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

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Thursday, 15 November 2018

2.00pm

Council Chamber
Orewa Service Centre
50 Centreway Road
Orewa

 

Rodney Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Beth Houlbrooke

 

Deputy Chairperson

Phelan Pirrie

 

Members

Brent Bailey

 

 

Tessa Berger

 

 

Cameron Brewer

 

 

Louise Johnston

 

 

Allison Roe, MBE

 

 

Colin Smith

 

 

Brenda Steele

 

 

(Quorum 5 members)

 

 

 

Robyn Joynes

Local Board Democracy Advisor

 

7 November 2018

 

Contact Telephone: 021 244 7174

Email: robyn.joynes@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 

Board Member

Organisation

Position

Brent Bailey

Royal NZ Yacht Squadron
Kaipara College Board of Trustees
Gumboots Early Learning Centre

Member

Parent Representative

Director

Tessa Berger

 

 

Mahurangi Action Incorporated
Mahurangi Coastal Trail Trust

The Merchandise Collective

Friends of Regional Parks

Matakana Coast Trail Trust

 

President

Chairperson

Founder/Director

Committee Member

Member Forum representative

Cameron Brewer

Riverhead Residents & Ratepayers Association

Cameron Brewer Communications Limited

Spire Investments Limited

 

Member

Director

Shareholder

Beth Houlbrooke

 

Kawau Island Boat Club

Member

 

Louise Johnston

 

Blackbridge Environmental Protection Society

 

Treasurer

Phelan Pirrie

Muriwai Volunteer Fire Brigade

Best Berries (NZ) Ltd 

Grow West Ltd

North West Country Incorporated

 

Officer in Charge

Director/Shareholder

Director

Manager

Allison Roe

Waitemata District Health Board

Matakana Coast Trail Trust

New Zealander of the Year Awards

Elected Member

Chairperson

Chief Category Judge/ Community

 

Colin Smith

 

 

 

Brenda Steele

 

Te Uri o Hau Incorporation

Beacon Pathway

Whiti Ora o Kaipara, Whanau Ora review panel

Tomorrow’s Schools Advisory Board

 

Secretary/Beneficiary

Board member

Chairperson

Member

 


Rodney 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                                                                                                                  6

10        Extraordinary Business                                                                                                6

11        Trial of online voting at the 2019 local elections                                                       7

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

13        Auckland Council's Quarterly Performance Report: Rodney Local Board for Quarter One                                                                                                                                       31

14        Auckland Transport Rodney Local Board Targeted Rate update November 2018 69

15        Draft Contributions Policy                                                                                        101

16        Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan consultation feedback and recommended changes                                                                                                                       113

17        Feedback on proposed topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy   145

18        New road names in the Huapai Lifestyle Village Limited subdivision at 45 Station Road, Huapai                                                                                                                         163

19        Panuku Development Auckland Local Board six-monthly update 1 April - 30 September 2018                                                                                                                             169

20        Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development Limited Six Monthly Report                                                                                                                                     175

21        Rodney Local Board Chairperson's Report                                                           185

22        Governance Forward Work Programme                                                                 189

23        Rodney Local Board workshop records                                                                 195

24        Deputations and Public Forum Update                                                                   199

25        Ward Councillor Update                                                                                           203  

26        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

 

 


1          Welcome

 

The Chairperson opened the meeting and welcomed those in attendance.

 

 

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 Rodney Local Board:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 18 October 2018, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

 

 

5          Leave of Absence

 

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

 

 

6          Acknowledgements

 

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

 

 

7          Petitions

 

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

 

 

8          Deputations

 

Standing Order 7.7 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are required to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications are approved by the Chairperson of the Rodney 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.”


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 

Trial of online voting at the 2019 local elections

 

File No.: CP2018/20498

 

  

 

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 Rodney 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 nine 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 110,00 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

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

 


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 

Local government elections 2019 – order of names on voting documents

 

File No.: CP2018/20877

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

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

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

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

·        alphabetical order of surname

·        pseudo-random order, or

·        random order.

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

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

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

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 Rodney Local Board:

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

Horopaki / ContextOptions available

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

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

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

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


 

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

(5)       In this regulation,—

pseudo-random order means an arrangement where—

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

(b) all voting documents use that order

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

Previous elections

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

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

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

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

Auckland Council

Alphabetical

Hawke's Bay Regional Council

Alphabetical

Invercargill City Council

Alphabetical

Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council

Alphabetical

Northland Regional Council

Alphabetical

Southland Regional Council

Alphabetical

Taranaki Regional Council

Alphabetical

Upper Hutt City Council

Alphabetical

West Coast Regional Council

Alphabetical

Bay of Plenty Regional Council

Random

Christchurch City Council

Random

Dunedin City Council

Random

Canterbury Regional Council

Random

Hamilton City Council

Random

Hutt City Council

Random

Napier City Council

Random

Nelson City Council

Random

Otago Regional Council

Random

Palmerston North City Council

Random

Porirua City Council

Random

Tauranga City Council

Random

Waikato Regional Council

Random

Wellington City Council

Random

Wellington Regional Council

Random

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Options for 2019

Pseudo-random order and random order

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

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

Alphabetical order

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

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

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

Analysis of previous election results

17.     An analysis of the council’s election results for 2010, 2013 and 2016 is contained in Attachment A to the agenda report. 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 one percentage point above that which would be expected statistically if voting was random. There was no detectable impact of being listed first on the share of votes received in ward elections.

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

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

Online voting

21.     Auckland Council intends to offer online voting to specified classes of electors for the 2019 elections. An online voting solution has the potential to improve the voting experience, even if names are ordered randomly.

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

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

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

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

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

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

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Order of names on voting documents

25

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - General Manager Democracy Services

 


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 

Auckland Council's Quarterly Performance Report: Rodney Local Board for Quarter One

 

File No.: CP2018/20933

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To provide the Rodney 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 Rodney Local Board Plan outcomes.

4.       The key activity updates from this quarter are:

·          Both the Helensville Art Centre (#251) and the Kumeu Arts Centre (#252) have received their operational grants of $20,000 and $40,000 respectively for the current 2018/2019 year.

·          The Rautawhiri Park – renew courts (#1856) project, to renew the tennis courts and netball courts at Rautawhiri Park Helensville, was completed in August 2018.  Work has continued on the Rautawhiri Park perimeter path (#1885), however, due to inclement weather in quarter one, this project is not due for completion until quarter two.

·          Work has continued on the Helensville Town Centre Revitilisation project (#1054). At the local board’s request, additional consultation was held with the community during the first quarter and work began formulating a professional services scope for the design phase of this work. 

·          The challenging play equipment for the Muriwai Beach – renew and upgrade playground (#1850) project has been ordered and other equipment tendering is complete; physical works are due to start in the summer.

·          The Wellsford Skatepark renewal (#1899) was completed this quarter and a successful event held with the community to celebrate the opening.

·          The Rodney Healthy Harbours Riparian Restoration Fund (#358) opened on 10 September 2018. Letters have been sent to all landowners in the targeted catchments. 

5.       All operating departments with agreed work programmes have provided a quarterly update against their work programme delivery, this is shown in Attachment A to the agenda report. Most activities are reported with a status of green (on track), amber (some risk or issues, which are being managed) or grey (cancelled, deferred or merged). There are no activities with a status of red (significant risk) this quarter.

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

7.       Overall, the net operational financial performance of the board is tracking slightly below the revised year to date budget (94 percent). Revenue is favourable to budget for the year to date and is likely to be on target for the full financial year.  From the local boards’ Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) funding, the majority of projects are underway and on track to be completed during the year.  Capital projects underway include the Shelly Beach and Algies Bay seawalls, Rautawhiri Park and court renewals, Huapai Domain lighting, and renewal of the Wellsford Skate Park.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

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

Horopaki / Context

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

·          Arts, Community and Events;

·          Parks, Sport and Recreation;

·          Libraries and Information;

·          Community Services: Service, Strategy and Integration;

·          Community Facilities: Build Maintain Renew;

·          Community Leases;

·          Infrastructure and Environmental Services;

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

·          We can get around easily and safely

·          Communities are influential and empowered

·          Parks and sports facilities that everyone can enjoy

·          Our harbours, waterways and environment are cared for, protected and healthy

·          Arts and culture is vibrant and strong

 

10.     The graph below shows how the work programme activities meet Local Board Plan outcomes. Activities that are not part of the approved work programme but contribute towards the local board outcomes, such as advocacy by the loca l board, are not captured in this graph.

 

Graph 1: work programme activities by outcome

 

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Local Board Work Programme Snapshot

11.     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 the activity. These two statuses create a snapshot of the progress of the work programmes.

12.     The graph below identifies work programme activity by RAG status (red, amber, green and grey). has been added to show). It shows the percentage of work programme activities that are on track (green), in progress but with issues that are being managed (amber), and activities that have significant issues (red) and activities that have been cancelled/deferred/merged (grey).

Graph 2: Albert-Eden Work Programme by RAG status

13.     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 programmes. 

Graph 3: work programme activity by activity status and department

Capital expenditure carry forwards 

14.     The Community Facilities capital expenditure carry forwards were approved by the Finance and Performance Committee on 17 October 2018. A list of the carry forwards has been provided (see Attachment C to the agenda report) however as this was after the end of quarter one commentary was not able to be provided. Commentary on these will be included in the quarter two update.

Key activity updates from quarter one

15.     Both the Helensville Art Centre (#251) and the Kumeu Arts Centre (#252) have received their operational grants of $20,000 and $40,000 respectively for the current 2018/2019 year.

16.     The Rautawhiri Park – renew courts (#1856) project, to renew the tennis courts and netball courts at Rautawhiri Park Helensville, was completed in August 2018.  Work has continued on the Rautawhiri Park perimeter path (#1885), however, due to inclement weather in quarter one, this project is not due for completion until quarter two.

17.     Work has continued on the Helensville Town Centre Revitilisation project (#1054). At the local board’s request, additional consultation was held with the community during the first quarter and work began formulating a professional services scope for the design phase of this work. 

18.     The challenging play equipment for the Muriwai Beach – renew and upgrade playground (#1850) project has been ordered and other equipment tendering is complete; physical works are due to start in the summer.

19.     The Wellsford Skatepark renewal (#1899) was completed this quarter and a successful event held with the community to celebrate the opening.

20.     The Rodney Healthy Harbours Riparian Restoration Fund (#358) opened on 10 September 2018 and will remain open until the end of October. Letters have been sent to all landowners in the targeted catchments.  Additionally, workshops have been held with Dairy New Zealand and Beef and Lamb New Zealand landowners in Kaukapakapa and Mahurangi.  Presentations have been given to the Integrated Kaipara Harbour Management Group Hui and to Nga Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara regarding the fund.

Activities with significant issues

21.     There are no work programme activities that currently have any identified significant issues or a Red status.

Activities on hold

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

·          Shoesmith Reserve: Warkworth-Wellsford Pipe Band Incorporated lease (#2646).  Community Places is exploring the potential for a community management model for each of the three halls in Warkworth. As such, council is not intent on committing to a lease of the small room at Shoesmith Hall as this may restrict the options for the proposed management model.

·          Warkworth Showgrounds Reserve: Warkworth Branch Pony Club Incorporated lease (#2648). This project is on hold until the Rodney Local Board Open Space Management Plan is completed.

·          Warkworth Showgrounds Reserve: Warkworth Rodeo Club Incorporated (#2649). This project is on hold until the Rodney Local Board Open Space Management Plan is completed.

Changes to the local board work programme

Deferred activities

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

·          Goodall Reserve, Snells Beach: Lease to the Mahurangi Community Trust Incorporated (#1281). This project is deferred until the underlying land is reclassified under the Reserves Act 1977.

·          Manuhiri Reserve and Tuna Place, Omaha Omaha Beach Residents Society Incorporated (#2631). This project will be deferred until the underlying land is classified under the Reserves Act 1977.

·          Murray Jones Reserve: New Zealand Scouting Association Incorporated (#2634). This project will be deferred until the underlying land is classified under the Reserves Act 1977.

·          Opango Creek Reserve: Whangateau Traditional Boatyard Incorporated (#2641). This project will be deferred until the underlying land is classified under the Reserves Act 1977.

·          Wellsford Centennial Park: Wellsford Agricultural & Pastoral Society (#2651). This project will be deferred until the underlying land is classified under the Reserves Act 1977.

·          Wellsford Centennial Park: Wellsford Rugby Football Club Incorporated (#2652). This project will be deferred until the underlying land is classified under the Reserves Act 1977.

Activities merged with other activities for delivery

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

·          Rodney - renew park lighting 2017/2018+ (#1866).  This project has merged with Rodney - renew park roading and car parks 2018-19 - 2019-20 (#1870).

·          Rodney - renew park utilities 2018/2019+ (#1878). This project has been merged with Rodney - renew park drainage 2017/2018+ (#1881).

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

25.     This report informs the Rodney Local Board of the performance for the quarter ending 30 September 2018.

Key Performance Indicators

26.     As most of them 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

27.     Māori, as stakeholders in the council, are affected and have an interest in any report on the quarterly financial results. However the recommendation to the local board of receiving the report has no particular benefit to, or adverse effect on, Māori.

28.     As part of the local board work programme item ‘Rodney Healthy Harbours Riparian Restoration Fund’ staff were invited to speak and present information on the fund and its objectives to the Integrated Kaipara Harbour Management Group Hui and to Nga Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara.

Financial Performanctio

29.     Operating expenditure relating to Asset Based Services (ABS) is tracking slightly below budget by $89,000 for the year to date, while the LDI operational projects are currently $91,000 below budget.  This is due to a variety of projects yet to draw down on financial allocations.

30.     Capital spend of $2.1 million represents investments in the Shelly Beach and Algies Bay seawalls, Rautawhiri Park and court renewals, Huapai Domain lighting, and renewal of the Wellsford Skate Park. The board has also seen progress on a number of projects from their discretionary LDI capital fund.

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

32.     The complete Rodney Local Board Financial Performance report can be found in Attachment C.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

34.     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.

35.     Information about any significant risks and how they are being managed and/or mitigated is addressed in the ‘Activities with significant issues’ section.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

36.     The local board will receive the next performance update following the end of quarter two.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Rodney Local Board Quarter One Work Programme Update

37

b

Rodney Local Board Quarter One Finance Update

59

c

Rodney Local Board Capital Expenditure Carry Forwards

65

      

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Jonathan  Hope - Local Board Advisor - Rodney

Authoriser

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

 


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


 


 


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 

Auckland Transport Rodney Local Board Targeted Rate update November 2018

 

File No.: CP2018/21276

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       Update to Rodney Local Board on additional transport investment (proposed three bus services) funded by the Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       This report provides information and a progress update of the delivery of the following three bus services and associated infrastructure.

·    Wellsford - Warkworth (scheduled for implementation on 24 February 2019);

·    Helensville - Silverdale via Kaukapakapa (scheduled for implementation on 24 February 2019) and;

·    Westgate to Albany via Riverhead (scheduled for implementation in late April 2019).

3.       On Thursday 25 October 2018, the Rodney Local Board received a presentation and update from Auckland Transport’s Bus Services Manager.

4.       Timetables have been designed for the Wellsford - Warkworth and Helensville - Silverdale bus services and operators have been engaged to commence services from 24 February 2019.

5.       The route and timetables for the Westgate to Albany bus service have been designed.  There are two route options within the Albany Town Centre.  A decision will need to be made on the preferred option.

6.       The final locations, design and resolution of bus stops are currently being investigated.

7.       A park and ride option/facility is being considered on the ‘Atlas’ site at 80 Great North Road, Warkworth.

8.       In addition, park and ride facilities are being considered in the Huapai and Kumeu area.

9.       A Project Mandate is being prepared as a briefing/supporting document for this work.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      note the status of the projects to be delivered under the Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate.

Horopaki / Context

10.     This report updates the Rodney Local Board about the additional transport investment (proposed three bus services) in the local board area funded by Transport Targeted Rate projects.

11.     In the opinion of the local board the draft 2018-2021 Regional Land Transport Plan did not meet the needs of the Rodney community. Accordingly, the local board submitted to Auckland Council’s Governing Body in May 2018 that a local targeted rate be ‘struck’ to provide better funding for transport activities in the Rodney Local Board area.

12.     This is a progress update on the proposed three bus services funded by the targeted rate.

13.     The last workshop on the transport targeted rate was held on Thursday 25 October 2018.  Auckland Transport officers attended and presented a progress update for decision-makers. The local board provided feedback on a number of issues.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

New Bus Service between Wellsford and Warkworth

14.     The timetable has been designed and an operator has been engaged to commence services from 24 February 2019. The bus route is as per Attachment A to the agenda report.

15.     Trip frequencies are at 60 minute intervals weekdays and weekends.

16.     In Wellsford, the southbound service (to Warkworth) will commence at a terminus on Station Road, just west of the southern vehicle access to the Wellsford Railway Station.

17.     The northbound service from Warkworth will terminate on Station Road just west of the intersection with Harrison Street.

18.     The two existing bus stops adjacent to Memorial Park on SH1 will be used for this service.  The only other formal stops on SH1 between Wellsford and Warkworth for this service will be at the proposed park and ride site just north of Warkworth.

19.     In Warkworth the southbound service will terminate at the existing bus stop outside the library in Baxter Street.  This stop will also be used as the start of the northbound service to Wellsford.

20.     The Baxter Street bus stop is used by the Mana Buses and currently has capacity for two buses.  With the implementation of the new service, the capacity of the bus stop would need to be extended to accommodate three buses.

21.     To achieve this either at least two on-street car parking spaces outside the library will need to be removed or the bus stop will need to be extended towards the intersection with Percy Street.  Auckland Transport is investigating this.

22.     The service will use two additional stops on Whittaker Street. Two additional stops on Whittaker Street have been approved by the Traffic Control Committee for installation.

New Bus Service between Helensville and Silverdale (Hibiscus Coast Station) via Kaukapakapa

23.     The timetable has been designed and an operator has been engaged to commence services from 24 February 2019. The bus route is as per Attachment A to the agenda report.

24.     Trip frequencies are at 90 minute intervals during weekdays and 120 minute intervals over weekends.

25.     In Helensville, the bus stop on Commercial Road will be used as the start and terminus for the eastbound and westbound services respectively.  All existing bus stops on this route would be used.

26.     There will be a pair of bus stops on SH16 just east of the intersection with Peak Road.  These stops will also serve the proposed residential development in this location.

27.     The route (in both directions) runs north to Kaukapakapa, before turning around at the end of Opoto Place.  Consideration is being given to the bus turn around further north on SH16.

28.     Auckland Transport is investigating a pair of bus stops on Kahikatea Flats Road just east of SH16.  However, there are low visibility issues that would lead to safety concerns.

29.     A pair of bus stops will be installed in Waitoki.

30.     At Silverdale the services will respectively terminate and commence at the Hibiscus Coast Station.

New Bus Service between Westgate and Albany via Riverhead

31.     The route and service has been designed and Auckland Transport is currently in negotiations with a service operator. The bus route is as per Attachment A t the agenda report. It is planned for this service to commence in late April 2019.

32.     There are two route options for the Albany Town Centre.  The preferred route option is yet to be decided.

33.     Trip frequencies are at 90 minute intervals during weekdays and 120 minute intervals over weekends.

34.     Existing bus stops will be used and there are no new bus stops to investigate and/or implement.

Warkworth Park and Ride

35.     Auckland Transport is investigating the option of implementing an interim transport interchange at 80 Great North Road (the old Atlas site) including a Warkworth Park and Ride. Further investigations are required to establish consenting and land lease requirements, bus access in and out of the facility, and infrastructure requirements. 

36.     A northbound bus stop will be included as part of this investigation.

37.     Since this site has vehicle access onto SH1, Auckland Transport will need to liaise with and seek approval from the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA).  Following preliminary discussions, the NZTA planning team has indicated they have no issues with this proposal.  Nevertheless, the NZTA safety team will have provide final approval.

38.     Investigation results will be discussed with the local board when they are available.

Huapai/Kumeu Park and Ride

39.     Auckland Transport is investigating options for the Huapai Park and Ride including the site at 42 Old Railway Road in Kumeu.

40.     Auckland Transport continues to investigate other options for the Huapai/Kumeu Park and Ride facility.  Some of these options are described as ‘pocket’ park and rides.  That is, an opportunity exists to easily create park and ride facilities without a significant level of investment.  However, these sites (Woodhill, 1270 SH16, near 1219 SH16, near 999 SH16, Factory Road, near 726 SH16, Matua Road, Tapu Road, 299 Main Road, Cabra Site, near 37 Main Road, Kumeu AMP Showground, Riverhead-Coatesville Highway and Fred Taylor Roundabout) have only recently been identified and no assessments have been undertaken.

41.     The preliminary feasibility investigation of the site at 42 Old Railway Road concluded that it would be too expensive and time-consuming to develop this site as a park and ride facility.  Auckland Transport has therefore notified Panuku to sell the site.

42.     Investigation results will be discussed with the local board when they become available

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

Auckland Transport consultations

43.     Three specific route decisions have been workshopped with the Rodney Local Board and the results are detailed in the table below.

 


 

 

New Bus Service

Proposal

Details and Local Board Feedback

Wellsford to Warkworth

Proposed new services from Wellsford to Warkworth

Presented to the local board on 25 October 2018: Auckland Transport’s recommendation to implement the proposed new bus service between Wellsford to Warkworth. All members indicated their support for the proposal. No objections were received.

With regard to the extension of the bus stop on Baxter Street, there could be impacts related to the Village Green project (a connection between the town centre and the river). 

Prior to the launch of this service, hold an open day in Wellsford this will allow residents (who missed out at the last opportunity) to apply for and purchase their Super Gold Cards.

Helensville to Silverdale via Kaukapakapa

Proposed new services from Helensville to Silverdale via Kaukapakapa

Presented to the local board on the 25 October 2018: Auckland Transport’s recommendation to implement the proposed new bus service from Helensville to Silverdale via Kaukapakapa. All members indicated their support for the proposal. No objections were received.

With regard to the bus stops on SH16 east of the intersection with Kahikatea Flats Road, logging trucks stop in this location to let traffic through and police stop truck here.

Consider turning buses around at the Council car park past the Church.

Westgate - Albany

Proposed new service between Westgate and Albany (via Riverhead)

Presented to the local board on the 25 October 2018: Auckland Transport’s recommendation to implement the proposed new bus service between Westgate and Albany. All members indicated their support for the proposal. No objections were received however, AT will investigate timetable options to address some questions around the frequency of the service.

The local board preferred Option 2 (via the main shopping centre). The final option is still to be decided.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

44.     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

45.     The proposed decision of approving the new bus services in principle has no financial implications. Later decisions will have financial implications, but no decision will be made without first discussing it with Rodney Local Board.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

46.     Auckland Transport has risk management strategies in place for the transport projects undertaken in the local board area.


 

47.     This project has a number of risks that Auckland Transport is working with local board to mitigate. The risks and mitigations are summarised below:

·    Performance of new bus services. Both Rodney Local Board and Auckland Transport need to be prepared in case patronage on proposed new services does not meet the levels set by Auckland Transport for acceptance of the services.  Auckland Transport will regularly update the local board about progress but it is important that local board members are aware of the risk and are planning in case the routes are not as popular as predicted and a longer subsidy is required.

·    The Helensville to Silverdale via Kaukapakapa bus route relies on the overall NZTA’s acceptance of the business case for delivery. Auckland Transport will work closely with NZTA to develop a strong business case and will keep the local board informed of progress.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

48.     Auckland Transport will provide another update to the local board at a workshop in late November.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Auckland Transport presentation 25 October

75

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Pravin Dayaram – Programme Manager Rodney Local Board Targeted Rate

Authoriser

Tony McCartney - Group Manager Assets and Maintenance, Auckland Transport

 


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 

Draft Contributions Policy

 

File No.: CP2018/20568

 

  

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 following:

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

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

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

3.       Growth related capex has risen from $5.1 billion in the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 to $7.2 billion in the current 10-Year Budget.  We have also updated our projection of development growth across the next ten years.  The council will repay the borrowing raised to pay for the investment in infrastructure through general rates, targeted rates, user charges, third party funding (like New Zealand Transport Agency 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 to the agenda report) 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 development contributions 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 to the agenda report 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 Rodney Local Board:

a)      That the Rodney Local Board resolve feedback on the draft 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 development contributions (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.  Staff will report the results of the review, including the survey data, in the first quarter of next year.  If the review suggests changes should be considered to the units of demand for reserves acquisition, reserve development and community facilities the policy can be amended at that time following consultation, if appropriate.

Remissions for Māori development and social housing

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

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.     Staff 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 2018.

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.  Staff would report on adoption of the final policy to the 13 December meeting of the Governing Body.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Draft Contributions Policy 2019 (Under Separate Cover)

 

b

Consultation Document (Under Separate Cover)

 

c

Supporting information (Under Separate Cover)

 

d

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

 

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Authors

Felipe Panteli - Senior Policy Advisor

Beth Sullivan - Principal Advisor Policy

Andrew Duncan - Manager Financial Policy

Authorisers

Ross Tucker - Acting General Manager, Financial Strategy and Planning

Louise Mason – General Manager Local Board Services

 


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 

Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan consultation feedback and recommended changes

 

File No.: CP2018/20964

 

  

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 Rodney Local Board on 27 September 2018 to discuss the consultation feedback and proposed staff responses.

5.       Rodney Local Board residents provided 162 submissions on the plan, representing 13 percent of overall submissions. The views of local board residents were similar to regional views, with high levels of support across all topics excluding the addition of cats as a pest. The extent of cat control resulting from the plan is likely to be less extensive than the concerns noted in many submissions. Staff are exploring options to mitigate submitter concerns in the wording of the final plan.

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

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

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

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

Horopaki / Context

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

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

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

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

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

Submission type

Number of submissions

Percentage of submissions

Online form

1035

82%

Hardcopy form

183

15%

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

44

3%

 

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

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

Local board

Number of submitters

Percentage of submitters

Albert-Eden

116

9%

Devonport-Takapuna

53

4%

Franklin

50

4%

Great Barrier

24

2%

Henderson-Massey

46

4%

Hibiscus and Bays

85

7%

Howick

52

4%

Kaipātiki

98

8%

Māngere-Ōtāhuhu

17

1%

Manurewa

18

1%

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki

51

4%

Ōrākei

64

5%

Ōtara-Papatoetoe

7

1%

Papakura

21

2%

Puketāpapa

12

1%

Rodney

162

13%

Upper Harbour

41

3%

Waiheke

37

3%

Waitākere Ranges

87

7%

Waitematā

51

4%

Whau

41

3%

Regional

5

0%

Not Supplied

69

5%

Outside Auckland

55

4%

Total

1,262

 

12.     The consultation feedback form included eight questions relating to key programmes in the Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan that were described in a summary document (see Attachment B to the agenda report for details around each of the proposed approaches). The responses received for each question from residents of the Rodney 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 Rodney 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

19%

26%

Partial support

11%

17%

Partial do not support

5%

3%

Full do not support

1%

2%

Other comments

64%

53%

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

Full support

24%

27%

Partial support

25%

29%

Partial do not support

5%

5%

Full do not support

4%

2%

Other comments

42%

37%

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

Full support

43%

46%

Partial support

20%

19%

Partial do not support

9%

12%

Full do not support

2%

2%

Other comments

26%

21%

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

Full support

37%

44%

Partial support

20%

20%

Partial do not support

11%

4%

Full do not support

3%

2%

Other comments

30%

30%

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

Full support

46%

43%

Partial support

20%

23%

Partial do not support

10%

7%

Full do not support

7%

4%

Other comments

17%

23%


 

Question

Response

Percentage of submissions local board

Percentage of submissions regional

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

Full support

41%

44%

Partial support

16%

21%

Partial do not support

8%

5%

Full do not support

2%

3%

Other comments

32%

28%

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

Full support

28%

38%

Partial support

26%

28%

Partial do not support

14%

7%

Full do not support

3%

4%

Other comments

29%

23%

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

Full support

45%

46%

Partial support

14%

23%

Partial do not support

5%

4%

Full do not support

2%

3%

Other comments

34%

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 to the agenda report 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 Rodney Local Board at its November 2018 business meeting on the recommended changes to the Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan in response to consultation feedback.


 

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

17.     During engagement on the issues and options paper and wider public consultation on the discussion document, key issues were raised in relation to cats, possums, widespread pest plants, and the ban of sale of some pest species. In addition to these regional issues, the Rodney 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 6 July 2017. At its August 2017 business meeting the board provided formal feedback on these proposed management approaches. A copy of this feedback is appended in Attachment C to the agenda report.

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 to the agenda report.

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 to the agenda report.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

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

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

29.     Attachment A to the agenda report 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 changes.

121

b

Proposed RPMP 2018 - Summary Document

131

c

Rodney Local Board Feedback

143

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Dr Imogen Bassett – Biosecurity Principal Advisor

Authorisers

Gael Ogilvie – GM Environmental Services

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Louise Mason – General Manager Local Board Services

 


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 

Feedback on proposed topics for inclusion in the Auckland Water Strategy

 

File No.: CP2018/21196

 

  

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 Rodney 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

151

b

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

159

     

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

 


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


 


 


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 

New road names in the Huapai Lifestyle Village Limited subdivision at 45 Station Road, Huapai

 

File No.: CP2018/20365

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To approve new road names in the Huapai Lifestyle Village Limited subdivision at 45 Station Road, Huapai.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

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

3.       The applicant, Huapai Lifestyle Village Limited, has submitted the following names for the extension of three existing roads.

·        Vintry Drive

·        Croatia Avenue

·        Podgora Avenue

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      approve the names Vintry Drive, Croatia Avenue and Podgora Avenue for the extension of the three existing roads with same names in the Huapai Lifestyle Village Limited subdivision at 45 Station Road, Huapai in accordance with section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 and as referenced in Attachment A to the agenda report.

Horopaki / Context

4.       The subdivision for an integrated residential development comprising a retirement village for 328 independent living units and 24 care facility suites at the Huapai Lifestyle Village Limited has been approved and the council reference is BUN60321703.

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

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

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

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

·    A historical or ancestral linkage to an area;

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

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

·    The use of Māori names is actively encouraged

8.       The applicant has submitted the following names for consideration.

Preferred Name

Reason

Vintry Drive

Extension of existing road.

Croatia Avenue

Extension of existing road.

Podgora Avenue

Extension of existing road.

9.       The applicant has not contacted local iwi as all names have previously been approved.

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

11.     Land Information New Zealand has previously confirmed that the proposed road names are unique and acceptable.

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

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

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

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

14.     The applicant has not consulted with local iwi as all names have previously been approved.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

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

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

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

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

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

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

45 Station Road Huapai locality map

165

b

45 Station Road Huapai Scheme Plan

167

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Frank Lovering – Senior Subdivision Advisor

Authorisers

Trevor Cullen - Team Leader Subdivision

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

 


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 

Panuku Development Auckland Local Board six-monthly update 1 April - 30 September 2018

 

File No.: CP2018/19857

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.      To update the Rodney Local Board on Panuku Development Auckland (Panuku) activities within the local board area for the six months from 1 April to 30 September 2018.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       Panuku was established in September 2015 by the merger of two council controlled organisations, Waterfront Auckland and Auckland Council Property Limited.

3.       Panuku helps to rejuvenate parts of Auckland, from small projects that refresh a site or building, to major transformations of town centres or neighbourhoods.

4.       Panuku manages around $2 billion of council’s property portfolio, which is continuously reviewed to find smart ways to generate income for the region, grow the portfolio, or release land or property that can be better used by others.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      receive the Panuku Development Auckland Local Board update for 1 April to 30 September 2018.

Ngā Mahi ā-Hapori / Local Activities

Portfolio Management

5.      Panuku manages ‘non-service’ properties owned by the council and Auckland Transport (AT). Non-service properties are those that are not currently needed for service or infrastructure purposes. These properties were generally being held for planned future projects that are no longer required, such as road construction, park expansion or development of future town centres.

6.      As at 30 June 2018, the property portfolio comprises 1437 properties, containing 1119 leases. The current portfolio includes vacant land, industrial buildings, warehouses, retail shops, cafes, offices, medical centres, and a large portfolio of residential rental homes.

7.      The return on the property portfolio for the period ending 30 June 2018 was above budget, with a net surplus to council and AT shareholders of $3.9 million ahead of budget.

8.      The average monthly tenantable occupancy rate for the six-month period is more than 98 per cent, which is above the statement of intent target of 95 per cent.

Properties managed in the Rodney Local Board Area

9.      Panuku currently manages 55 commercial and 15 residential interests within the Rodney Local Board area.

Business interests

10.    Panuku also manages the commercial return from business interests on the council’s behalf. This includes two forestry enterprises, two landfills and four quarries. 

11.    There is currently one managed business interest in the Rodney local board area:

12.    Ti Point Forest – Woodbank completed Stage 1 Harvest (about 2/3 of the forest) mid 2017. Stage 2 requires dry conditions 4-6 weeks prior to harvest. Panuku will contact the harvester for an anticipated harvest date for late 2018 or early 2019.

Portfolio strategy

Optimisation

13.     Optimisation is a self-funding development approach targeting sub-optimal service assets approved in 2015. The process is a tri-party agreement between Community Facilities, Panuku and Local Boards. It is led by Panuku. It is designed to equal or enhance levels of service to the local community in a reconfigured form while delivering on strategic outcomes such as housing or urban regeneration with no impact on existing rate assumptions.

14.     Using optimisation, underperforming assets will have increased utility and efficiency, with lower maintenance costs, operating costs as well as improved service delivery benefiting from co-location of other complimentary services or commercial activities. Optimisation will free up a vast range of undercapitalised development opportunities such as air space, full sites, or part sites and in many cases will result in intensification of land use, particularly residential, supporting Auckland Plan implementation.

15.     Local boards are allocated decision making for the disposal of local service property and reinvestment of sale proceeds in accordance with the service property optimisation approach.

Portfolio review and rationalisation

Overview

16.     Panuku is required to undertake ongoing rationalisation of the council’s non-service assets. This includes identifying properties from within the council’s portfolio that may be suitable for potential sale and development if appropriate. Panuku has a focus on achieving housing and urban regeneration outcomes. Identifying potential sale properties contributes to the Auckland Plan focus of accommodating the significant growth projected for the region over the coming decades, by providing the council with an efficient use of capital and prioritisation of funds to achieve its activities and projects.

Performance

17.     Panuku works closely with Auckland Council and Auckland Transport to identify potential surplus properties to help achieve disposal targets.

18.     Target for July 2017 to June 2018:

Unit

Target

Achieved

Portfolio review

$60 million disposal recommendations

$88 million as at 30 June 2018

(includes $62 million from the Papatoetoe, Avondale and Panmure priority locations)

19.     Target for July 2018 to June 2019:

Unit

Target

Achieved

Portfolio review

$30 million disposal recommendations

$4.8 million as at 30 September 2018.

Process

20.     Once identified as no longer delivering the council service use for which it was acquired, a property is taken through a multi-stage rationalisation process. The agreed process includes engagement with council departments and CCOs, the local board and mana whenua. This is followed by Panuku board approval, engagement with the local ward councillors and the Independent Māori Statutory Board and finally, a Governing Body decision.

Under review

21.     Properties currently under review in the Rodney Local Board area are listed below. The list includes any properties that may have recently been approved for sale or development and sale by the governing body.

Property

Details

14 Baxter Street, Warkworth

The property comprises a public car parking platform, the airspace above it, and the ancillary foyer, stairs and support pillars.  It was originally acquired by the former Rodney District Council (RDC) for a proposed community centre development. 

Consultation about this property has been undertaken with council and its CCOs, iwi authorities and the local board.  No alternative service uses have been identified. 

The local board resolved at its 16 February 2017 business meeting that it was opposed to the proposed disposal of this site on the basis that it may be required for town centre car parking purposes in the future. 

A report was submitted to the Finance and Performance Committee’s 21 March 2017 meeting for a final decision on the proposed disposal. The committee resolved to delay the decision regarding the disposal of land until such time as the Auckland Transport Strategy team investigates parking options for Warkworth.

The committee also directed staff to investigate the urgency and the funding of the weather tightness remedial work and other deferred maintenance.

Council’s Community Facilities department is currently undertaking the maintenance and weather tightness investigations.

12 Waimauku Station Road, Waimauku

The vacate site is the remainder of land acquired by the former RDC in 2006 for the provision of vehicle and pedestrian access to the adjoining commercial/retail development.

The rationalisation process commenced in December 2014.  AT has advised that the existing road and footpath is partly on the site and the current boundaries will need to be realigned.

Informal engagement with the board occurred in June 2018.  Panuku will report to the board’s November 2018 business meeting for a formal position on the proposed disposal.  

Acquisitions and disposals

22.     Panuku manages the acquisition and disposal of property on behalf of Auckland Council. Panuku purchases property for development, roads, infrastructure projects and other services. These properties may be sold with or without contractual requirements for development.

Acquisitions

23.     Panuku does not decide which properties to buy in a local board area. Instead, it is asked to negotiate the terms and conditions of a purchase on behalf of the council.

24.     Panuku purchased 12 properties for open space across Auckland in the 2017-18 financial year at a cost of $27 million, and bought eight properties for storm water use at a value of $4.9 million.

25.     No properties were purchased in the Rodney Local Board area during the reporting period.

Disposals

26.     The disposals team has sold 4 properties, realising $24.5 million of unconditional net sales proceeds, in the current financial year.  Panuku 2018/19 disposals target is $24 million for the year. The disposals target is agreed with the council and is reviewed on an annual basis. The disposals team achieved $15.06 million of net sale proceeds in 2017/18.

27.     No properties were sold in the Rodney Local Board area.

Ngā Mahi ā-Rohe / Regional Activities

28.     Over the year, Panuku achieved key project milestones and performance results in our priority development locations. Panuku categorises three types of priority locations:

·        Transform locations – Panuku ‘transforms’ locations by creating change through urban regeneration. Panuku leads the transformation of select parts of the Auckland region working alongside others and using the custodianship of land and planning expertise. The catalytic work Waterfront Auckland led at Wynyard Quarter is a great example of the transformation of urban locations

·        Unlock locations – Panuku ‘unlocks’ development potential for others. By acting as a facilitator; using relationships to break down barriers and influence others, including the council family, to create development opportunities

·        Support locations – Panuku plays a ‘support’ role to ensure council is making the most of what it already has. Intensification is a key driver in the Auckland Plan. Panuku will support housing demands by enabling development of council-owned land.

Transform locations

29.     The Wynyard Quarter is undergoing rapid change both commercially and residentially, with thousands of Aucklanders using this space every week.

30.     Panuku has partnered with Willis Bond to deliver a total of 500 homes in Wynyard Quarter over several stages, the first of which – Wynyard Central Pavilions – is now complete. This first stage of the new precinct offers a mix of 113 residencies comprising 25 free-stranding pavilions, 8 townhouses and 80 apartments with retail space on the ground floor. Willis Bond is also leading the delivery of 51 apartments at 132 Halsey, which is expected to be complete in Spring 2018. At the same time it is anticipated that works will begin on the second stage of Willis Bond’s residential development at 30 Madden Street with the construction of 90 apartments and six townhouses as well as ground floor retail. This residential construction is due to be completed by the end of 2020.

31.     Precinct are due to commence construction on their next commercial building at 10 Madden Street in Spring 2018, with an anticipated completion date towards the end of 2020. This seven level building will provide approximately 8,500m2 of commercial space including ground floor retail.

32.     The east-west connection between Halsey and Daldy Streets, Tiramarama Way, was completed in June of this year, with the street opening on Friday 29 June 2018 receiving much positive feedback.

33.     Transform Manukau covers over 600 hectares and is the largest of the Panuku priority locations. The Auckland Plan sees Manukau as the commercial centre of southern Auckland, but the significant investment in transport and community amenities has not been matched by intensification of the adjacent land to provide more homes and jobs. The area contains over 6 hectares of undeveloped council land in the town centre that is suitable for residential and commercial development. There is also significant Crown land held by both HNZC and the Counties Manukau DHB that can provide significant additional housing.

34.     Panuku is focussing on taking the development sites to market to test the appetite for private sector investment. Currently there is a 300 home development on Barrowcliffe Place already underway. We are also focussing on public realm projects that will enhance the overall environment and liveability of the area. Panuku is working closely with The Southern Initiative and ATEED to develop integrated actions to benefit the local community.

35.     The Framework Plan to guide the Onehunga transformation on a similar scale to Wynyard Quarter and Manukau was approved in May 2018. The plan was completed involving significant consultation with the community. Panuku is leading the redevelopment of strategic council-owned land, and works in partnership with government and others, to deliver positive outcomes for the local community. The East-West link and proposed light rail, which affects the wharf and southern parts of the area, is currently being reassessed by the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA).  Panuku is expecting amended plans later this year. Further refinement of the Framework Plan will occur once this can be reviewed. Working with the local board and key stakeholders, Panuku has advanced plans on the town centre and the Onehunga wharf precinct where possible.

Unlock locations

36.     In the unlock Takapuna project, results from recent consultation and independent representative survey have shown support for a new town square and revitalisation on the central Takapuna car park 40 Anzac Street. The project led by Panuku will now progress with a town square between Hurstmere Road and Lake Road.

37.     In Northcote, we are continuing to build on the urban regeneration concepts outlined in the November 2016 Framework Plan, and have progressed our engagement and co-design with HLC for the Awataha Greenway project and other key projects. The information kiosk continues to provide a ‘shop front’ for the community to walk in and ask any questions. With the 2018 LTP signed off by Council in late-June, Panuku is now able to commence implementation of the first-year’s projects including the Greenslade Reserve stormwater detention project.

38.     At the Airfields, Hobsonville Point, six of the seven super-lots have now settled with AV Jennings with the remaining super-lot due for settlement October 2018. Forty-two housing units have been completed to the end of June 2018. In stage 2, the development by Avanda will result in 510 dwellings. The tier 1 roads which are Wallace Road, Waka Moana Drive and Commanders Avenue are progressing well and are on target for practical completion December 2018. The first housing development is anticipated to start in December 2018. 

39.     The council’s Planning Committee approved the over-arching plans to redevelop Old Papatoetoe in June. Construction on the Mall has been completed and we are now focussed on leasing the remaining tenancies. The supermarket construction is progressing, however we have been advised that this is unlikely to be completed by Christmas. We are working closely with Foodstuffs on the new plaza space. The Panuku Board has now approved the Programme Business Case which details how new housing in the town centre will be enabled.  The temporary food hub proposal for the old netball clubrooms is progressing well.  

40.     The overall plan for Henderson was approved in May 2017 by Governing Body. The 2018-2021 Unlock Henderson work programme was endorsed by the local board and approved by the Panuku board in June 2018. The vision is for Henderson is for it to grow into an urban eco-centre. This vision will guide planning and development with an outcome towards ‘liveable growth’ by creating a safe, attractive and vibrant mixed-use environment with a uniquely west Auckland identity.

41.     The opportunity to revitalise Avondale has been given the green light in November 2017 with the approval of the over-arching plan for its regeneration by the Planning Committee. The vision for Avondale will be enabled through a number of key moves. Panuku will work closely with the local board and community to implement a retail strategy that attracts new businesses, increasing diversity of products and services. The train station, upgraded bus network and new cycle ways offer great transport options and we will continue to strengthen connections between these activity hubs and the town. A focus for the regeneration of Avondale is working with developers to build quality residential neighbourhoods that offer a mix of housing types, including terraces and apartments. A number of significant developments are already underway in the area.

42.     Located within the Tāmaki Transformation area, Panmure town centre is well-located with excellent public transport links to the wider Auckland area. Panmure was chosen as a location for regeneration due to large areas of underused, council-owned land in the town centre that represent significant redevelopment opportunities. The project area covers 43ha and encompasses land owned by council, TRC, the Crown and Auckland Transport (AT), who Panuku will work in partnership with to facilitate the staged transition of sites for development.

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

43.     This report is for the Rodney Local Board’s information.

44.     Panuku requests that all feedback and/or queries you have relating to a property in your local board area be directed in the first instance to localboard@developmentauckland.co.nz

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

45.     Tāmaki Makaurau has the highest Māori population in the world with one in four Māori in Aotearoa living here. 

46.     Māori make up 12% of the region’s total population who mainly live in Manurewa, Henderson-Massey, Papakura, Ōtara-Papatoetoe, Māngere-Ōtahuhu and Franklin. Māori have a youthful demographic with 50% of Māori in Tāmaki Makaurau under the age of 25 years. 5% of the Māori population in the region are currently 65 years and over.      

47.     There are 19 Mana Whenua in the region, with 15 having indicated an interest in Panuku lead activities within the local board area. 

48.     Māori make up 10 percent of the local board population, and there are seven marae located within the local board area.   

49.     Panuku work collaboratively with Mana Whenua on a range projects including potential property disposals, development sites in the area and commercial opportunities. Engagement can be on specific individual properties and projects at an operational level with kaitiaki representatives, or with the Panuku Mana Whenua Governance Forum who have a broader mandate.

50.     Panuku will continue to partner with Māori on opportunities which enhance Māori social and economic wellbeing.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Sven Mol - Corporate Affairs Advisor, Panuku Development Auckland

Authorisers

Carlos Rahman - Senior Engagement Advisor

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

 


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 

Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development Limited Six Monthly Report

 

File No.: CP2018/20263

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To inform the Rodney Local Board of Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development Limited  activities at a regional, and where possible, a local level.

2.       For the Rodney Local Board to receive the attached six-monthly report from Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development Limited  on their activities in the local board area.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

4.       Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development Limited reports to local boards every six months to provide them with an update of their activities.

5.       Work undertaken by Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development Limited in the Rodney area includes:

·        Locally-driven initiatives activities, including Rodney local economic development

·        Business capability building and support for new businesses

·        Film permitting in the Rodney Local Board area

 

6.       Support for Tourism activities

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      receive Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development Limited’s six-monthly report to Rodney Local Board for 1 January to 30 June 2018, as shown in Attachment A of the agenda report.

Horopaki / Context

7.       Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development Limited (ATEED) helps lay a strong foundation for Auckland’s economic growth through a broad programme of initiatives focused on:

·    Business growth and innovation

·    Business attraction and investment

·    Conferences and business events

·    Major events

·    Film

·    International education

·    Tourism.

8.       ATEED’s work can impact and provide opportunities locally as well as regionally. For this reason they have committed to reporting to local boards every six months.

9.       The report attached reflects this commitment and covers the period from 1 January to 30 June 2018.

 

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

10.     The ATEED activities carried out in the local board area are outlined in the below table.

Table 1. Local ATEED activities

Activity

ATEED team responsible

LDI activities, including Rodney local economic development

Economic Development

Business capability building and support for new businesses

Economic Development

Film permitting in the Local Board area

Economic Development

Support for Tourism activities

Destination

11.    As part of business-as-usual, destinations in the local board area continue to feature in the official Auckland visitor information website administered by ATEED.

12.     Should a local board choose to allocate some of their locally-driven initiatives (LDI) fund to economic development activities, ATEED’s dedicated Local Economic Development team can manage the delivery of a work programme for them.

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

13.     The proposed decision to receive the six-monthly report has no local impact, however some of the activities described in the report do. Details of this are outlined in the six-monthly report, Attachment A to the agenda report.

14.     Local board views were not sought for the purposes of this report. Local board views were sought for some of the initiatives described in this report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

15.     The proposed decision to receive the six-monthly report has no impact on Māori. ATEED assesses and responds to any impact their initiatives may have on Māori on a case-by-case basis.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

16.     The proposed decision to receive the six-monthly report has no financial implications.

Ngā raru tūpono / Risks

17.     The proposed decision to receive the six-monthly report has no risk. ATEED assesses and manages any risk associated with their initiatives on a case-by-case basis.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

18.     The next ATEED six-monthly report will be presented to the local board in early 2019 and will cover the period 1 July to 31 December 2018.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

ATEED Six Monthly Report

177

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Chris Lock – Senior Strategic Advisor Local Boards - ATEED

Authorisers

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

 


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 

Rodney Local Board Chairperson's Report

 

File No.: CP2018/20567

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       Attached for members’ information is an update from the Rodney Local Board chairperson, Beth Houlbrooke, for November 2018.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       The Rodney Local Board chairperson has provided a report on recent activities for the information of the members.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      note the chairperson’s report for November 2018.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Chairpersons report November 2018

187

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Robyn Joynes - Democracy Advisor - Rodney

Authoriser

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

 


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


 


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 

Governance Forward Work Programme

 

File No.: CP2018/20571

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       To present to the Rodney Local Board with a governance forward work calendar.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

1.       This report contains the governance forward work calendar, a schedule of items that will come before the Rodney Local Board at business meetings and workshops over the coming months until the end of the electoral term. The governance forward work calendar for the local board is included in Attachment A to the agenda report.

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

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

·        clarifying what advice is required and when

·        clarifying the rationale for reports.

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

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      note the governance forward work calendar as at November 2018.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Governance forward work programme November 2018

191

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Robyn Joynes - Democracy Advisor - Rodney

Authoriser

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

 


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


 


 


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 

Rodney Local Board workshop records

 

File No.: CP2018/20570

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       Attached are the Rodney Local Board workshop records for 1 November 2018.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       The Rodney Local Board and its committees hold regular workshops.

3.       Attached for information is the records of the most recent workshop meeting of the Rodney Local Board. The workshop records for the Rodney Local Board’s Parks and Recreation Committee and the Transport, Infrastructure and Environment Committee will appear on the relevant agendas of those committees.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      note the workshop records for 1 November 2018.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Workshop record 1 November 2018

197

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Robyn Joynes - Democracy Advisor - Rodney

Authoriser

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

 


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


 


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 

Deputations and Public Forum Update

 

File No.: CP2018/20566

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       As part of its business meetings Rodney Local Board and its committees (Transport, Infrastructure and Environment, and Parks and Recreation) has a period of time set aside for Deputations/Presentations and Public Forum during which time members of the public can address the local board on matters within its delegated authority.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2.       Under Standing Orders there is provision for Deputations/Presentations to the local board. Applications for Deputations/Presentations must be in writing setting forth the subject and be received by the Relationship Manager at least seven working days before the meeting concerned, and subsequently have been approved by the Chairperson.  Unless the meeting determines otherwise in any particular case, a limit of ten minutes is placed on the speaker making the presentation.

3.       Standing Orders allows three minutes for speakers in Public Forum.

4.       Requests, matters arising and actions from the Deputations/Presentations and Public Forum are recorded and updated accordingly.  The Rodney Local Board Transport, Infrastructure and Planning Committee Deputations/Presentations and Public Forum Update is attached as Attachment A to the agenda report.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      note the Deputation and Public Forum update for 18 October 2018.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Deputation - Public Forum update October 2018

201

     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Robyn Joynes - Democracy Advisor - Rodney

Authoriser

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

 


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 


Rodney Local Board

15 November 2018

 

 

Ward Councillor Update

 

File No.: CP2018/20572

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1.       The Rodney Local Board allocates a period of time for the Ward Councillor, Greg Sayers, to update them on the activities of the Governing Body.

 

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      thank Cr Sayers for his November 2018 update to the Rodney Local Board on the activities of the Governing Body.

 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Robyn Joynes - Democracy Advisor - Rodney

Authoriser

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

     

    

 



[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.