.     AT held a workshop with the Board in October. This provided an opportunity to discuss progress of the Safer Communities project and other local issues.

Auckland Transport consultations

18.     AT provides the Puketāpapa Local Board with the opportunity to comment on transport projects being delivered in their area.

19.     Over the last reporting period, details of a project in Keith Hay Park carpark were sent to the Board.

20.     Feedback from the Board has been positive.

Project

Description

Keith Hay Park Carpark

The proposal is to upgrade the layout of the carpark to improve operations and then to take the carpark layout through the AT resolution process to ensure all the restrictions are enforceable.

The proposed change to the layout is the implementation of additional No Stopping At All Times restrictions in various places to stop vehicles parking in locations that impede traffic flow. 

 

Traffic Control Committee resolutions

21.     These are the decisions of the Traffic Control Committee that affected the Puketāpapa Local Board area in October 2018:

Street/Area

Description

Work

Decision

Kingsway/Queensway

 

Permanent Traffic and Parking changes Combined

 

 

No Stopping At All Times, Traffic Island, Flush Median, Shoulder Marking, Edge Line, Give-Way Control

 

 

Carried

Progress being made on significant investigations and projects in the Board area

Project

Details

Status

Safer Communities 2018-21

This programme focuses on walking improvements in the Mount Roskill community.  It aims to create safer walking environments for local people to get to and from key destinations such as schools, public transport hubs, shops, community centres and more, on foot.

 

Concept designs for Frost and Carr Rd were discussed with the Board.  These will go to public consultation in mid-November.

The project team will come back to the Board in early 2019 to discuss changes to Mt Albert Road/Hayr Rd area.

 

 

Mt Roskill Village Upgrade/ Dominion Road Double Decker Route

Changes are being made to the bus stops in the village area to accommodate double decker buses.  Footpath renewals will take place at the same time along with a streetscape improvement project, funded by the Board. 

The Board approved a draft streetscape design on 16 August 2018.  Some changes arose from Auckland Transport internal feedback, an independent road safety audit and a hui.  Key design themes are retained.

 

It is planned to integrate the work in the village with the other changes needed to accommodate double decker buses. 

Work will begin on kerb build outs and veranda cut backs (where necessary) in November 2018.

Carlton Street

AT has reviewed the safety audit completed by consultants and provided responses to the matters raised at the May 2018 public meeting.

AT is working through bus friendly infrastructure designs that will ensure all vehicles travel slowly on Carlton Street.

 

This project is currently unscheduled.

Mt Eden Road Buslane Upgrade

Tender documents have been finalised and approval from the Traffic Control Committee is being sought.  The intention is to combine the work in the Puketāpapa and Albert-Eden Local Board areas with a planned reseal of sections of Mt Eden Road.

 

 

Delivery is expected to begin late 2018 or early 2019.

Duke Street Traffic Calming

Speed calming devices will be constructed on Duke Street similar in design to the existing devices.

Construction is expected to begin in late 2018.

Quarterly Reporting July to September 2018

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

·    Attachment A – report from Auckland Transport departments on their activities in the Puketāpapa Local Board area and regionally over the last quarter (July to September 2018).

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

23.     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

24.     There are no financial implications that result from receiving this report.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

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

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment A - AT's Quarterly Report to the Board (July  to September 2018)

41

b

Attachment B - AT's Quarterly Report on Travelwise Schools in the Puketāpapa  Local Board area (July to September 2018)

57

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Lorna Stewart - Elected Member Relationship Manager

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon - Manager Elected Member Relationship Unit

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


 


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 

Increasing activation by diverse communities of parks within Puketāpapa

 

File No.: CP2018/21103

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To seek adoption of the report “Activating Parks for Diverse Cultural Communities in the Puketāpapa Local Board”.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       Puketāpapa is a diverse local board area, with a higher percentage of residents of non-European background than any other region in Auckland. It is also a local board facing significant growth, with the population expected to increase from 60,000 to 74,000 in the next fifteen years.

3.       In order to provide an appropriate and inclusive park experience for this growing population, we first need to gain better understanding of the open space needs of diverse communities within Puketāpapa.

4.       In FY 17/18 the Puketāpapa Local Board funded an investigation to target a wide range of diverse community groups within the area and gain an understanding of how they value and use the open space available to them, and how we could better serve them in future.

5.       A number of themes and recommended actions to improve the use of public open space by diverse communities were identified following this engagement, explained in detail in Attachment A to this report.

6.       Responding to the open space needs and opportunities identified through this investigation will result in a number of benefits to diverse communities within Puketāpapa, including to their health and wellbeing, knowledge and social connectedness.

7.       Findings from this report will help to inform the development of future programmes and projects within parks, as well as input into other plans such as the Healthy Puketāpapa Action Plan.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)      adopt the Activating Parks for Diverse Cultural Communities document, Attachment A of the agenda report, to aid in future decision-making to optimise opportunities for diverse communities within parks in Puketāpapa.

Horopaki / Context

8.       Puketāpapa is a diverse local board area, with almost half of the population having been born overseas, more any other region in Auckland. In the 2013 census, 44% of residents identified as Asian (including Indian, Chinese, Sri Lankan, Filipino and Korean communities), 16% Pacific and 6% Māori. There are also a number of African migrant communities.

9.       These groups are often some of the least visible and least engaged during public consultation, with poor representation, a lack of understanding of the function of local government and often reduced proficiency in the English language.

10.     Puketāpapa is also a local board facing significant growth, with the population expected to increase from 60,000 to 74,000 in the next fifteen years. This is expected to be most pronounced at key growth areas in Wesley, Roskill South, Three Kings and Royal Oak.

11.     This growth is likely to put pressure on the network of 76 local parks located across the area. As population density increases these parks will become more important as sites for community activity and connectedness.

12.     In order to improve the parks network in Puketāpapa, we have to have to ensure that the needs of its diverse population are catered to. While we know that the ways in which different cultures value and utilise open space can differ, further investigation is required to identify the needs of diverse communities living in this area of Auckland.

13.     The Puketāpapa Local Board funded an investigation in FY17/18 to identify the open space needs and opportunities for diverse communities within the local board area.

14.     This investigation aimed to identify and survey a wide range of community groups within Puketāpapa, to gain an understanding of how these communities value and use the open space available to them. Suggestions for how we could better serve these groups were compiled to produce recommendations for the future development and programming of parks and ongoing engagement with the diverse community in Puketāpapa.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

15.     A total of 165 people were engaged over the course of this investigation. A mix of methods was used to ensure that responses included people that may not normally respond to typical council engagement. These included:

·        Short intercept surveys of visitors to Auckland International Cultural Festival and Puketāpapa Wellness Expo.

·        An online survey emailed out to diverse community organisations to share with their members and post to social media.

·        Two community workshops involving eighty residents. Point Research partnered with The Asian Network Inc (TANI), and The Wise Project (Auckland Regional Migrant Service) to bring these workshops together.

·        Stakeholder interviews with eighteen local community leaders and managers from community facilities near parks to capture current activities and programmes, and opportunities for future programming and asset development.

16.     The investigation identified four themes which were consistent across responses from a range of diverse communities for how they value open space. Expanded in detail in Attachment A (pages 3-4), these were:

·        Health and wellbeing

·        Cultural exchange and celebration

·        Inclusion and access

·        Activation of parks

17.     The investigation identified a number of actions for how we could better provide for diverse communities within parks. Expanded in detail in Attachment A (pages 13-21), this included:

·        Provision of tailored programmes including exercise programmes or cultural events and exchange programmes. 

·        Provision of assets to enable diverse use of parks, including active transport, recreation and community assets.

·        Provision of information and advice which is more accessible to these communities to improve their understanding of opportunities to engage with parks.

18.     Responding to the open space needs and opportunities identified through this investigation will result in a number of benefits to diverse communities within Puketāpapa. Expanded in detail in Attachment A (pages 13-19), some of these benefits include:

·        Reduced level of loneliness or social isolation, a common issue raised by members of diverse communities, by creating social connective spaces.

·        Increased use of parks and open spaces by members of diverse communities, resulting in benefits to personal health and wellbeing.

·        Increased inclusion in parks and open spaces, helping to create safe and fit for purpose spaces for the wider community.

·        Improved understanding and empowerment of diverse communities to engage with local government, including future consultation efforts in their local area.

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

19.     The Puketāpapa Local Board Plan 2017 recognises the diversity of this area of Auckland and outlines an ambition to celebrate this diversity to foster a unique local identity that all of the community can be proud of. This is reflected in objectives two and four of outcome one: “connected communities with a sense of belonging”.

20.     The Puketāpapa Open Space Network Plan 2018 also flags responding to diversity within parks to create an equitable and inclusive network as a high priority action within Key Move 3: Inclusive Communities.

21.     The research also complements the Mental Health Foundation’s Five Ways of Wellbeing, a programme supported by the Puketāpapa Local Board. Activating parks for diverse cultural communities connects people through events and activities. In addition, parks are an ideal place to take notice, keeping learning and be active.

22.     Workshops were held with the Puketāpapa Local Board to discuss this project on 12 October 2017, 26 April 2018 and 28 June 2018. Feedback from the local board throughout this process helped to shape the plan to ensure it provided the information required to guide future decision making, and to ensure that all relevant communities were engaged with. The final draft was workshopped with the local board on 28 June 2018.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

23.     As there is only a very small Māori population within Puketāpapa, no specific engagement was targeted towards this demographic. In addition, Council already have in place specific processes to seek the input of mana whenua on all projects and programmes within parks.

24.     The investigation was discussed with mana whenua during its early stage at the Park, Sports and Recreation Kaitiaki Forum on 29 November 2017. Mana whenua representatives present agreed that they would like to be involved as partners in the decision making to follow this piece of work, as opposed to being engaged specifically as stakeholders in the project.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

25.     Improved knowledge of the needs of diverse communities within parks in Puketāpapa will help to guide future investment into both public assets and programmes within parks. Funding from the local board may be sought in future years to progress the recommendations from the report.


 

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

26.     In preparing this report it has been necessary to make a number of assumptions on the basis of the information supplied to Point Research Limited for this research. It is possible that despite the large number of inputs, the viewpoints collected through this research may not accurately reflect the needs of all members of diverse communities. To mitigate this risk, ongoing engagement with diverse community groups in Puketāpapa is recommended as projects and programmes are progressed to delivery.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

27.     Parks Services will undertake more detailed feasibility and assessment of recommendations from the report as part of future PSR Work Programme planning.

28.     The key findings of this report will help to inform the development of the Healthy Puketāpapa Action Plan in 2018/19 and shape upcoming Out and About and ACE programmes for 2018/19.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Activating Parks for Diverse Cultural Communities in the Puketāpapa Local Board

63

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Thomas Dixon - Parks & Places Specialist

Authorisers

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 

Renewal and variation of community lease to Royal New Zealand Plunket Trust, 50 Buckley Road, Epsom

 

File No.: CP2018/20848

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To grant a renewal and variation of the community lease to Royal New Zealand Plunket Trust, 50 Buckley Road, Epsom.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       Royal New Zealand Plunket Society Incorporated holds a community lease with Auckland City Council commencing 1 January 2009 for an initial term of five years to 31 December 2013. The lease contains two further renewal terms of five years each. Royal New Zealand Plunket Trust wish to renew its second and final renewal term commencing 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2023.

3.       Community groups exercising a right of renewal are asked to consider having their community lease varied to include a smoke free policy clause and a community outcomes plan.

4.       The renewal of lease will be varied to include a smoke free policy clause and a community outcomes plan. Royal New Zealand Plunket Trust agree to the variations.

5.       From 1 January 2018 all new leases for existing plunket sites will be in the entity’s new name of Royal New Zealand Plunket Trust.

6.       This report recommends a renewal and variation of community lease be granted to Royal New Zealand Plunket Trust for a further term of five years commencing 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2023.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)      grant a renewal and variation of community lease to Royal New Zealand Plunket Trust, located at 50 Buckley Road, Epsom, (Attachment A of the agenda report), subject to the following terms and conditions:

i)        term – five years commencing 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2023

ii)       rent - $250.00 plus GST per annum

iii)      the inclusion of a smoke free policy clause and community outcomes plan.

b)      all other terms and conditions in accordance with the Deed of Lease dated 18 December 2009.

 

 

Horopaki / Context

7.       Lot 11 DP 38122 – 589 m² NA41D/732 is held in fee simple by the Auckland Council under the Local Government Act 2002.


 

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Royal New Zealand Plunket Trust

8.       Royal New Zealand Plunket Trust (plunket) is a national not-for-profit organisation that is community owned and governed. Plunket provides a caring, professional well child and whānau service committed to providing access to services for all children and families regardless of ethnicity, location or ability to pay.

9.       Programmes have been designed to support whānau with young tamariki and offer a range of activities including support and developmental assessments of tamariki at varying stages between birth and five years.

10.     Plunket visits can take place at pre-schools, marae and other community facilities.  Each visit gives parents the opportunity to discuss parenting, whānau issues and tamariki health and development.

11.     Tamariki and whānau have access to services at Buckley Road every day. Playgroups are held Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday with well child clinics held every day between 8.30am to 4.00pm.  Room hire includes use of facilities, playground, toys and trestle tables and chairs at a cost of $40.00 for half a day or $60.00 for the full day.  A $50.00 bond is required.

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

12.     Plunket has submitted an extensive application and is able to demonstrate its viability to deliver services.

13.     Community groups exercising a right of renewal are asked to consider having their community lease varied to include a smoke free policy clause and a community outcomes plan.  Plunket supports a variation to the lease document.

14.     A community outcomes plan has been negotiated with plunket that identifies the benefits it will provide to the community.  This will be attached as a schedule to the lease document.

15.     Plunket is financially viable and audited accounts show proper accounting records have been kept.

16.     A site visit to plunket on 4 September 2018 ascertained that the leased area is in a neat and tidy condition.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

17.     The renewal of lease was workshopped on 4 October 2018 with the Puketāpapa Local Board.

18.     The recommendations within this report support the Puketāpapa Local Board Plan 2017 outcome of:

·    connected communities with a sense of belonging.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

19.     Auckland Council is committed to meeting its responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its broader legal obligations to Māori.

20.     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 2012-2022, the Unitary Plan and Local Board Plans.

21.     There are no changes in use or operational activities being conducted on the land.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

22.     There are no financial implications associated with the granting of a renewal and variation of lease.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

23.     There are no risks associated with the grant of a renewal and variation of lease.  The provision of a community lease is provided for in the deed of lease dated 18 December 2009.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment A - Site plan

91

b

Attachment B - Community Outcomes Plan

93

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Michelle Knudsen - Lease Advisor

Authorisers

Rod Sheridan - General Manager Community Facilities

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 

Draft Contributions Policy

 

File No.: CP2018/21403

 

  

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:

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

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

·                 when and where it will invest $7.2 billion of growth-related infrastructure in the next 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 Puketāpapa 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

Matthew Walker - Group Chief Financial Officer

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 

Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan consultation feedback and recommended changes

 

File No.: CP2018/20962

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

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

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

4.       A workshop was held with the board on 27 September 2018 to discuss the consultation feedback and proposed staff responses.

5.       Puketāpapa Local Board residents provided 12 submissions on the plan, representing one per cent of overall submissions. The views of local board residents were similar to regional views, with high levels of support across all topics excluding the addition of cats as a pest. The extent of cat control resulting from the plan is likely to be less extensive than the concerns noted in many submissions. Staff are exploring options to mitigate submitter concerns in the wording of the final plan.

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

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)      receive a summary of consultation feedback from Puketāpapa 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 submission 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%

Great Barrier

24

4%

Devonport-Takapuna

53

4%

Franklin

50

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 Puketāpapa 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 Puketāpapa 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

8%

26%

Partial support

15%

17%

Partial do not support

0%

3%

Full do not support

0%

2%

Other comments

77%

53%

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

Full support

33%

27%

Partial support

11%

29%

Partial do not support

0%

5%

Full do not support

0%

2%

Other comments

56%

37%

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

Full support

69%

46%

Partial support

0%

19%

Partial do not support

23%

12%

Full do not support

0%

2%

Other comments

8%

21%

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

Full support

40%

44%

Partial support

10%

20%

Partial do not support

10%

4%

Full do not support

0%

2%

Other comments

40%

30%

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

Full support

27%

43%

Partial support

0%

23%

Partial do not support

18%

7%

Full do not support

18%

4%

Other comments

36%

23%

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

Full support

45%

44%

Partial support

9%

21%

Partial do not support

9%

5%

Full do not support

0%

3%

Other comments

36%

28%

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

Full support

45%

38%

Partial support

9%

28%

Partial do not support

18%

7%

Full do not support

0%

4%

Other comments

27%

23%

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

Full support

56%

46%

Partial support

0%

23%

Partial do not support

0%

4%

Full do not support

0%

3%

Other comments

44%

25%

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

19.     A recent workshop with the board was held on 27 September 2018 to discuss the consultation feedback and the recommended amendments to the plan, as set out in Attachment A.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

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

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

·        Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum

·        Te Kawerau ā Maki

·        Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua

·        Te Uri o Hau

·        Te Tira Whakamātaki - Māori Biosecurity Network

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

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

·        the need to recognise ecological value outside Significant Ecological Areas

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

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

·        the importance of community education and involvement in pest management

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

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

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

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

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

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

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

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

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

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

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

Action/Milestone

Indicative timeframe

Mana whenua engagement to address changes proposed in submissions

September – October 2018

Local boards resolve formal feedback at business meetings

November – December 2018

 

Environment and Community Committee workshop

November 2018

Staff draft final plan

December 2018 – February 2019

Environment and Community Committee adopt plan

March 2019

 

Closing the loop with local boards and submitters

April – May 2019

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

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

115

b

Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan 2018 - Summary Document

125

c

Puketāpapa Local Board feedback on the Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan

137

     

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 – General Manager, Local Board Services

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


 


 


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 

Feedback on proposed topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy

 

File No.: CP2018/21370

 

  

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 Puketāpapa 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 meet the challenges and opportunities for improved water management. It is expected that the strategy will define the approaches taken around water in other strategies and plans as they are subsequently developed and reviewed.

18.     The proposed topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy (see Attachment A) were developed through the review of the existing policies and strategies, and through a series of workshops and discussions with staff from Auckland Council 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. 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 Generals Water Programme. The strategy will need to adapt to any changes in direction from central government.

Unable to deliver to time and cost

Medium

Anticipate where possible, communication plans to include government stakeholders

Inconsistent practices and adoption of the strategy

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

147

b

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

155

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Andrew Chin – Auckland Waters Portfolio Manager

Authorisers

Barry Potter – Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Louise Mason – General Manager Local Board Services

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


 


 


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 

Quarterly Performance Report for quarter one 2018/2019: Puketāpapa Local Board

 

File No.: CP2018/21388

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To provide the Puketapapa Local Board with an integrated quarterly performance report for quarter one, 1 July – 30 September 2018.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       This report includes financial performance, progress against work programmes, key challenges the 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 Puketāpapa Local Board Plan 2017 outcomes.

4.       The key activity updates from this quarter:

·          Youth Connections is transitioning from the Community Empowerment Unit (CEU) to The Southern Initiative (TSI)

·          The current business engagement programme has been placed on hold following board direction to step back from actively pursuing the establishment of one or multiple business association(s)

·          Mana whenua have been invited to provide a dual Māori name and narrative for 30 parks in Puketāpapa

·          The Waikowhai Walkway Action Plan has been adopted to guide investment into walkway routes along the Waikowhai Coast

·          A draft design for improvements to the Mt Roskill Village was approved in principle

·          12 organisations have received strategic relationship grants.

5.       All operating departments with agreed work programmes have provided a quarterly update against their work programme delivery.  All activities are reported with a status of green (on track) or amber (some risk or issues, which are being managed).  There are no activities with a red status this quarter (behind delivery, significant risk). Notable activities on hold (amber) include:

·          Waikowhai Coastal Walkway – development of priority walkway routes (pending capital expenditure budget allocation)

·          Puketāpapa – accessibility improvements (pending capital expenditure budget allocation)

·          Puketāpapa Business Engagement (pending local board agreed re-scope)

6.       The financial performance report compared to budget 2018/2019 is attached (Attachment B). There are some points for the local board to note.

·          For the three months ending 30 September 2018, Puketāpapa Local Board capital investment was $400,000.

·          The net operational cost of service was $2.7 million.

·          Operating expenditure during this period was $2.9 million, which is an overspend of $665,000 above the revised budget. This overspend was mainly due to higher than planned costs in full facility contract maintenance.

·          Operating revenue was 8.5 per cent above budget as a result of increased community facility hire.

·          Capital expenditure was 40 per cent under budget. This was due to a cost recovery coding error on lighting work at Keith Hay Park. This will be corrected in future reporting.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)      receive the performance report for the financial quarter ending 30 September 2018.

b)      note the transition of the Youth Connections programme from the Community Empowerment Unit to The Southern Initiative.

c)      note the board’s direction to step back from pursuing a/multiple business association(s) through the business engagement work programme line.

 

 

Horopaki / Context

7.       The Puketāpapa Local Board has an approved 2018/2019 work programme (Attachment A) for the following operating departments:

·          Arts, Community and Events

·          Parks, Sport and Recreation

·          Libraries and Information

·          Community Facilities: Build Maintain Renew

·          Community Leases

·          Infrastructure and Environmental Services

·          Local Economic Development

·          Plans and Places

8.       Work programmes are produced annually, to meet the Puketāpapa Local Board outcomes identified in the three-year Puketāpapa Local Board Plan. The local board plan outcomes are:

·          Connected communities with a sense of belonging

·          Improved wellbeing and safety

·          Thriving local economy and good job opportunities

·          Transport choices meet our varied travel needs

·          Urban development meets community needs

·          Vibrant and popular parks and facilities

·          Treasured and enhanced natural environment

9.       The graph below identifies work programme activity by activity status and department.  The number of activity lines differ by department as approved in the local board work programme.

Graph 1: Puketāpapa work programme activities by outcome

 

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and adviceLocal Board Work Programme Snapshot

 

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

11.     The graph below identifies work programme activity by RAG status (red, amber, green and grey).  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).  No activities are red or grey for this quarter.

Graph 2: Puketāpapa work programme by RAG status

 

12.     The graph below identifies work programme activity by activity status and department. The number of activity lines differ by department as approved in the local board work programme. 

Graph 3: Puketāpapa work programme by activity status and department

 

Capital expenditure carry forwards

13.     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 (Attachment C).  Commentary on these items has not been provided this quarter as the carry forward activity items were not approved by the committee until quarter two (17 October 2018).  Commentary on these items will be included in the quarter two report.

Key activity updates from quarter one

14.     Youth Connections: this programme will transition from the Community Empowerment Unit (CEU) to The Southern Initiative (TSI) in November 2018.  In June 2018 the board allocated $25,000 for Youth Connections to deliver a Puketāpapa specific programme.  The intentions of this work programme allocation will now be delivered under TSI.

15.     Puketāpapa Business Engagement: This update is detailed under the activities on hold section of this report (see paragraph 20).

16.     Maori naming of reserves: in September 2018 the board invited mana whenua to provide dual Māori names and narratives for 30 parks in the local board area.  This will support the visibility of te reo Māori and help capture and tell the unique Māori stories of Puketāpapa and Tāmaki Makaurau.

17.     Waikowhai Walkway: in September 2018 the board adopted the Waikowhai Walkway Action Plan which will guide investment in walkway routes along the Waikowhai Coast.  No funds have currently been allocated for the development and/or renewal of prioritised routes.

18.     Mt Roskill Village revitalisation: in August 2018 the board approved in principle the draft streetscape enhancement design for improvements to the Mt Roskill Village.  Mana whenua and Auckland Transport were then engaged.  This resulted in the local board, through delegation, approving changes from the engagement and for other technical reasons.  Work is scheduled from October – December 2018, in conjunction with other Auckland Transport projects in the village.

19.     Community Grants: in July 2018 the board awarded $129,363 towards strategic relationship grants to the following 12 community organisations.  Each organisation works with communities within Puketāpapa and align with the board’s local board plan outcomes.

·    Te Whangai Trust

·    Earth Action Trust

·    Auckland Regional Migrants Services (ARMS)

·    Urban EcoLiving Charitable Trust

·    English Language Partners

·    Te Karanga Charitable Trust

·    Umma Trust

·    NZ Ethnic Women’s Trust

·    Mika Haka Foundation Charitable Trust

·    Somali Kiwi Association Inc.

·    Bhartiya Samaj Charitable Trust

·    Roskill Together Trust

Activities on hold

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

·    Auckland Council – James Wallace Arts Trust (JWAT) Joint Liaison Board relationship monitoring: Staff have yet to receive an update from the relevant department.  This will be followed up in quarter two.  Arts and Culture staff will maintain contact with Community Facilities staff, who will lead the negotiation of this lease.

·    Monte Cecilia Park – restore historic Whare: Staff are developing advice for the board in response to a request from the James Wallace Arts Trust for funding.  JWAT would use this to pay a consultant to develop a business case and high-level financial projection in relation to the proposed lease of the Pah Homestead Whare.

·    Waikowhai Coastal Walkway – development of priority walkway routes: Budget for this work was not approved at the beginning of the financial year as additional information was required.  The Waikowhai Walkway Action Plan was subsequently adopted by the board in September 2018.  Further advice is currently being prepared for the board’s consideration before potential allocation.

·    Puketāpapa – Accessibility improvements: Budget for this work was not approved at the beginning of the financial year as additional information was required.  Principles for accessible design of parks within Puketāpapa was subsequently endorsed by the board in October 2018.  Further advice is currently being prepared for the board’s consideration before potential allocation.

·    Puketāpapa Business Engagement: The local board requested a realignment of the programme in July.  A subsequent tender process received two proposals.  Following the tender closing the local board gave direction at a workshop in September to step back from pursuing a/multiple business association(s).  Current allocation has yet to be rescoped.  The quarter two performance report in February 2019 will highlight changes in the use of this budget allocation.

 

 

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

21.     This report informs the Puketāpapa Local Board of the performance for the quarter ending 30 September 2018.

22.     As most of the LTP 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 year.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

23.     The Puketāpapa Local Board is committed to strengthening and formalising its relationship with mana whenua and mataawaka. “Māori are recognised and affirmed as mana whenua” this is an objective within the Puketāpapa Local Board Plan 2017.

24.     At an Extraordinary business meeting on 6 September 2018 the board invited mana whenua to provide a dual Māori name and narrative for 30 local parks.  In support for the report, the board granted speaking rights to Mana whenua representatives Hero Potini – Ngāti Tamaoho and Ngaio Kemp – Te Runanga o Ngāti Whātua.  Mana whenua will progress their process to identify Māori names for the approved local parks.

25.     On 26 July 2018 the board signed a relationship agreement with Ngāti Tamaoho in Manukau.  Points of common interest include: maunga, water (awa), harbour (and coastal margins), toi Māori, engagement, and housing.

26.     On 2 August 2018 the board hosted a hui with mana whenua, the Albert-Eden and Whau Local Boards and Friends of Oakley Creek to progress the implementation of the tohu o Te Auaugna along the awa.  This work has been undertaken in recognition of mana whenua as a key player in the restoration and protection of the awa.  Representatives from Te Akitai, Ngaati Whanaunga, Ngati Whatua and Ngāti Te Ata attended the hui.

27.     During Maori Language week, the Mt Roskill Library promoted collections with Māori signage and a special Kōrero corner for customers to sit and converse in Te Reo or learn new language skills as part of their goal of celebrating Te Ao Māori.

Financial Performance

28.     Operating expenditure is $665,000 above budget.  This is due to higher than expected asset maintenance costs.  Regionally accrued costs from previous years have been changed to the local board’s actual costs – this will be corrected in future reporting.

29.     Operating revenue is $14,000 over budget – mainly due to greater utilisation of Fickling Convention Centre and Mt Roskill War Memorial Hall.

30.     Overall capital expenditure of $0.4 million is below budget by $0.3 million.  Major projects delivered include Fearon Park - Harold Long Reserve linkage improvements and the refurbishment of the Wesley Community Centre.

31.     The PuketāpapaLocal Board Financial performance report is attached to this report (Attachment B).

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

33.     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

34.     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

Puketapapa Q1 Work Programme Update FY19

167

b

Puketapapa Q1 Financial Performance Report FY19

183

c

Puketapapa FY18 Capex Carry Forwards

191

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Ben Moimoi - Local Board Advisor - Puketapapa

Mary Hay - Local Board Advisor - Puketapapa

Authoriser

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 



Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 



Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 

Chairperson's Report

 

File No.: CP2018/20298

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To provide the Chairperson, Harry Doig, with an opportunity to update board members on the activities he has been involved with since the last meeting.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

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

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)      receive Chair Harry Doig’s report for November 2018.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Chair Harry Doig's report, 1 October to 31 October

195

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Selina Powell - Democracy Advisor - Puketapapa

Authoriser

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


 


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 

Board Member Reports

 

File No.: CP2018/20300

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To provide an update to the local board members on the activities they have been involved with since the last meeting.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

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

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)      receive the member reports for November 2018.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Anne-Marie Coury's report, 1 October - 31 October 2018

199

b

Julie Fairey's report, 1 October - 31 October 2018

201

c

David Holm's report, 1 October - 4 November 2018

205

d

Shail Kaushal's report, 3 October - 31 October 2018

207

e

Ella Kumar's report, 29 September - 31 October 2018

211

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Selina Powell - Democracy Advisor - Puketapapa

Authoriser

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


 


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


 


 


 


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


 


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


 


 


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


 


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 

Albert-Eden-Roskill Ward Councillor Update

 

File No.: CP2018/20304

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To enable the Albert-Eden-Roskill Ward Councillors to verbally update the Board.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)      thank Albert-Eden-Roskill Ward Councillors Cathy Casey and Christine Fletcher for their update.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Selina Powell - Democracy Advisor - Puketapapa

Authoriser

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 

Urgent Decision - Local Board feedback on the healthy homes standards

 

File No.: CP2018/19876

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.    To update the Puketāpapa Local Board (the Board) of the urgent decision signed under delegation on 12 October 2018.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.    On 24 November 2016, the Board agreed an urgent decision process where it is not practical to call the full board together and meet the requirement of a quorum.  The process delegates authority to the Chair and Deputy Chair to make an urgent decision on behalf of the full board.  The process requires any urgent decision made be reported to the full board at the next ordinary business meeting.

 

3.    At the Puketāpapa Local Board meeting on 24 November 2016, the board considered the urgent decisions process and passed resolution PKTPP/2016/216 as follows:

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)      adopt the urgent decision-making process for matters that require a decision where it is not practical to call the full board together and meet the requirement of a quorum.

b)      delegate authority to the chair and deputy chair, or any person acting in these roles, to make urgent decisions on behalf of the local board.

c)      agree that the relationship manager, chair and deputy chair (or any person/s acting in these roles) will authorise the urgent decision-making process by signing off the authorisation memo.

d)      note that all urgent decisions will be reported to the next ordinary meeting of the local board.                                                                                                                      CARRIED

4.    The Puketāpapa Local Board wanted to provide their feedback to the Ministry of Business, Employment & Innovation’s consultation on the healthy homes standards.  Local board feedback was being gathered by the Environment and Community Committee.  The deadline for this was 15 October 2018.

5.    The next opportunity for the board to formally approve feedback is at the board’s business meeting scheduled for 18 October 2018.  As this opportunity is after the due date for local board feedback, the urgent decision-making process is deemed appropriate.

6.    On 12 October 2018, the Board made the following resolutions through urgent decision:

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)   endorse a heating standard that enables warm and dry homes for tenants, reaching the recommended indoor temperature of at least 20 degrees Celsius in living rooms and bedrooms.

b)   endorse the insulation standard of option three in section 2.1 of the ‘Healthy Homes Standards’ discussion document, that has the highest long-term and maximum benefit to achieve warm, dry rental homes for tenants.

c)   endorse an insulation standard that ensures landlords are accountable and not exempt from meeting these standards.

d)   endorse the regional submissions draft recommendation of option three in section 3.1 of the ‘Healthy Homes Standards’ discussion document, to provide openable windows and extractor fans in rooms with a bath, shower or indoor cooktop.

e)   endorse option two in section 4.1 of the ‘Healthy Homes Standards’ discussion document, that landlords provide efficient drainage and guttering, downpipes and drains, and ensure that the subfloor has a ground moisture barrier, unless there is already adequate subfloor ventilation.

f)    endorse option two in section 5.1 of the ‘Healthy Homes Standards’ discussion document, requiring landlords to stop any unnecessary gaps or holes that cause noticeable draughts and a colder rental home, to ensure homes are dry and warm for tenants.

g)   recommend that education for tenants and landlords be prioritised when implementing the healthy homes standards, particularly regarding ventilation and heating.

h)   recommend one compliance date for each standard that will be implemented as soon as possible, following a process that will be most efficient and effective at producing warm, dry and healthy homes for residential tenants.

i)    recommend a fair implementation process that makes landlords accountable to meeting the healthy homes standards and transparent to potential tenants.

 

7.    Details of the urgent decision is included as Attachment A of this report.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

 

a)   note the decision made under urgency to contribute to Council’s regional submission to the Ministry of Business, Employment & Innovation’s consultation on the healthy homes standards.  The Puketāpapa Local Board’s feedback on the healthy homes standards is as follows:

i)    endorse a heating standard that enables warm and dry homes for tenants, reaching the recommended indoor temperature of at least 20 degrees Celsius in living rooms and bedrooms.

ii)   endorse the insulation standard of option three in section 2.1 of the ‘Healthy Homes Standards’ discussion document, that has the highest long-term and maximum benefit to achieve warm, dry rental homes for tenants.

iii)   endorse an insulation standard that ensures landlords are accountable and not exempt from meeting these standards.

iv)  endorse the regional submissions draft recommendation of option three in section 3.1 of the ‘Healthy Homes Standards’ discussion document, to provide openable windows and extractor fans in rooms with a bath, shower or indoor cooktop.

v)   endorse option two in section 4.1 of the ‘Healthy Homes Standards’ discussion document, that landlords provide efficient drainage and guttering, downpipes and drains, and ensure that the subfloor has a ground moisture barrier, unless there is already adequate subfloor ventilation.

vi)  endorse option two in section 5.1 of the ‘Healthy Homes Standards’ discussion document, requiring landlords to stop any unnecessary gaps or holes that cause noticeable draughts and a colder rental home, to ensure homes are dry and warm for tenants.

vii) recommend that education for tenants and landlords be prioritised when implementing the healthy homes standards, particularly regarding ventilation and heating.

viii) recommend one compliance date for each standard that will be implemented as soon as possible, following a process that will be most efficient and effective at producing warm, dry and healthy homes for residential tenants.

ix)  recommend a fair implementation process that makes landlords accountable to meeting the healthy homes standards and transparent to potential tenants.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

20181005 Urgent Decision Healthy Homes Standards

219

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Selina Powell - Democracy Advisor - Puketapapa

Authoriser

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 

Governance Forward Work Programme Calendar

 

File No.: CP2018/20302

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

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

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

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

·    clarifying what advice is expected and when

·    clarifying the rationale for reports.

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

 

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)      receive the governance forward work programme calendar for November 2018.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Governance Forward Work Programme Calendar, November 2018

227

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Selina Powell - Democracy Advisor - Puketapapa

Authoriser

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 



Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 



Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 

Record of Puketāpapa Local Board Workshop Notes

 

File No.: CP2018/20303

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To provide a summary of Puketāpapa Local Board (the Board) workshop notes.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       The attached summary of workshop notes provides a record of the Board’s workshops held in October 2018.

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

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a)      receive the Puketāpapa Local Board workshop record for 4, 11, 25 October 2018.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Puketāpapa Local Board Workshop Record, 4 October 2018

231

b

Puketāpapa Local Board Workshop Record, 11 October 2018

235

c

Puketāpapa Local Board Workshop Record, 25 October 2018

237

      

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Selina Powell - Democracy Advisor - Puketapapa

Authoriser

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


 


 


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


 


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


 

     

 


Puketāpapa Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 

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

That the Puketāpapa 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  -  Mount Eden

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

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

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

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

In particular, the report identifies land the Local Board seeks to acquire for open space purposes.

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 Local Board seeks to acquire for open 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.