Agenda of Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

02 May 2012

Draft Long-term Plan submission and analysis and responses to information requests

File No.: CP2012/05902

Executive Summary

The Hibiscus and Bays Local Hearings Panel heard submissions on the draft Long-term Plan 2012-22, including the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board’s draft Local Board Agreement 2012-13 on 11 April 2012.

The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board needs to consider any amendments to its draft Local Board Agreement 2012-13 prior to discussions with the Governing Body in the week beginning 14 May 2012.

This report contains analysis of the submissions from the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area, including local and regional submissions, to support the board in its decision-making.

Attached are subject matter expert responses to submission points from the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Area and requests for further information from the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board, arising from the hearings process. Also attached is a report from Finance on the key issues and themes from all financial submission points.

Recommendation/s

a) That the Draft Long-term Plan submission analysis and responses to information requests report be received.

b) That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board consider any amendments to its draft Local Board Agreement 2012/13 arising from the special consultative procedure for the draft Long-term Plan 2012-22.

Background

The Local Government Act 2002 requires Auckland Council to undertake a special consultative procedure (SCP) as part of the development of the Long-term Plan 2012-22, including draft Local Board Agreements 2012-13.

The submission period for the draft Long-term Plan SCP ran for four weeks from 24 February to 23 March 2012.

In total, the council received and processed 9921 submissions of which 281 were received from the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area. Of these, 42 related primarily to Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area issues and the board’s decision-making responsibilities. 239 submissions related to regional issues. Twelve (12) submitters in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area indicated they wished to be heard.

The Hibiscus and Bays Local Hearings Panel held its hearings on the draft Long-term Plan 2012-22, including the Local Board’s draft Local Board Agreement 2012-13, on 11 April 2012.

Subject matter expert responses to submission points and requests for information

All submission points have been sent to the relevant subject matter expert (SME) within Auckland Council for response. These responses have been collated by local board area (regional and local submission points together).

The Finance Department received a large number of submission points to respond to (on mainly regional issues). Finance has prepared a report outlining the key issues from these submission points, rather than responding to each submission point individually. This report was not available when the agenda went to print.

Following the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board hearings on 11 April 2012 the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board had a number of requests for further information. These have also been sent to the relevant SME for response.

Regional hearings

Regional hearings will be held from 23 April to 7 May 2012. These hearings will be held forum-style, with a number of tables staffed by a facilitator and at least one Councillor. Submitters will be grouped at these tables by theme, where possible.

Decision Making

Local submissions from the Hibiscus and Bays local board area

· Most Hibiscus and Bays submitters supported:

o providing extra funding to local boards for local projects

o the projects and initiatives proposed by the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board.

· A number of submissions supported:

o Penlink

o Community sports village at the Tennis Park in Albany (although in Upper Harbour Local Board area)

o More walkways, cycleways or bridleways in Hibiscus and Bays area, including some specific requests –

§ Cycleway network through the North Shore

§ Feasibility study of East-West bridleway trail from Murawai to Long Bay

§ Long Bay – Albany village recreation trail

§ Continue Crimson walkway from Long Bay to Stillwater

§ Walkway between Long Bay Regional Park and Okura

§ Walkway from Okura river road to the East Coast through Glenvar Road

§ Continue Orewa Beach Millenium walkway and cycleway between Marine View and Kinloch Reserve

· There was some feedback supporting:

o Sports and recreation spending funding and/or projects including-

§ Rodney sports and recreation strategy

§ Albany swimming pool/ Northern aquatic facility (Upper Harbour Local Board area)

§ Community gym in Long Bay town centre

§ Upgrades to local sports facilities and fields, including Metropark, Northcote Precinct, Shepherds Park, the AMI Netball Centre and Hobsonville sports field

§ Buses to carry bikes

§ Request for an artificial turf in Hibiscus and Bays

o Parks and reserve improvements including-

§ Parks and reserves strategy

§ Upgrade William Bayes Park

§ Planting existing parks

§ Purchase property in Tamariki Avenue to create reserve connection between Moana beachfront and Orewa Boulevard

· There was isolated feedback on specific issues and support in one or two submissions for:

o Specific transport projects, including-

· North Shore Rail

· More parking and more feeder buses on North Shore busway

· Silverdale busway and park ‘n’ ride

· Puhoi busway (Rodney Local Board area)

· Puhoi-Wellsford motorway (Rodney Local Board area)

· Ferry services to the CBD

· Upgrade to Long Bay roads, including Glenvar Ridge Road

· Pedestrian safety improvements on Carlisle Road in Browns Bay and on Orewa Boulevard (northern side of Moana Ave)

o Environmental protection/enhancement projects, including-

· Environmental protection in Long Bay, including planting to mitigate effects of nearby housing development

· Water quality measures in Okura Estuary and marine reserve

· Protection and enhancement of Weiti River, including the clearing of Weiti River channel to improve access

· Orewa Beach management plan

· Orewa reef project

· Region wide weed and pest management strategy including non-chemical spraying

o Town centre improvements, including-

· improvements to Browns Bay town centre

· Investigate land use opportunities in the Barry’s point precinct

· Authorization of public consultation on the Orewa Boulevard concept plan (sections between Riverside Road and Beach Road, and Florence Ave and Westhoe Road)

· Carparking improvements in Orewa town centre

o Support for small local businesses

o Upgrade Okura hall

o Development of a Long Bay heritage strategy and management plan

o Acquisition of two farm houses within Long Bay heritage protection area

o No bovine grazing in Long Bay heritage protection area

o Investigate feasibility of undergrounding power lines in Okura

o Upgrade North Shore Events Centre ((in Kaipatiki Local Board area)

o Complete Warkworth showgrounds development (Rodney Local Board Area)

o New public toilet midway along Te Ara Tahuna

o Orewa square upgrade and concept plan (including I-SITE)

o Broadband rollout in Hibiscus and Bays and Orewa

o Waive charges for business occupying public footpath unless they are in breach of bylaws

o Increasing the business improvement district targeted rate for 2010/11 by 6% (from $148,232 to $157,125.92).

Regional submissions from the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area

· There was mixed feedback on :

o Council expenditure and/or the level of rates rises

§ approximately 50% thought Council expenditure or rates increases were too high

o swimming pools

§ a limited number of submissions were received on this issue, and feedback was split between options 1, 2, 3 and 4;

o city rail link

§ not all submitters commented, of those who did, support for and against was roughly 50/50

· There was some feedback supporting:

o Second harbour crossing

Significance of Decision

The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board’s decision to make any amendments to its draft Local Board Agreement 2012-13, following the SCP process will be reflected in the draft agreement the board discusses with the Governing Body.

The final Local Board Agreement will be adopted by the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board by 22 June 2012 and be included in the final Long-term Plan 2012-22, to be adopted by the Governing Body by 30 June 2012.

Maori Impact Statement

The draft Local Board Agreement 2012-13 sets out the local activities that Auckland Council will undertake in the [insert name] local board area over the coming year. These activities are likely to have an impact Māori and iwi in the local board area. Māori and iwi have had the opportunity to submit on the content of the draft Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Agreement as part of the SCP process.

Consultation

The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board draft Local Board Agreement forms part of the draft Long-term Plan 2012-22 which has been through an SCP as specified by the Local Government Act 2002.

The content of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board draft Local Board Agreement has been informed by the priorities contained within the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board’s Local Board Plan, which was adopted in 2011 following an SCP.

Local Board Views

The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board needs to consider any amendments to its draft Local Board Agreement 2012-13 arising out of the SCP process.

Financial and Resourcing Implications

The content of the draft Local Board Agreement will form the basis of discussions between the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board and the Governing Body. The final Local Board Agreement will set the budget for local activities in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Area for 2012/13.

The final Local Board Agreement will form part of the final Long-term Plan, which will set the budget for local activities in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Area from 2012-22.

Legal and Legislative Implications

The Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 requires Auckland Council to have a local board agreement (agreed between the relevant local board and the governing body) for each local board area.

Implementation Issues

The content of the final Local Board Agreement will set out the local activities to be undertaken by Auckland Council in the Hibiscus and Bays local board area.

Attachments

The attachments will be distributed under separate cover.

Signatories

Authors	Leigh Radovan – Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	Lesley Jenkins – Relationship Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

02 May 2012

Final Decision-making for Local Board Budgets 2012-2022

File No.: CP2012/06108

Executive Summary

The draft Long-term Plan (LTP) 2012-22 was released for public consultation in February, with local board hearings and deliberations held in April as part of the special consultative procedure. Following consultation, each local board has reviewed its 2012-22 budgets for the LTP and considered what reprioritisation is required in order to finalise these budgets.

Local boards are now required to make any final decisions necessary following the consultation and reprioritsation phases and to ensure that the final budgets for 2012-22 reflect the proposed allocation of decision-making and balance in every year. Boards are also required to confirm their areas of advocacy to the Governing Body and CCOs and provide feedback, if desired, on region-wide policies and priorities. Boards may also provide feedback on decisions made by the Strategy & Finance Committee on 3 April clarifying local board budget parameters.

This report provides the financial guidance required for local boards to finalise their budgets and summarises the final steps to formal adoption of local board agreements and the LTP.

Recommendation/s

a) That the Final Decision-making for Local Board Budgets 2012-2022 report be received.

b) That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

i) Approves balanced 10-year budgets for 2012-22 for the Council’s Long-term Plan 2012-22 that reflect the proposed allocation of decision-making

ii) Confirms a list of advocacy areas for the Governing Body and council-controlled organisations as per Attachment Three

iii) Documents any feedback on:

· Decisions made by the Strategy and Finance Committee to ‘clarify local board budget parameters’ at its meeting on 3 April 2012

· Region-wide policies and priorities

c) That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board notes:

i) The financial guidance required to finalise budgets is attached to this report, including key decisions made by the Strategy & Finance Committee on 3 April

ii) Local board budgets for 2012-22 must balance in every year

iii) If budgets do not balance in every year, the Strategy & Finance Committee has advised that it will respond to any advice provided by the local board about how to balance its budget if required. If this has not occurred, it will balance the budgets by proportionately reducing the budgets for the local boards discretionary projects to address the overspend.

iv) A list of additional projects that would be funded if additional funds were available can be prepared if required and discussed with the governing body during meetings on 14-18 May

v) The financial statements attached to this report have been updated since the draft Long-term Plan to reflect budget refresh adjustments, the allocation of previously unallocated capital expenditure and the allocation of centralised costs, including staff costs, corporate overheads, interest costs and depreciation.

Background

This report provides the financial guidance required for local boards to finalise their budgets and summarises the final steps to formal adoption of local board agreements and the LTP. It covers:

· financial processes undertaken between February and April 2012 that impact LTP budgets,

· updated financial statements for 2012-22

· information on budget movements since the draft LTP

· financial guidance for reprioritisation activity and finalising local board budgets, including decisions made by the Strategy & Finance Committee on 3 April to clarify key parameters for local board budgets

· the next steps to finalise local board budgets for the LTP.

Improving Budget Information (February – April)

During February and March, officers prepared for the next steps in finalising the LTP – improving budget information, developing further understanding of the draft LTP budgets, and resolving, as far as possible, any outstanding issues and grey areas.

· Budget refresh - A budget refresh to improve strategic alignment, accuracy and efficiency savings. The scope of the refresh was limited to adjustments such as, transfers between entities and activities, realising efficiency savings and revenue increases, integrating the impacts of approved changes to Annual Plan 2011/2012 budgets, addressing material errors, updated information and reflecting changes in the timing of capex projects.

· Allocating previously unallocated capital expenditure - 86% ($272m over 10 years) of the capital expenditure for local activities that was previously not allocated to specific local boards has now been allocated (a separate memo has been circulated outlining the methodology used). Most of this previous unallocated expenditure related to asset renewals, primarily for local parks. In some cases, officers needed to apply a significant degree of judgment when allocating this expenditure. There is therefore a high risk that the allocation to a particular local board for a particular year is insufficient to cover urgent renewal requirements. To some extent, this risk can be mitigated by managing the renewals budgets on a 10-year basis.

· Progressing advocacy areas - CCOs have been asked to report back to local boards and the Strategy & Finance Committee on whether local board advocacy projects and outcomes can be accommodated within their budgets. Advocacy initiatives from your draft Local Board Agreement are provided in Attachment Three, along with responses provided by CCOs.

· Providing greater clarity around local board budget parameters - A report was prepared for the Strategy & Finance Committee meeting on 3 April, identifying a range of outstanding local board budget issues and seeking decisions to clarify local board budget parameters ahead of local boards undertaking further prioritisation work and finalising LTP budgets. The decisions made by the Strategy & Finance Committee are attached and local boards have been asked to provide feedback, if desired.

The specific budget adjustments made as part of the process of improving budget information are set out in Attachment Four, along with responses to any specific budget issues for your board (Attachment Two).

Updated financial statements have been developed (see Attachment Five) that reflect the adjustments referred to above. These statements include the budgets provided for the local board prioritisation workshops and central costs that cannot be directly controlled by the local board.

Changes to central costs include:

· Updates to central assumptions, including a slight reduction in our projected interest rates on borrowings

· Increased forecast depreciation costs reflecting improved fixed asset information

· Updated corporate overhead allocations. The budget refresh resulted in changes to the costs of delivering corporate support activities and these have been allocated across all other activities and local boards in the usual way. These changes were primarily driven by updated staff cost information, project delivery costs, cost savings targets, and the allocation of costs (such as property costs) out of corporate to specific activities.

· Refreshed staff costs from latest salary information, in many cases these are central in nature and allocated across a number of local boards and/or activities.

Financial statements will be updated to reflect the budget decisions made at this meeting, along with any impact of governing body decisions and central allocated costs, after the Strategy and Finance Committee meets to make final budget decisions on 23 May.

Reconsideration of the draft LTP budgets (April / May)

During April local boards held public hearings as part of the special consultative procedure. Local boards then reconsidered their budgets, taking into account consultation and new information.

Local boards are now required to make decisions in order to finalise their 2012-22 budgets for the LTP 2012-22 (Attachment One provides financial guidance to support local boards reprioritise and finalise their budgets) and finalise any areas of advocacy to the Governing Body and CCOs.

Local boards should also consider any feedback they wish to provide on region-wide policies and priorities or on decisions made by the Strategy & Finance Committee on 3 April clarifying local board budget parameters. Attachments Six and Seven respectively set out the relevant decisions made by the Strategy & Finance Committee and summarise the region-wide policies and priorities.

Next steps (May / June)

Following decisions made at this meeting:

· Local boards discuss local board agreements and the LTP with the governing body between 14 and 18 May

· The Strategy and Finance Committee meet on 23 May to make final decisions on LTP budgets

· Local boards update the non-financial content in their local board agreements (24 May to 6 June)

· Finance prepares final financial statements, reflecting local board decisions, any impact of governing body decisions and central allocated costs (24 May to 12 June).

· Local boards meet to adopt their agreements between 18 June and 22 June. If a local board chooses not to adopt their local board agreement in full, the board will need to resolve on the areas on which agreement could not be reached and the reasons for this. This information will be published alongside the agreement in the final LTP.

· The final LTP is adopted by the governing body on 28 June.

Significance of Decision

Local board agreements and the Long-term Plan are important statutory requirements.

Maori Impact Statement

Many local board decisions are of importance to Maori and there is a need to continue to build relationships between local boards and relevant iwi. Boards should be mindful of the impact of the impacts on Maori and Maori outcomes when making decisions.

Consultation

Draft Local Board Agreements form part of the draft Long-term Plan, which was released for public consultation in February 2012. This report has been developed in consultation with Local Board Services, and following direction sought from the Strategy & Finance Committee at its meeting on 3 April 2012.

Local Board Views

This report requires local boards to make decisions required to finalise their budgets for the LTP. Local board views are sought on decisions made by the Strategy & Finance Committee on 3 April on clarifying local board budget parameters, as well as feedback on region-wide policies and priorities. Local boards considered a number of the areas raised in this report in November 2011 in response to the mayoral proposal.

Financial and Resourcing Implications

Local boards are required to develop 10-year budgets that balance with the funding envelope set by the Governing Body. Local board decisions will be reported to the Strategy & Finance Committee for its meeting on 23 May when final budget decisions will be made.

Legal and Legislative Implications

Local board agreements must be prepared in accordance with sections 21 and 22 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009, and the Long-Term Plan must be prepared in accordance with section 93 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Implementation Issues

The timeline to develop and produce the Long-term Plan is very tight. Local boards’ financial statements reflect the full cost of undertaking local activities within each board’s area. However, some of these costs are not directly under the control of local boards (e.g. staff costs, corporate overhead, interest and depreciation) and are therefore subject to change outside of the local board’s prioritisation process.

These central costs will alter as final budget decisions are made by the Strategy & Finance Committee on 23 May. As these central costs change, the total funding for each local board will change by the same amount. These changes will have no impact on a local board’s level of discretionary funding.

In some cases further work is being undertaken by officers that may have an impact on local board budgets. For example, finalising a 10-year implementation plan for “sportsfields improvements” (regional fund) and agreeing a schedule of parks that deliver ‘Auckland-wide’ benefits. It is therefore likely that some reprioritising of local board budgets will be required as part of future annual plan and LTP processes.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Financial guidance for reprioritising and finalising local board budgets	19
b View	Responses to specific issues raised	23
c View	Summary of advocacy areas in draft local board agreement	25
d View	Specific adjustments made to local board budget 2012/13-2022/23	33
e View	Updated financial statements	37
f View	Expenditure for Hibiscus and Bays Local Board 2012-2022	39
g View	Strategy & Finance Committee decisions on local board budget parameters	41
h View	Summary of region-wide policies and priorities	43

Signatories

Authors

Tanya Stocks, Planning & Policy

Authorisers

Chris Carroll, Policy and Planning Manager

Karen Lyons, Local Board Services Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

02 May 2012

Parks, Sports and Recreation Quarterly Update to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board for the January to March 2012 period

File No.: CP2012/05569

Executive Summary

The Parks, Sports and Recreation (PSR) May 2012 quarterly report to the Local Board seeks to update Local Board members on the activities carried out by the PSR units – Local and Sports Parks (LSP), Recreation Facilities and Service Delivery (RFSD), and Asset Development and Business Support (ADBS) – for the January to March 2012 quarter.

Recommendation/s

a) That the Parks, Sports and Recreation Quarterly Update to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board for January to March 2012 period report be received.

Background

_______________________________________________________________________

1.0 LOCAL AND SPORTS PARKS

1.1 Local Parks Update

1.2 Sports Parks Update

1.3 Volunteer Activity

2.0 RECREATION FACILITIES AND SERVICE DELIVERY

2.1 Recreation Facilities Activity

2.2 Programmes and Projects Update

2.3 Auckland Sport and Recreation Reference Group Updates

3.0 CAPITAL WORKS

3.1 Capital Works Update

_______________________________________________________________________

1.0 LOCAL AND SPORTS PARKS

1.1 Local Parks Update

Park Maintenance:

· Contractor Compliance for this quarter: Bays

Average audit result of 95% (target 90%)

Average work completed result of 99% (target 98%)

The maintenance contract in the Hibiscus Coast area continues to track at a level of 98% (target 85%). We have received many customer requests in this quarter as well as many compliments to the contractors for their prompt responses.

· Annual Flower Beds

The summer flowerbeds have been spectacular and are about to be changed to their winter colour.

A recent upgrade to the Browns Bay RSA flower garden was recently completed with many thanks from the members.

· Mowing

All mowing runs are on target and have been consistent throughout the quarter which has been a big effort given the short weeks, unusual grass growth and statutory holidays. Contractors brought in extra staff as well as working additional hours to keep our parks and reserves within the contract specifications. The already wet ground conditions combined with the good grass growth will make the run into winter very challenging.

· Waiake Beach Reserve

Initial site meeting held with Auckland Transport after the presentation to the Local Board by Torbay Sailing Club with regards to the widening of the footpath from the club to the beach. Options will be presented to all stakeholders in the future.

· Wastewater Upgrades

Capital works on the wastewater upgrade at Aicken Reserve is now complete and the site is fully reinstated. Watercare have recently approached Council officers about upgrading the wastewater pumpstation and holding tanks in Mairangi Bay and additional information is being sought at this time.

· Toilet Blocks & Upgrades

We are looking to engage with a local Stanmore Bay School to design and paint a mural on the breezeblock wall at the Stanmore Bay beach toilet. Freyburg Park toilet works are commencing after an insurance decision.

· Event Bookings

During this quarter, there were 47 bookings for events on parks in East Coast Bays. Highlights were the Cairo to Cape Town and East Bays Road Car Show. Some major events were held in the Hibiscus Coast including Kingsway School Duathlon, Hospice Twilight Walk, and the Hibiscus Soap Box Derby.

1.2 Sports Parks Update

On the back of 268 mm of rain recorded for the previous quarter, rainfall for January, February and March 2012 totalled 433 mm in the ECB/Hibiscus area.

Rainfall volume and frequency during this period impacted significantly on sports field maintenance operations, in particularly autumn turf renovation in March.

200mm of rain recorded in March potentially sets us up for a difficult start to the 2012 winter sports season; however, a dry start to April will be helpful.

Sports field usage for this period (hrs)
Competition	3006
Schools	29.5
Training	1993.5
Special Events	308
Social	514

1.3 Volunteer Activity

Silverdale

The Volunteer Coordinator met with the Bunning's Development Manager on site at the Silverdale section of the Fairhaven Walk and discussed the preparation needed for a community planting in Winter 2013. Bunning's have offered to pay for the preparation of the site and fund the plants for the 2013 planting.

Weiti Station

The Volunteer Coordinator met with a member of the group on site, walking the park to gain a better understanding of the works that have been done and to look at the sites proposed for this winters planting.

_______________________________________________________________________

2.0 RECREATION FACILITIES AND SERVICE DELIVERY

2.1 Recreation Facilities Activity

Facility	Jan-11	Feb-11	Mar-11	Jan-12	Feb-12
Stanmore Bay Leisure Centre	2,207	3,855	5,431	1,734	3,497
North Shore Leisure East Coast Bays	2,540	6,870	9,792	6,101	8,824
Stanmore Bay Leisure Centre (Aquatic)	11,984	19,183	20,264	16,345	20,861

2.2 Programmes and Projects Update

The Recreation Facilities and Service Delivery Unit will work through the Local Board Relationship Managers to set times for workshops with the Local Board over the next few months. The Unit will re-introduce senior team members and the activities and services provided by the Unit that support Local Board’s and their Local Board Plans.

2.3 Auckland Sport and Recreation Reference Group Updates

The Auckland Sport and Recreation Reference Group (ASRRG) have provided their first newsletter for the information of Local Boards. (See Attachment A) The ASRRG would welcome the opportunity to meet with Local Boards over 2012.

_______________________________________________________________________

3.0 CAPITAL WORKS

3.1 Capital Works Update

Refer to Attachment B.

Decision Making

Not applicable

Significance of Decision

Not applicable

Maori Impact Statement

Not applicable

Consultation

Not applicable

Local Board Views

Not applicable

Financial and Resourcing Implications

Not applicable

Legal and Legislative Implications

Not applicable

Implementation Issues

Not applicable

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Auckland Sport and Recreation Reference Group (ASRRG) Newsletter	83
b View	ADBS Project Report	87

Signatories

Authors

Martin van Jaarsveld – Manager Local & Sports Parks North

Lisa Tocker – Manager Recreation Facilities & Service Delivery

Julie Pickering – Manager Asset Development & Business Support North

Colin Field – Manager Asset Development & Business Support

Mark Bowater – Manager Local and Sports Parks

Authorisers

Ian Maxwell – Manager Parks Sports & Recreation

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

02 May 2012

Fairhaven Walk/Riverhaven Drive

File No.: CP2012/05490

Executive Summary

Council officers are preparing a report for the Auckland Council, following a request from the Fairhaven Walk Association Inc (FWA) which represents the owners of 22 properties on Riverhaven Drive. Some of the property owners have paid lump sum payments and the special rate currently applies to 18 properties. The rate has a further 19 years to run at an approximate yearly amount of $10,450. The rate was set to recover the cost (including interest on borrowing) of building a road to give access to these properties, which previously had access only by the tidal Weiti River estuary.

Rodney District Council (RDC) had approved funding the road, with the proviso that, apart from a 1/27^th council contribution, all costs would be recovered via a targeted rate on the properties benefiting. The property owners and the FWA agreed to this. However costs spiralled and the rate necessary to recover costs increased from original estimates of about $3,000 per year for 10 years to 25 years and $10,450 for most of this period. The FWA made many requests for additional contribution from Rodney District Council and is now approaching Auckland Council.

Officers believe that RDC acted reasonably and in accordance with its agreement with the FWA and cannot be held responsible for the increased costs. However the increased costs were unforeseen by everyone and have increased the rating burden well in excess of what had been envisaged at the outset of the project, imposing severe financial stress on many of the property owners.

The purpose of this report is to formally obtain from the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board their views so that they can be included in the report being prepared for the Strategy and Finance Committee of Auckland Council. In informal discussions with the local board at a workshop to discuss the issue those members present gave feedback that they were sympathetic to the financial burden on the property owners and would not be adverse to Auckland Council granting them some relief, but noted it was a major financial rating decision and was an issue for the governing body to decide on.

Recommendation/s

a) That the Fairhaven Walk/Riverhaven Drive report be received.

b) That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board recognise that this is a funding/rating issue over which the governing body has the decision making authority and the Local Board support any decision of the governing body including some relief being granted to the ratepayers in Riverhaven Drive who pay the special targeted roading rate.

Background

The Riverhaven Drive (formerly Fairhaven Walk) targeted rate was first set in the 2006/2007 rating year at $4,019. However the history of the issue dates back to a 1927 subdivision. Access to the subdivision was by way of an “unformed road” which was never constructed and so access was only available via the Weiti River estuary.

In 1980 the Fairhaven Walk Association was formed. The properties of its members had no road access, Rodney District Council (RDC) would not provide the access and building permit applications would not be considered without road access. In 1990 a constitution for the FWA was drawn up and the association was incorporated.

The FWA’s view was that everyone else had a road provided, they paid rates and so they should get a road. The FWA’s view failed to understand that local roads are funded by developers who then recover the cost from buyers of the sections and RDC was adamant that the property owners, not general ratepayers, should fund this road.

After numerous discussions between the FWA and RDC an alternative route to the “unformed road” (which ran alongside the tidal estuary foreshore and was impracticable as a route) was identified, which included using some of the Council Reserve land that had been created at the time of the 1927 subdivision.

In 1998 a Deed of Agreement (DOA) was drawn up between the FWA and RDC. RDC required 100% signature of all the affected property owners to this deed and this was achieved. The main principle of the DOA was that the FWA and RDC would co-operate, subject to the terms of the DOA, to provide road access to the properties. The key terms of the DOA were:

- Council plantation reserve, which bordered the affected properties, would be re-designated as road and made available to enable a route for the road.

- At the same time the “unformed road” along the foreshore would be re-designated as reserve.

- RDC would act as facilitator in applying for all consents or initiating all statutory processes to enable the above land designation exchanges to take place.

- RDC agreed that when the road is completed and certified as complying with all applicable urban roading standards it will adopt and thereafter maintain the road.

- The owners and the FWA would be responsible for the development of the road, including survey work, design, construction and obtaining any necessary consents.

- The owners and FWA acknowledged that the road formation work shall be implemented in accordance with the requirements of the District Plan and any urban roading standards applicable to such works.

- It was acknowledged by both parties that completion of the road would require the consent of RDC in its capacity as regulatory authority in relation to resource consents. Nothing in the agreement was to limit RDC in its capacity as a regulator.

- All costs associated with the DOA and the development and construction of the road would be shared on the basis of a 1/27^th share to be met by RDC and 26/27^th share to be met by the private properties benefiting from the proposal.

- Any costs incurred by either party prior to the DOA shall be met by the respective party.

It should be noted that the DOA did not envisage RDC funding the road in any way, providing any financial assistance or setting a rate on properties. It’s only financial commitment was to make a 1/27^th contribution to total costs.

In 1999 the FWA appointed a project manager and designs for the road were initiated. In 2003 construction of the road commenced. The project proved problematical. The site is very steep and challenging and relations with a private land owner who had agreed to allow access to enable development of the road deteriorated and he blocked access forcing work to stop.

The problems and difficult site caused costs to escalate and there were approaches from the FWA and property owners for RDC to take over and provide a road or to increase funding. The FWA believed RDC standards and regulations were a significant cause of increased costs, although the DOA makes it clear that RDC was not to be limited in its role as a regulator and that urban roading standards would be applied. RDC had also agreed to take over the road once completed and to maintain it thereafter, so it had to be sure that the standards were appropriate.

RDC rejected all requests that would cost other ratepayers. It had become clear that the rising costs meant the property owners could not fund the project themselves and the road could not be completed. In 2005 RDC agreed to pay for the balance of the cost of the road and charge the benefiting properties a targeted rate to recover these costs plus the Council’s borrowing costs. At this stage it was estimated that total balance of costs would be around $400k to $500k. In July 2006 the rate was set at $4,019 and was to be for 10 years. Final costs were $2,355k. Due to the cost increases the term was increased to 25 years (19 remaining) and the rate needs to be $10,450 per annum to recover all costs.

The FWA have approached Auckland Council seeking some relief (see Appendix 1). Despite agreeing to the terms of the DOA they hold RDC responsible for increased costs and maintain that RDC should have provided a road anyway. All these issues were raised with RDC and RDC consistently maintained that the DOA outlined the respective responsibilities and cost sharing and that the FWA agreed to the targeted rate.

The financial strain on some of the property owners is severe and the increased costs, and the flow on effect to the level of that rate, must have come as a surprise to many. Complicating the issue is that some of the properties have changed ownership since the DOA was signed. New property owners were not signatories to the original agreement and whilst they were all aware of the application of a special targeted rate they would have had no reason to suspect that the amount would increase so significantly.

Decision Making

The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board is not making any substantive decision but providing a view for inclusion in a report to the Strategy & Finance Committee.

Significance of Decision

The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board is not making any substantive decision but providing a view for inclusion in a report to the Strategy & Finance Committee.

Maori Impact Statement

This section is not relevant.

Consultation

There is a long history of communication between the former Rodney District Council and the Fairhaven Walk Association and the current rating arrangement was agreed to by both parties, albeit the final costs of the project and therefore the final annual rating amount were unknown at the time of this agreement.

Local Board Views

The Local Board Views are being sought in this report..

Financial and Resourcing Implications

Any decision that has financial impacts will be made by the Strategy & Finance Committee and it has not yet considered the matter.

Legal and Legislative Implications

Not relevant, the local board is not making any substantive decision but providing a view for inclusion in a report to the Strategy & Finance Committee.

Implementation Issues

The Local Board is not making any substantive decision but providing a view for inclusion in a report to the Strategy & Finance Committee.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Letter from John Buckland, Secretary-Treasurer of the Fairhaven Walk Association Inc	125
b View	Reply to John Buckland	129

Signatories

Authors	John McLaren, Team Leader Special Projects
Authorisers	Kevin Ramsay, Manager Finance

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

02 May 2012

ATEED Six Monthly Report to Local Boards

File No.: CP2012/05235

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report (attachment 1) is to provide local boards with highlights of activity carried out within ATEED’s local offices in the six months from 1 July to 31 December 2011.

For reporting purposes the local boards have been grouped into the north, south, central and west clusters and a tailored report has been written for each cluster as follows:

· North: Devonport-Takapuna, Kaipatiki, Upper-Harbour, Rodney, Hibiscus and Bays.

· West: Whau, Waitakere Ranges and Henderson-Massey.

· Central: Albert-Eden, Great Barrier, Maungakiekie-Tamaki; Orakei, Puketepapa; Waiheke and Waitemata

· South: Franklin, Howick, Mangere-Otahuhu, Manurewa, Otara-Papatoetoe and Papakura.

The report follows ATEED’s commitment to update all local boards on the general activity of local offices every six months as per ATEED’s Local Board Engagement Plan 2011-2012. The report includes information on business awards activity, business events activity and Young Enterprise Scheme (YES) activity.

The report also provides information about ATEED’s tourism and events activity in local board areas over the same six month period. This information provides local boards with greater visibility of ATEED’s work in local communities in so far as they can be broken down into local board areas.

In summary the report covers four areas:

1) Local Office Activity – regional and local business networking and events, investment in local businesses, Business Awards 2011.

2) Tourism Activity – i-SITE visitor numbers and destination marketing activity. (note: due to the nature of this activity this section contains regional as well as local information)

3) ATEED Events Activity - events in which ATEED played an active role in local board area of the region.

4) Other activity of interest – ATEED’s investment proposals included in the draft Long Term Plan 2012-2022

ATEED staff will be present at each local board meeting to answer questions arising from this report.

This report should be read in conjunction with ATEED’s quarterly, half year and annual reports to Auckland Council that are set out in ATEED’s Statement of Intent 2011-2014. Those reports highlight ATEEDs work at the regional level, performance against targets and financial statements. ATEED’s half year report was presented to the Accountability and Performance Committee in 4 April 2012.

Recommendation/s

a) That the ATEED Six Monthly Report to Local Boards be received.

Background

Auckland Tourism, Events & Economic Development Limited (ATEED) promotes regional economic development in New Zealand’s most significant economic centre. As the region’s economic growth agency, ATEED provides a co-ordinated approach to growing Auckland’s business, export and visitor economy through:

· sector and business development,

· tourism destination management, marketing and visitor services,

· attraction and delivery of major and signature events, and

· developing a compelling brand for Auckland

Auckland Tourism, Events & Economic Development Limited’s vision is to:

Improve New Zealand’s economic prosperity by leading the successful transformation of Auckland’s economy.

Local Office activity

Although much of the work undertaken by ATEED is regional in focus, ATEED has a number of local touch points. In particular ATEED is visible at the local level through its local offices in the north, west and south of the region.

Local offices deliver a regional programme of business support as well as tailored support to businesses depending on the needs of their local businesses. The distinction between region wide programmes / events and local office bespoke programmes / events is made clear in the report.

Tourism and events information

ATEED operates 13 visitor centres (i-SITEs) from Bombay in the south to Warkworth in the north. These sites play a key role in delivering a high quality visitor experience around the region, and influencing and encouraging visitors to do more and see more in Auckland and New Zealand. i-SITEs generate significant economic and social benefits for the region providing a distribution channel for the tourism industry to connect with visiting international and domestic tourists.

In addition ATEED supports sub-regional marketing activity that aligns with regional propositions and works with the tourism industry (tourism trade and tourism media) to enhance and develop products within the region.

Events

ATEED is the region’s economic growth agency responsible for the attraction and delivery of major and signature events that are of national or international interest and pivotal to Auckland’s brand. ATEED is therefore a major part of the events landscape working closely with events industry partners to realise its vision and put the major events strategy into action.

The report contains details of the regional events that ATEED has been involved with over the last six months, per local board area.

Reports to local boards

ATEED’s Local Board Engagement Plan 2011-2012 (LBEP) sets out ATEED’s commitment to reporting to local boards on local activity. The LBEP (page 13 and attachments to that document) notes that local boards will receive updates on the activity of local offices within board areas by cluster every six months. The LBEP notes that the report will contain business awards activity, business events activity and Young Enterprise Scheme (YES) activity by the four clusters north, west, central and south.

Decision Making

Not applicable

Significance of Decision

Not applicable

Maori Impact Statement

Not applicable

Consultation

Not applicable

Local Board Views

Not applicable

Financial and Resourcing Implications

None

Legal and Legislative Implications

None

Implementation Issues

None

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	ATEED six monthly report to the Devonport-Takapuna, Kaipatiki, Upper Harbour, Hibiscus and Bays and Rodney Local Boards	145

Signatories

Authors

Richard Court, Operational Strategy Advisor, ATEED

Authorisers

James Robinson, Manager Operational Strategy & Planning, ATEED

Martin Fairweather, General Manager Business Performance and Planning, ATEED

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

02 May 2012

Approval of Concept Plans for Reserves 1 and 2 - Long Bay Development

File No.: CP2012/05760

Executive Summary

There are 13 local reserves that will transfer to the Auckland Council as the Todd Property Group Limited (Todd Property) completes each stage of its Long Bay development. This is in accordance with the Reserves Acquisition Agreement entered into between the North Shore City Council and Todd Property prior to the transition to the Auckland Council.

Todd Property has engaged landscape architect James Lord to prepare a master plan for all the proposed reserves within this subdivision as well as concept plans for each individual reserve. The master plan enables an overall design to be developed for the open space network which ensures the reserves link together and connect to existing reserves surrounding the development. The individual park concept plans then provide more detail on each reserve; including layout, contouring, planting and park infrastructure such as walkways, playgrounds, picnic tables, seating and BBQs.

It is intended that as Todd Property commences each stage where reserves are to transfer to the Council, a report will be brought to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board with the proposed concept plan for each reserve for approval.

A further report will also be bought back to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board in relation to naming all of the local reserves within the development.

Todd Property was granted consent for stage 1 in 2011 and has commenced earthworks and civil construction of this stage. The purpose of this report is to seek the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board’s approval for the proposed concept plans for the development of reserves 1 and 2 within stage 1 of Todd Property subdivision of its land at Long Bay. These plans have been developed in consultation with Auckland Council’s Parks team.

It is recommended that if the proposed concept plans are approved by the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board that the development of the reserves be carried out by Todd Property (in line with Council’s procurement requirements) within stage 1 of the subdivision and be completed by the end of 2012. This timing would be in line with the construction of housing on the new lots. There is sufficient funding in the Long Term Plan to cover the cost of the proposed reserve developments.

Recommendation/s

a) That the Approval of Concept Plans for Reserves 1 and 2 – Long Bay Development report be received.

b) That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board approves the attached concept designs for reserves 1 and 2 within the development being carried out by Todd Property Group Limited at Long Bay.

c) That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board approves of Todd Property Group Limited developing reserves 1 and 2 at the time of the construction of the subdivision in accordance the attached concept designs and Council’s procurement policies and to a maximum value of $663,940.

d) That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board delegates to the Local and Sports Parks Manager North the authority to approve the final details for the development of reserves 1 and 2 so long as these terms are in accordance with Recommendation C.

Background

Overview

Reserves 1 and 2 are part of a total of 13 local reserves to be acquired by the Council during the development of the land at Long Bay that is owned by Todd Property. The reserves will be acquired by the Council under a Reserves Acquisition Agreement that was entered into between the NSCC and Todd Property prior to the transition to the Auckland Council. The reserves will transfer to the Council over the length of time of the development which will be over a number of years as Todd Property completes each stage of the development. There are 3 large precinct areas within the development and there are a number of stages within each precinct.

Under the terms of the Reserves Acquisition Agreement it was agreed that the Council would accept the acquisition of the 13 reserves in satisfaction of the development contributions to be calculated for reserves purposes across the development.

The NSCC and Todd Property also entered into a Memorandum of Understanding, prior to the transition to the Auckland Council, where it was agreed that a further agreement regarding the development of the reserves would be entered into at a later date. It is intended that a report will be presented to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board and then to the Regional Development and Operations Committee seeking approval to enter into a Reserves Development Agreement setting out the terms of the development for the remaining 11 reserves and seeking approval for budget for the development of the reserves. Following this, subsequent reports will be presented to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board seeking approval for individual park concept plans at the time of construction of the relevant stage.

Todd Property has engaged landscape architect James Lord to prepare a master plan for all the proposed reserves within this subdivision as well as concept plans for each individual reserve (see attachment 1). The master plan enables an overall design to be developed for the open space network which ensures the reserves link together and connect to existing reserves surrounding the development. The individual park concept plans then provide more detail on each reserve; including layout, contouring, planting and park infrastructure such as walkways, playgrounds, picnic tables, seating, BBQs. The individual park concept plans then provide more detail on each reserve; including layout, contouring, planting and park infrastructure such as walkways, playgrounds, picnic tables, seating, BBQs.

Under current delegations, local boards have decision making responsibility for all local parks and more specifically for local open space improvements and place shaping initiatives. For this reason, concept plans for individual parks and associated budgets for implementation must be approved by local boards.

While there are 13 reserves in the Todd Property Group Ltd development at Long Bay, the focus of this report is only on reserves 1 and 2 in stage 1 of the development (see Attachment 1 for location of these reserves). This is because reserve 1 and 2 are located within stage 1 of Precinct 1 which was granted resource consent in 2011 and for which earthworks and civil construction have commenced. It is also because budget has been approved in the Long Term Plan for 2012 for the development of these two reserves - $350,000 for the development of reserves at Long Bay, $154,650 for the development of walkways within reserves at Long Bay and a further $159,290 has been budgeted for year 2 for walkways within Long Bay.

Reserve 1 is a connective link between the new community on the Awaruku slopes, the Awaruku entrance wetland and the surrounding neighborhoods and the regional park beyond. It is 617m²with an average grade of 1:10 across the park.

Reserve 2 is located centrally on the south facing Awaruku slopes and is 2003 m². While less steep than reserve 1, this reserve still has an average grade of 1:6 from north to south.

It is recommended that if the proposed concept plans are approved by the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board, the Todd Property (in line with Council’s procurement requirements) be given approval to develop the reserves within stage 1 of their subdivision. This timing would be in line with the construction of housing on the new lots and ensure that the reserves are in a useable state when new residents begin to settle in this area.

Further reports will be bought to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board in relation to the development of the remaining 11 reserves and the naming of all of the reserves within the Long Bay development.

Decision Making

The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board has delegated authority to approve the concept plans for the development of reserves and associated budgets for the implementation of these plans.

The proposed concept plans for reserves 1 and 2 have been well thought out in terms of the particulars of each reserve, their locations and connections to other reserves within and outside of the development. The development of the reserves will help to establish a sense of place within the development and assist in establishing the new community and enabling the existing community into the development.

Proposed concept plan for reserve 1

A link walkway is proposed for reserve 1 (see attachment 2 for a copy of the concept plan, description and cross section). The walkway is proposed to be constructed as a timber boardwalk that is raised slightly above the ground to allow an overland flow path to run underneath the walkway down to the wetland.

This link will provide both access into the wetland for new residents and into the development for existing residents of Long Bay. The wetland is currently under construction and most planting has also been completed. A boardwalk is proposed to be constructed through the wetland. This will link to Reserve 1 and the new Beach Road extension and beyond to the existing Long Bay Regional Park. The boardwalk for the wetland is proposed to be built within the stage 1 works by Todd Property as part of the construction of the wetland.

The physical nature of this link, namely its steepness and narrowness, would mean that if this boardwalk is not constructed this reserve would not be able to be used by the public as a walkway connection and would therefore only provide some visual amenity and filtering of the water running down to the wetland if planted out. Leaving it as a grassed slope is not considered to be a viable option because of the difficulties and costs associated with mowing such a steep park.

The cost of implementing this proposed concept plan will be determined once a more detailed plan is prepared.

Proposed concept plan for reserve 2

Reserve 2 is also very steep – there is a 7 metre difference between the top and the bottom of the reserve. The proposed design allows for the grade to be absorbed through a series of batters that will be planted and form platforms (see attachment 3 for a copy of the concept plan, description and cross section).

The platforms are proposed to incorporate a plaza type area to integrate the reserve into the garden street at the bottom of the reserve, a playground, seating to form a type of ampitheatre, and a lookout area at the top of the reserve that maximizes the viewshafts out to the Rangitoto and the Waitemata Harbour. It is considered that these design features will soften the steepness of the reserve and provide flat usable spaces for the community.

The reserve provides a continuing link from reserve 1 up the steep slope and will eventually lead up to reserve 4, which will be a highpoint within the development.

While the cost of battering the reserve and providing park infrastructure is relatively high, it is considered that leaving the reserve as an uninterrupted grassed steep slope would lessen its value to the community and that the establishment of a sense of place and community within the new development and the existing community at Long Bay would take longer to establish without the development of the reserve.

In addition to this, the cost of mowing grass on these reserves will cost more than to maintain planted areas of the reserves and is difficult to justify when there is low public use.

Significance of Decision

This decision does not trigger the Significance Policy.

Maori Impact Statement

Consultation with iwi was undertaken by the Todd Property Group Limited as part of the regulatory process for Precinct Plan 1.

Consultation

Consultation has not been undertaken in relation to the proposed concept plans. Precinct Plan 1 underwent a lengthy public consultation process. Reserves are identified in the plan in accordance with the location and area of each of reserves 1 and 2. The Precinct Plan 1 refers to the provision of open spaces, connections and linkages. The proposed concept plans have been developed in accordance with these objectives.

Financial and Resourcing Implications

Budget has been approved in the Long Term Plan for 2012 for the development of the two reserves: $350,000 for the development of reserves at Long Bay, $154,650 for the development of walkways within reserves at Long Bay in 2012 and $159,290 for Long Bay walkways for 2013. It is estimated that the total cost associated with implementing the attached draft concept plans for reserves 1 and 2 will not exceed $663,940 and the final cost to be approved by the Property Manager.

The tender and contract process will be carried out in accordance with the requirements of Council’s Procurement Team. It is intended that Todd Property Group Ltd will enter into the contracts to design and build the reserves.

These requirements and final costs will be confirmed as part of the final details for the development of reserves 1 and 2.

Legal and Legislative Implications

There are no legal requirements to develop the reserves or any implications that may arise from not developing the reserves. The benefits for developing the reserves are set out above.

Implementation Issues

It is intended for the reserves to be developed as part of the stage 1 works within the development. The consent for developing the reserve has been obtained under the consent for stage 1 – with the details for the design still to be approved through the Council’s engineering approval process. The development will be undertaken by Todd Property under contracts approved by Council’s Procurement Team.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Proposed Masterplan	175
b View	Proposed Concept Plan for Reserve 1	191
c View	Proposed Concept Plan for Reserve 2	195

Signatories

Authors

Huia Kingi, Parks and Recreation Advisor - North, Recreation Facilities and Service Delivery

Reviewer

Anna McElrea, Team Leader - Parks and Recreation Advisors Team Leader, Recreation Facilities and Service Delivery

Authorisers

Martin Van Jaarsveld - Local and Sports Park North Manager

Ian Maxwell - Parks, Sport and Recreation Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

02 May 2012

Variation to Development Agreement No 11 with WFH Properties Ltd: Wastewater Infrastructure and Stoney Homestead Rehabilitation

File No.: CP2012/05766

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to seek endorsement from the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board of the proposed terms of a variation to Development Agreement No. 11 (DA11), which was entered into by Rodney District Council (RDC) and WFH Properties Limited (WFH) on 25 October 2010.

WFH is the owner of large landholdings within the Silverdale North development area, which it is in the process of developing for residential purposes.

DA11 records the agreement between RDC and WFH on various matters relating to the Silverdale North development area, including:

· Wastewater infrastructure works (construction of a wastewater pipeline, construction of additional wastewater storage capacity and decommissioning and filling of an oxidation pond)

· Preservation of the Stoney Homestead

· Transfer of the Stoney Homestead land and buildings to the Council

· Transfer of stopped road land to WFH

Since the signing of DA11, some of the elements of DA11 have changed. Negotiations with WFH on amended terms to reflect these changes are close to being finalised. The changes to be included in a variation to DA11 (subject to final agreement with WFH) are as follows:

1. Confirmation that the additional wastewater storage capacity is not required

2. That the Council take over the Stoney Homestead restoration project and WFH pay the Council $225,000 in lieu of undertaking the structural works

3. WFH to pay the Council the value (cost to be assessed) to build the driveway and car park area to Stoney Homestead

4. WFH to transfer the Historic Places Trust (HPT) authority to the Council and pay $10,000 to the Council for archaeological investigations relating to the restoration works required by the HPT authority

5. WFH to undertake contamination remediation works as required by the building consent

6. WFH to transfer the Stoney Homestead land to the Council in fee simple, with appropriate protection measures, instead of vesting as reserve

The structural and weatherproofing works to Stoney Homestead are required urgently, but cannot commence until the site has transferred to the Council, which in turn requires variations to DA11 and delegated approval of these.

Advice from Legal Services is that, while the majority of the proposed terms of the variation can be approved under delegation by the Local Board, item 6 above requires further approval from the Regional Development and Operations Committee (RDOC) based on a recommendation from the Local Board.

The next RDOC meeting is on 24 May 2012, which, if the committee approves item 6, is the earliest date the process to transfer the site to the Council could begin. In order to meet the reporting deadlines for the 24 May RDOC meeting, it has been necessary to complete this report to the Local Board without having finalised the terms of the variation with WFH.

Therefore, it is recommended in this report that the Local Board endorses the proposed terms of variation in principle as they stand at this point in negotiations with WFH and that two Local Board members be delegated to approve the final variation agreement for execution once the final terms have been agreed. This will expedite the process and enable the RDOC reporting deadlines to be met.

Recommendation/s

a) That the Variation to Development Agreement No 11 with WFH Properties Ltd: Wastewater Infrastructure and Stoney Homestead Rehabilitation report be received.

b) That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board approves in principle the following terms of a variation to Development Agreement 11 (DA11) with WFH Properties Limited (WFH):

i) Confirmation that the additional wastewater storage capacity is not required

ii) That the Council take over the Stoney Homestead restoration project and WFH pay the Council $225,000 in lieu of undertaking the structural works

iii) WFH to pay the Council the value (cost to be assessed) to build the driveway and car park area to Stoney Homestead

iv) WFH to transfer the Historic Places Trust (HPT) authority to the Council and pay $10,000 to the Council for archaeological investigations relating to the restoration works required by the HPT authority

v) WFH to undertake contamination remediation works as required by the building consent

c) That the Local Board recommends to the Regional Development and Operations Committee that the Stoney Homestead site be transferred to the Council in fee simple, with appropriate protection measures, instead of being vested as reserve.

d) That officers continue negotiations with WFH to finalise the terms of the variation to DA11 and that the Local Board delegates two of its members, (name) and (name), to approve the final variation document for execution.

Background

Context – Silverdale North City Transformation Project

The Silverdale North development covers an area of 300 hectares and is expected to deliver 2,000 new residential units, a new town centre comprising 125,000m² of mixed use commercial activity, which includes a regional swimming facility (already completed), a regional hospital (currently under construction), 70 hectares of office and knowledge-based high-tech employment land development and 50 hectares of active and passive open space. The City Transformation Unit is responsible for facilitating delivery of this project. A map of the Silverdale North development area is included at Attachment 1.

Development Agreement 11

WFH is the owner of large landholdings within the Silverdale North development area, which it is in the process of developing for residential purposes. RDC entered into development agreement DA11 with WFH on 25 October 2010.

DA11 records the agreement between RDC and WFH on various matters relating to the Silverdale North development area, including:

· Wastewater infrastructure works (construction of a wastewater pipeline, construction of additional wastewater storage capacity and decommissioning and filling of an oxidation pond)

· Preservation of the Stoney Homestead

· Transfer of the Stoney Homestead land and buildings to the Council

· Transfer of stopped road land to WFH

Wastewater infrastructure works

One of the Council’s obligations under DA11 is to construct additional wastewater storage capacity at the Orewa Pump Station. Watercare has since reviewed the storage capacity and has confirmed in writing that the additional storage capacity is not required.

Preservation of Stoney Homestead

Stoney Homestead is an historic farmhouse of regional and national significance built around the 1850s/1860s situated within the Silverdale North development. The homestead is scheduled in the District Plan as a protected heritage item (item number H207). The homestead is currently in very poor condition and urgently requires extensive restoration work to prevent further deterioration and eventual loss. Photos of the Stoney Homestead in its current state are included at Attachment 2.

The restoration project consists of two phases:

1. Phase one works being structural and weatherproofing, and;

2. Phase two works being external and internal restoration, landscaping, amenities and services, up to the point of being ready for use as a community facility.

DA11 requires WFH to undertake structural works to the homestead to a value of $250,000. WFH is also required to construct driveways and a car parking area as well as provide services to the boundary of the site. WFH is responsible for obtaining any necessary consents and for ensuring that the works are completed to the requirements of the Historic Places Trust (HPT).

The Council, along with the Stoney Homestead Trust, is responsible for any restoration work over and above the WFH contribution of $250,000.

WFH must obtain approval from the Council (in its capacity as a party to DA11) to the proposed works prior to commencing any work. To date, approval has not been granted due to concerns around insufficient budget allowance, which is likely to lead to incomplete works and quality issues.

Recent indicative cost assessments suggest that the $250,000 contribution from WFH is insufficient for the structural and weatherproofing works it is intended to fund.

The revised estimate for the structural and weatherproofing works is around $750,000. Matthews and Matthews Architects Ltd undertook a scope of works review of the homestead in June 2011. An elemental cost estimate prepared by Axcia Construction Cost Consultants formed part of the scope of works review and is the basis for the revised estimate for the structural and weatherproofing works.

To ensure the protection of the homestead, the Local Board at its 7 March 2012 meeting resolved to include $1.5 million capex over the next four years in the Long Term Plan (LTP), commencing with $625,000 in the 2012/13 financial year to fund the budget shortfall for the structural and weatherproofing phase and initial funding for the Stoney Homestead Trust. The remainder, $875,000, is spread over subsequent years to fund the phase two works.

The Stoney Homestead Trust is expected to seek external funding to support the phase two works, which will reduce the Council commitment.

Stoney Homestead transfer to the Council

Under DA11, WFH is required to subdivide its landholdings and vest the Stoney Homestead site (land and buildings) in the Council as local purpose (historic building) reserve, or such other classification as the Council may decide, subject to the Reserves Act 1977.

Under the Reserves Act 1977, possible classifications are “local purpose reserve” and “historic reserve”. The classification “local purpose (historic building) reserve” is somewhat confusing as to what parts of the Act are applicable.

The intent is to preserve the homestead and enable activities and uses that allow the community to enjoy it. Any classification under the Reserves Act places significant restrictions on the use and management of the property.

On reflection, Council holding the property in fee simple with appropriate zoning, heritage listing in the District Plan and a conservation plan registered on the title will achieve the desired outcome while retaining greater flexibility over time to manage activities and uses.

A purpose descriptor, such as “historic community building”, can also be included on the title to signal the Council’s intention for use. Legal advice as to an appropriate description is being sought.

Decision Making

The recommendations contained within this report fall within the Local Board’s delegated authority. The proposed variation to DA11 for the Stoney Homestead land to transfer in fee simple instead of being vested as reserve requires the delegated approval of the RDOC. A report to that committee will be written following the resolution of the Local Board on the recommendations in this report.

At its 7 March 2012 meeting, as well as endorsing a revised budget for the Stoney Homestead project, the Local Board supported the approach outlined and authorised officers to implement the project with updates provided and approvals sought as required.

Approval in principle to the terms of a variation to DA11 is now sought to reflect changes that have occurred in the circumstances relating to DA11. Negotiations with WFH on the terms of variation are close to being finalised.

The rationales / reasons for each of the proposed variations to DA11 are set out in the following table:

ID	Current condition in DA11	Proposed variation	Rationale / reason for variation
1	Council to construct additional wastewater storage capacity.	Confirmation that the additional capacity is not required.	Watercare has confirmed in writing that the pump station already has sufficient capacity for current and future development and does not require the additional capacity proposed by RDC.
2	WFH to carry out structural works as agreed to protect Stoney Homestead to a maximum value of $250,000.	WFH to pay $225,000 to the Council. Council to undertake works once the property is in Council ownership.	$250,000 is insufficient for the phase one works. The revised cost estimate for phase one works is $750,000, leaving a $500,000 shortfall. WFH has already spent $25,000 on initial design work. Cost estimate phase one $750,000 Less already spent $25,000 $725,000 Balance WFH contribution $225,000 Phase one budget shortfall $500,000 The Local Board resolved on 7 March 2012 to include $625,000 funding in the 2012/13 financial year being $500,000 to fund the phase one budget shortfall and $125,000 as applied for by the Stoney Homestead Trust to fund its activities. It is not appropriate for the Council to spend this budget on the building until the site is in Council ownership. A joint or partnership approach to the project was initially considered, however, this was rejected by WFH. Council taking on the project in its entirety and making a funding commitment ensures a complete and quality project outcome.
3	WFH to construct concrete driveway and car parking area, dimensions to be agreed.	WFH to pay the value (cost to be assessed) to the Council to build the driveway and car park area. Council undertakes the actual works.	The driveway and car park will be constructed near the end of the restoration project and will be included in the contract let for the total works package. The dimensions and design of the driveway and car park may change as the project develops, requiring flexibility. Accepting a cash payment now from WFH and including the works in a total package provides this flexibility and will simplify onsite management during construction.
4	WFH responsible for obtaining any consents that may be necessary, including satisfying the requirements of the Historic Places Trust (HPT).	WFH to transfer the current HPT authority to the Council. WFH to pay $10,000 to the Council for archaeological investigations required by the HPT authority.	Only the holder of the HPT authority is able to undertake the works required under that authority. Council will be instructing the works, so the authority must be in Council’s name. Costs for the archaeological investigations required by the HPT authority are estimated at a maximum of $20,000, but are more likely to be around $12,000. A $10,000 contribution was proposed to WFH to encourage prompt agreement on other terms.
5	WFH responsible for obtaining any consents that may be necessary, including satisfying the requirements of the Historic Places Trust (HPT).	WFH to undertake contamination remediation works, as required by the building consent, prior to transfer of the site to the Council.	Remediation of an area of contaminated land adjacent to the homestead is required as a condition to the building consent. WFH has commissioned reports and a remediation plan. Internal Council Environmental Services Unit to peer review and monitor the remediation works.
6	WFH to provide outline of proposed works to Council for approval prior to works commencing.	Remove condition. WFH to terminate engagement of its architect and provide to the Council all relevant data, reports and plans.	Approval no longer required; Council to undertake works. Concerns have been raised around the cost and quality of the work completed to date by WFH’s architect. Officers’ intention is to engage an alternative, highly recommended architect once the Council takes on sole responsibility for the project.
7	WFH to subdivide the land and vest the Stoney Homestead site in Council as local purpose (historic building) reserve, or such other classification as the Council may decide, subject to the Reserves Act 1977.	Note that subdivision of the site has already occurred in line with the plan attached to DA11. No further subdivision is required. WFH to transfer the Stoney Homestead site in fee simple to the Council instead of vesting as reserve.	Reserve classification will put significant restrictions on the restoration, development and operation of the homestead as a community facility and is not necessary to achieve the protection of the homestead. It is preferable that the site be owned by the Council in fee simple. The following measures will ensure that the site is protected but retains the flexibility to manage future activities and uses for a growing and changing community: · The site is a listed heritage item in the District Plan · Appropriate zoning to be applied (to be agreed with the North / West Planning Unit – public consultation may be required) · Conservation plan to be registered on the title · Purpose descriptor, such as “historic community building” or similar to be included on title The Manager Local and Sports Parks North is supportive of this approach. In-house and external legal opinion is also supportive. Legal Services advice is that once endorsed by the Local Board, this variation requires the delegated approval of the Regional Development and Operations Committee.

Significance of Decision

The proposed variation to record Watercare’s revised position that no additional wastewater storage capacity is required is not of major significance.

The proposed variations to the Stoney Homestead restoration and land transfer are also considered to be of minor significance. Notwithstanding, there is strong interest and support within the Silverdale community for the restoration of Stoney Homestead as a publicly owned strategic heritage and community facility asset.

The proposed variations assist the Council in i) advancing the phase one works, and ii) facilitating future uses and activities on which the Stoney Homestead Trust will consult with the local community.

Strategic fit

Strategic Direction 3 of the draft Auckland Plan is “Integrate arts, culture, heritage and lifestyle into our everyday lives”. A priority is to enhance and reveal our evolving heritage, supported by directives to protect nationally, regionally and locally significant heritage, and to ensure that existing built and cultural heritage appropriately guides regeneration and development in accordance with specific urban design principles. The urban design principles include appreciating and respecting local context (the character, heritage and setting of an area).

The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Plan 2011 acknowledges the importance of Stoney Homestead within one of its priority areas “Build on the strong identity of our communities”. The Local Board considers providing quality community facilities as one of its core roles, and identifies Stoney Homestead as an opportunity to provide both a community facility and a heritage resource on a prime site.

Maori Impact Statement

Information on the project will be provided to local iwi for review and comment as part of the restoration project process, although it is not expected that the recommendations contained in this report are significant for Maori.

Consultation

City Transformation has consulted internally with Heritage, Parks, Environmental Services, Property, Community Development, Arts and Culture. Representatives from these departments will continue to be involved in project team meetings.

Community consultation on the possibilities for the end use of the homestead as a community facility will be undertaken in due course, led by the Stoney Homestead Trust.

The HPT has considered the proposed structural and weatherproofing works as part of WFH’s current application for authority to undertake the works under the Historic Places Act 1993. Authority was granted subject to several conditions, which will be addressed prior to works commencing.

Local Board Views

The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board specifically identifies the restoration and redevelopment of Stoney Homestead as an important project in its Local Board Plan.

The Local Board endorsed funding for the project at its meeting on 7 March 2012, and supported the approach outlined.

Financial and Resourcing Implications

The financial implications of the recommendations contained in this report were covered in the report to the Local Board on 7 March 2012. The budget required for the project remains as per the 7 March Local Board resolution:

2012/13	2013/14	2014/15	2015/16	TOTAL
$625,000	$125,000	$125,000	$625,000	$1,500,000

Any financial implications arising due to the variations proposed in this report will be managed within this budget.

Legal and Legislative Implications

Officers have been working closely with Legal Services during the negotiations with WFH and the drafting of the variation document. All legal and legislative requirements relating to the project will be complied with.

Implementation Issues

Following the Local Board’s resolution on the recommendations contained in this report, the next steps required to implement the decision and the project are:

1. Officers to report to RDOC to seek delegated approval to the proposed variation to DA11 that would see the Stoney Homestead site transfer to the Council in fee simple instead of being vested as reserve, as recommended by the Local Board

2. Officers continue negotiations with WFH to reach final agreement (subject to approval by two delegated Local Board members)

3. Two delegated Local Board members to approve final terms of variation

4. Variation to DA11 executed.

Some elements of the Stoney Homestead restoration can be advanced during this process, such as the archaeological investigations required by the HPT authority and preparation of tender documents for the phase one construction works. Other elements, such as transfer of the property to the Council and the actual construction works, cannot begin until the variation is executed.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Map of Silverdale Development	209
b View	Photos of Stoney Homestead	211

Signatories

Authors

Rachel Hume – Project Leader, City Transformation

Authorisers

Peter Beckerleg – Acting Manager, City Transformation

Penny Pirrit – Manager, Regional and Local Planning

Lesley Jenkins – Relationship Manager, Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

02 May 2012

Membership of the Devonport-Takapuna, Kaipatiki, Upper Harbour and East Coast Bays subdivision local board funding sub-committee

File No.: CP2012/05245

Executive Summary

At its last meeting, the Devonport-Takapuna, Kaipatiki, Upper Harbour and East Coast Bays subdivision local board funding subcommittee (the “subcommittee”) agreed to ask its constitutive local boards to add an additional representative to the subcommittee from the East Coast Bays subdivision of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board, in time for the subcommittee’s disbursement of the Community Facility Development Fund. The rationale for this request is that the East Coast Bays subdivision is under-represented on the subcommittee when compared to the subcommittee’s other constitutive boards.

The subcommittee does not have the power to determine the size of its own membership. This is the responsibility of the Devonport-Takapuna, Kaipatiki, Upper Harbour, Hibiscus and Bays, and Rodney Local Boards as the decision-makers who established the subcommittee. This report seeks the agreement of these local boards to appoint an additional member from the East Coast Bays subdivision of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board.

Recommendation/s

a) That the report be received.

b) That the That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board notes that the Devonport-Takapuna, Kaipatiki, Upper Harbour and East Coast Bays subdivision local board funding subcommittee’s responsibility for disbursing community funding is an interim arrangement for this financial year only, and the subcommittee will therefore have no role in disbursing community funding as of 1 July 2012.

c) That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board notes that the current membership of the Devonport-Takapuna, Kaipatiki, Upper Harbour and East Coast Bays subdivision local board funding subcommittee is as follows:

· two members from the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board;

· two members from the Kaipatiki Local Board;

· two members from the Upper Harbour Local Board;

· one member from the East Coast Bays subdivision of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board.

d) That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board notes that the Devonport-Takapuna, Kaipatiki, Upper Harbour and East Coast Bays subdivision local board funding subcommittee has recommended that its membership be increased to include two members from the East Coast Bays subdivision, in time for decision-making on the Community Facility Development Fund in June 2012.

e) That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board agrees to increase the membership of the Devonport-Takapuna, Kaipatiki, Upper Harbour and East Coast Bays subdivision local board funding subcommittee by adding one additional representative from the East Coast Bays subdivision of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board, resulting in the following membership of the subcommittee:

· two members from the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board;

· two members from the Kaipatiki Local Board;

· two members from the Upper Harbour Local Board;

· two members from the East Coast Bays subdivision of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board.

f) That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board notes that Member Parfitt is the current East Coast Bays subdivision representative on the Devonport-Takapuna, Kaipatiki, Upper Harbour and East Coast Bays subdivision local board funding subcommittee, with Member Whyte as alternative.

g) That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board appoints a member as the second East Coast Bays subdivision representative on the Devonport-Takapuna, Kaipatiki, Upper Harbour and East Coast Bays subdivision local board funding subcommittee.

h) That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board delegates, to its member appointed under (g), the authority to make funding decisions on the Local Board’s behalf on the disbursement of legacy North Shore City Council community funds by this subcommittee.

Background

Establishment of the subcommittee

In May 2011 the Regional Development and Operations Committee (RDOC) delegated responsibility for legacy community funding schemes in the 2011/12 financial year to region-based joint funding committees of local boards. Legacy Rodney District Council and legacy North Shore City Council funds were delegated to the Rodney, Hibiscus and Bays, Upper Harbour, Devonport-Takapuna, and Kaipatiki Local Boards as a joint funding committee. RDOC resolutions giving effect to this arrangement are attached as Attachment A.

Following this delegation from RDOC, the Devonport-Takapuna, Kaipatiki, Upper Harbour, Hibiscus and Bays, and Rodney Local Boards agreed to form two subcommittees to disburse legacy community funding in the 2011/12 financial year:

· One subcommittee, consisting of representatives from the Devonport-Takapuna, Kaipatiki and Upper Harbour local boards and the East Coast Bays subdivision of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board, to disburse legacy North Shore City Council community funds;

· And another subcommittee, consisting of representatives from the Rodney Local Board and the Hibiscus Coast subdivision of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board, to disburse legacy Rodney District Council community funds.

Membership of the Devonport-Takapuna, Kaipatiki, Upper Harbour Local Board and East Coast Bays subdivision local board funding subcommittee was agreed as follows:

Local board / subdivision	Number of members
Devonport-Takapuna	2
East Coast Bays	2
Kaipatiki	2
Upper Harbour	2
East Coast Bays	1

(Resolutions giving effect to these decisions and establishing the two subcommittees and their memberships are attached as Attachment B.)

It is important for the local board to note that the current arrangements for disbursing legacy council community funding are transitional and expire at the end of this financial year. The subcommittee was established specifically for the purpose of disbursing legacy community funding in the 2011/12 financial year. It has no responsibility for disbursing community funding from 1 July 2012 onwards under its current terms.

Delegation of responsibility for the Community Facility Development Fund to the subcommittee

In May 2011 RDOC decided not to disburse legacy council facility partnership funding schemes in the 2011/12 financial year. This meant that no legacy North Shore City Council Community Facility Development Fund rounds would be run in the 2011/12 financial year. After representations from the subcommittee and some local boards, RDOC reversed this decision in February 2012 and agreed to delegate decision-making for the Community Facility Development Fund in the 2011/12 financial year to the Devonport-Takapuna, Kaipatiki, Upper Harbour and East Coast Bays subdivision local board funding subcommittee.

There is approximately $1.2 million available in the Community Facility Development Fund this financial year. The fund opened for applications on 20 March and will close on 27 April. Decision-making for this fund is likely to be held in June this year.

Recommendation from the subcommittee for an additional member from the East Coast Bays subdivision

At its meeting on 29 March 2012, the subcommittee agreed in principle that its membership should be increased to include an additional member from the East Coast Bays subdivision in time for consideration of the Community Facility Development Fund later in this financial year. The subcommittee resolved as follows:

Resolution number DTKUF/2012/10

MOVED by Member Miles, seconded Member Schwass:

a) That the report be received.

b) That the Devonport-Takapuna, Kaipatiki, Upper Harbour and East Coast Bays subdivision local board funding subcommittee notes that any alteration to the number of its members may only be achieved through the agreement of the Devonport-Takapuna, Kaipatiki, Upper Harbour, Hibiscus and Bays and Rodney Local Boards.

c) That the Devonport-Takapuna, Kaipatiki, Upper Harbour and East Coast Bays subdivision local board funding subcommittee recommends to the Devonport-Takapuna, Kaipatiki, Upper Harbour, Hibiscus and Bays and Rodney Local Boards that the membership of the subcommittee be increased to include two members from the East Coast Bays subdivision of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board.

d) That the Devonport-Takapuna, Kaipatiki, Upper Harbour and East Coast Bays subdivision local board funding subcommittee forwards these resolutions to the Devonport-Takapuna, Kaipatiki, Upper Harbour, Hibiscus and Bays and Rodney Local Boards.

CARRIED

Decision Making

It is anticipated that there will be one more decision-making meeting of the subcommittee. This meeting will be to disburse the Community Facility Development Fund (approximately $1.2 million) and will likely be held in early June. A decision on increasing the membership of the subcommittee is therefore required as soon as possible.

Decision-making responsibility and process for increasing membership

The subcommittee does not have the power to determine the number of its members itself. Under Standing Orders (2.7 – 2.9), and clauses 30 and 31 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002, the power to determine membership is retained by the body that established the subcommittee. In this instance it is the Devonport-Takapuna, Kaipatiki, Upper Harbour, Hibiscus and Bays, and Rodney local boards that retains this responsibility. This is because it was to these five boards, as one sub-regional entity, that RDOC delegated decision-making responsibility for legacy Rodney District Council and North Shore City Council community funds in May 2011. (As discussed earlier in this report, all five boards, as this sub-regional entity, subsequently agreed to establish the two funding subcommittees.)

If the local boards agree to add another member from the East Coast Bays subdivision to the subcommittee, it will be the responsibility of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board to appoint the specific person to the subcommittee (and another alternative, if it so wishes).

Rationale for increasing membership

Current representation of the East Coast Bays subdivision on the subcommittee is less than the other constitutive boards. Whilst the East Coast Bays subdivision has a similarly sized population to the Devonport-Takapuna and Upper Harbour local boards, it has only half the number of representatives on the subcommittee. (See table below.)

Subcommittee local board and subdivision populations at 30 June 2011

Local board / subdivision	Population	Number of members
Devonport-Takapuna Local Board	58,600	2
East Coast Bays subdivision	47,200	1
Kaipatiki Local Board	88,200	2
Upper Harbour Local Board	51,300	2

Source: Statistics New Zealand. Subnational population estimates at 30 June 2011: local government areas

It is the subcommittee’s view that the East Coast Bays subdivision representation should be increased to two members to ensure that the East Coast Bays population is adequately represented when the subcommittee disburses approximately $1.2 million in the Community Facility Development. This amount of funding is greater than the total amount of funding disbursed to date by the subcommittee.

Rationale for retaining status quo membership

The subcommittee is working well with its current membership and applicants from the East Coast Bays subdivision have not been disadvantaged due to representation.

Significance of Decision

This decision does not trigger the Significance Policy.

Maori Impact Statement

This is not a significant decision for Maori. No adverse effect on Maori communities has been identified in relation to decision-making on this issue.

Consultation

No other consultation has been undertaken.

Local Board Views

The Devonport-Takapuna, Kaipatiki, Upper Harbour and East Coast Bays subdivision local board funding subcommittee supports increasing its membership to include two members from the East Coast Bays subdivision of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board.

The views of the subcommittee’s constitutive local boards have not been sought.

Financial and Resourcing Implications

There are no financial and resourcing implications.

Legal and Legislative Implications

As discussed above, Standing Orders 2.7 – 2.9 and clauses 30 and 31 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 require that alteration of the composition of the subcommittee be undertaken by the body that established the subcommittee (that is, the Devonport-Takapuna, Kaipatiki, Upper Harbour, Hibiscus and Bays, and Rodney Local Boards). This power has not been delegated to the subcommittee.

Implementation Issues

There are no implementation issues.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Resolutions from Regional Development and Operations Committee, 11 May 2011: Interim Community Funding Model for the 2011/2012 financial year - feedback from consultation with local boards	221
b View	Resolutions from Devonport- Takapuna, Kaipatiki, Upper Harbour, Hibiscus and Bays and Rodney Local Boards: Interim community funding for 2011/2012	225

Signatories

Authors	James Liddell – Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	Lesley Jenkins – Relationship Managesr

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

02 May 2012

Swimming Pool Fencing Exemption - Special Exemption (Section 6) Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987

File No.: CP2012/05972

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to present to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board four applications for special exemptions from some of the requirements of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 (the Act)

Applications have been received from:

Hayden & Susan Mander (SWM/9079), (address supplied). This application is for an above ground spa pool, the owners are waiting for the exemption approval before purchasing the spa.

Des Bass (SWM/6969) 88 Island View Drive, Okoromai Bay, Lot 4, DP 175804. This application is to use electronically locked doors accessing the spa and pool area, and a beam that sets off an alarm when passed through towards the spa and pool area. The workings of these systems are explained in the application and can be explained in more detail at a site visit. Some of the pool area has been fenced with complying fencing.

Paul and Mary Agent (SPA-9662), 2/324 Beach Rd, Mairangi Bay, Flat 2 DP 131933, on Lot 36 DP 16953. This application is for an in-ground spa pool with a lockable cover. SpaLok system will be fitted to the cover as an additional layer of protection. Some doors have top bolts fitted and some windows have stays as an extra layer of protection. It might be in the interests of the Local Board to apply top bolts to all doors and stays to all windows as part of the conditions, if the exemption is approved.

Karina Adams (SWM-9117), 28 Beachwood Drive, Hatfields Beach, Lot 15, DP-397589. This application is for an above ground spa pool with a lockable lid.

The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board must conduct a hearing and consider each of the applications for special exemption. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board must resolve to decline, grant or grant subject to conditions, the exemptions sought.

Recommendation/s

a) That the Swimming Pool Fencing Exemption – Special Exemption (Section 6) Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 report be received.

b) That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board receive the applications by:

i. Hayden & Susan Mander (SWM/9079), (addresss supplied)

ii. Des Bass (SWM/6969), 88 Island View Drive, Okoromai Bay

iii. Paul and Mary Agent (SPA-9662), 2/324 Beach Rd, Mairangi Bay

iv. Karina Adams (SWM-9117), 28 Beachwood Drive, Hatfields Beach

Background

Each property, which is the subject of an application before the Local Board, has been inspected by Auckland Council pool inspectors. In each case, the swimming pool fencing does not comply with that Act. The details of non-compliance in each case vary and are specified in the attachments to this report. Each applicant has chosen to seek a special exemption from the requirements of the Act.

The purpose of the Act is stated to be “to promote the safety of young children by requiring the fencing of … swimming pools”.

The Act requires pool owners to fence their pool with a fence. Specific detail on the means of achieving compliance with the Act is contained in the schedule to the Act. If a pool is not fenced with a complying fence it is an offence under the Act, unless exempt.

An exemption can only be granted by the Local Board after a consideration of the particular characteristics of the property and the pool, other relevant circumstances and taking into account any conditions it may impose. Then, only if “satisfied that an exemption would not significantly increase the danger to young children”, can an exemption be granted.

Defining the immediate pool area will be relevant to considerations concerning the property and the pool. The immediate pool area means the land in or on which the pool is situated and as much of the surrounding area that is used for activities or purposes related to the use of the pool. The Act provides that the fence should be situated to prevent children moving directly to the pool from the house, other buildings, garden paths and other areas of the property that would normally be available to young children.

Another common consideration for Local Boards in exemption applications will be instances where a building forms part of the pool fence. Where doors from a building open into the pool area, the Territorial Authority may grant an exemption from compliance with clauses 8 to 10 of the schedule to the Act. It may exempt if it is satisfied that compliance with the Act is impossible, unreasonable or in breach of any other Act, regulation or bylaw, and the door is fitted with a locking device that when properly operated prevents the door from being readily opened by children under the age of 6 years. If the Local Board is satisfied that a door within a wall in a building meets that test, the Local Board must also be satisfied that an exemption would not significantly increase the danger to young children.

When granting a special exemption, the Local Board may impose such other conditions relating to the property or the pool as are reasonable in the circumstances (section 6(2) of the Act). Issues to be considered include:

a. Will the exemption be personal to the applicant so that on a sale of the property a new owner will need to apply for a new exemption? This might be appropriate where the personal circumstances of the applicant have been considered as a relevant circumstance and had a bearing on the exercise of the discretion

b. Will the exemption be granted for a fixed term and irrespective of changes of ownership so that the exemption runs with the property?

c. Are there any other conditions which should be imposed, repairs to existing fencing, or a requirement for more frequent inspection of the pool (currently pools are inspected every three years)?.

Any exemption granted or condition imposed may be amended or revoked by the swimming pool exemption committee by resolution. The rules of natural justice would however dictate that this action should not be taken without prior notice to the pool owner and allowing the pool owner an opportunity to be heard.

Hayden & Susan Mander (SWM/9079), (address supplied). This application is for an above ground spa pool, the owners are waiting for the exemption approval before purchasing the spa.

Paul and Mary Agent (SPA-9662), 2/324 Beach Rd, Mairangi Bay, Flat 2 DP 131933, on Lot 36 DP 16953. This application is for an in-ground spa pool with a lockable cover. SpaLok system will be fitted to the cover as an additional layer of protection. Some doors have top bolts fitted and some windows have stays as an extra layer of protection. It might be in the interests of the committee to apply top bolts to all doors and stays to all windows as part of the conditions, if the exemption is approved.

Karina Adams (SWM-9117), 28 Beachwood Drive, Hatfields Beach, Lot 15, DP-397589. This application is for an above ground spa pool with a lockable lid.

Decision Making

The recommendations contained within this report fall within the Local Board’s delegated authority.

The Act enables an exemption to be granted from clause 11 of the Schedule to the Act (doors in walls of buildings) if the Local Board is satisfied that compliance with the Act is impossible, unreasonable or in breach of any other Act, regulation or bylaw and the door is fitted with a locking device that when properly operated prevents the door from being readily opened by children under the age of 6 years.

The overarching consideration in terms of the Act is that a resolution to grant an exemption may only be made after having regard to the particular characteristics of the property and the pool, any other relevant circumstances and any conditions it may impose, and only if it is satisfied that such an exemption would not significantly increase the danger to young children.

The Local Board may resolve to grant, grant subject to conditions, or decline an application for special exemption.

If an application is declined the applicant will be required to fence their pool in accordance with the Act.

Significance of Decision

The exemption hearing process under the Act does not trigger the significance policy but it is an important statutory function.

The Council is committed to ensuring that Auckland is a safe place for children to live and play in. Pool fencing issues have a strong relationship with the Council’s strategic priorities for community safety.

Maori Impact Statement

This report does not raise issues of particular significance for Maori.

Consultation

Council’s pool fencing inspectors have consulted with the applicants in each case. Applicants have been made aware of the Council’s requirements to ensure fencing is compliant with the Act. The applicants have elected to seek a special exemption for individual reasons.

Local Board Views

The Local Board is the decision-maker for the Auckland Council (as delegated by the governing body) in relation to exemption applications under the Act.

Financial and Resourcing Implications

There are no financial implications.

Legal and Legislative Implications

Compliance with the Act is a mandatory requirement for all pool owners unless exempt.

Implementation Issues

The decision must be made by resolution and contain conditions (if any).

Attachments

The attachments will be circulated under separate cover.

Signatories

Authors

Mark Satherley – Team Leader Compliance & Enforcement

Authorisers

Paul Moodie – Manager Compliance and Inspections

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

02 May 2012

Bylaws Quarterly Update to Local Boards (May 2012)

File No.: CP2012/05700

Executive Summary

This report provides an update on past and upcoming activities for bylaws and related policies, and issues emerging from that work. It relates to the period from November 2011 to April 2012.

Significant public attention has been given to the draft Dog policy and bylaw, receiving 10,000 submissions through the SCP public notice process. These are currently being summarised and hearings are expected to commence in the second half of 2012. The Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (AWMMP) was also publicly notified and received 2088 submissions. Hearings were held in March, deliberations will be held in May and the AWMMP will be approved before 1 July 2012.

Overall the bylaw review programme is progressing well on both phase 1 topics and on some phase 2 topics and a number of bylaw topics are now also being more clearly linked into the Unitary Plan programmes, specifically, Commercial Sex Industry, Signs, Wharfs and Marinas and Public Places. As a consequence it is expected that the Unitary Plan programmes will guide the timing of these bylaws from June 2012.

The table below provides a summary of the key activities that have been undertaken at the Local Board level.

Table 1: Local Board Bylaw Activities for Last Quarter

Local Board	Bylaw Activities
Generic to all Local Boards	· The draft dog control policy and bylaw has progressed to the Special Consultative Procedure stage and submissions closed on 27^th February. See comments below. · First round of local board engagement on the ‘Public Places and Trading in Public Places Bylaw review project’ was held throughout November (except for Papakura LB who had their presentation in January). The purpose of the presentations were to engage Local Boards at the start of the review process to obtain their views on those bylaws that deal with public places and trading in public places. Note that the initial title of the project as presented to the local boards in November was ‘Public Safety and Amenity’ Bylaw review. This has now been changed to ‘Public Places and Trading in Public Places Bylaw’ review. · Presented an overview of the Public Places project to the Local Board Planning Forum (a forum consisting of all local board chairs and members that has been set up to facilitate discussion on the Unitary Plan on the 14th of March). Planning, Policies and Bylaws were invited to present to the forum on the Public Places Bylaws review project and also to assess the possibility of using this forum as another opportunity to engage with local boards on the overall Bylaw Review Programme.
Local Board Specific
Albert-Eden	· Processing temporary liquor ban for UNITEC Mt Albert – music festival. Completed and adopted.
Devonport – Takapuna Local Board	· Completed a memo for the Devonport-Takapuna LB meeting on 6^th December titled “Street collections by charity organisations”. · Completed a report titled “Street Charity Fundraising in the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board area” for 6^th March meeting
Howick and Manurewa	· Completed a memo in response to a query from the Board Chair on issuing a Trespass Notice for Lloyd Elsmore Park. · Completed memo on Food Hygiene Regulations 1974 and the protection of food at food stalls against dog pollution
Maungakiekie-Tamaki	· Request for a liquor ban for Fergusson Park has been lodged and is being processed. Police support is being sought.
Papakura Local Board	· Presented the review of the "Public Places and Street Trading Bylaws' to the board in January. This was the presentation that was given to the boards in November 2011 but due to scheduling issues the presentation to the Papakura Board was deferred until January.
Waiheke	· Completed memo clarifying that the Freedom Camping Act 2011 does not affect the existing Auckland City Council Public Places bylaw regulations for camping (could change wording)

The proposed Auckland Transport bylaw has been separated into the draft Auckland Transport Traffic Bylaw and the draft Auckland Transport Speed Bylaw. These have both commenced the Special Consultative Procedure. Refer below.

There have been no requests from local boards for local bylaws over the last quarter.

Recommendation/s

a) That the report be received.

Background

The bylaw review programme

The bylaw review programme started in November 2010, to review the interim bylaws (that is, the bylaws inherited from the former councils) across 32 topics. A new bylaw will be prepared for each topic where appropriate, or a recommendation made that the underlying issue or outcome is better handled another way. The review was initially focusing on seventeen high profile bylaw topics.

The Regulatory and Bylaws Committee has ownership of the review and local boards are participating through individual workshops and reports. Local Boards are also able to propose that local bylaws are made, to apply only in their area (refer sections 24 to 28 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009). Any requests for local bylaws are reported to the Regulatory and Bylaws committee. As stated above, there have been no Local Board proposals for local bylaws over the last extended quarter.

Transport related bylaws

Auckland Transport Board of Directors approved the separation of the Transport bylaw into the following: the draft Auckland Transport Traffic Bylaw and the draft Auckland Transport Speed Bylaw. These have subsequently received approval to embark on the Special Consultative Procedure. Stakeholder consultation was carried out in early 2012 and public consultation commenced 29^th February. Submissions closed 30^th March.

Decision Making

The purpose of this report is to present information to the Local Boards regarding the most current development of bylaws for the whole region or the extended ‘quarter’ of November 2011 – April 2012. The report does not require any decisions.

The bylaw review programme – summary

The status of the 32 bylaw topics is given below in table 1. More detailed timing outlines for these are given in attachments 1 and 2, and additional comments are given below for several topics as indicated in the comments column in this table.

Table 2: Summary of status and next steps for bylaw review programme

Topic	Status and Progress – 7 stages								Comments
	Status	1-Preparation	2-Pre-consultation	3-Options	4-Write Bylaw	5-Adopt draft	6-Spec Cons Proc	7-Adopt final
*Phase 1 topics*
Dog control	G								See below
General administration	G								See below.
Liquor control	A								On hold due to delays in passing of Alcohol Reform Bill into law – see below
Solid Waste	A								Amended timeframe, See below
Transport - Traffic	G								See below
Transport – Speed									See below
Signs (including electoral)									This topic is now being included in work on the Unitary Plan. See below.
Stormwater	G								See below
Trade Waste	G								See below
Waste Water (reticulation)	G								Now being developed in conjunction with work on the Unitary Plan
Water Supply (reticulation)	G								Water Care are taking the lead on this work and will work in with the overall review
Public Places and Trading in Public Places (formerly known as Public Safety and Amenity))	G								Now also includes public places, Barbed Wire Fences and Street Naming and Numbering
Health Protection	G								See below


*Phase 2 and 3 topics*
Amusement galleries	G								See below
Animals and pests	B
Barbed Wire Fences	B								Included in the ‘Public Places and Trading in Public Places’ bylaw review - see below
Cemeteries and Crematoria	B
Commercial Sex Premises (including Brothels and Street prostitution)	G								See below
Construction, Development, Street Damage and Vehicle Crossings	B
Environmental Protection	G
Fires (Open Air / Rural)	G								See below
Food / Hygiene	A								See below
Hazardous Substances	G
Hostels	G								See below
Navigation Safety	B
Offensive Trades	A								See below
Onsite wastewater	G								See below
Orakei Basin	B
Public Places	B								Included in the ‘Public Places and Trading in Public Places’ bylaw review - see below
Recreational and Cultural Facilities	B
Skin Piercing, Tattooing	G								Now included in Health Protection
Street Names and Numbering of Premises	B								Included in the ‘Public Places and Trading in Public Places’ bylaw review - see below
Wharfs & Marinas	B								This bylaw is likely to be merged with work on the Unitary Plan from June

Status summary codes

G	Green - Work is progressing as planned, due date will be met or any revised date will not have wider impacts
A	Amber - Due date for next significant milestone is at risk of being missed and this may have wider impacts; or an issue has arisen.
R	Red – A significant issue has arisen which will have wider or significant impacts and requires intervention/ significant decision to enable project to continue.
B	Blue- Not yet scheduled. However, background work is underway.

Additional comments for particular topics in the bylaw review programme

Dog control policy and bylaw

On track

The draft bylaw has been publicly notified through the SCP process and has received significant attention from the public. Submissions closed on the 27^th February and 10,000 submissions were received. These are being summarised to be included in the hearings report.

Hearings are expected to commence in the second half of 2012.

A business case has been created for improving the flexibility /detail contained in mapping for dogs. This business case is currently sitting with Economic Development for consideration.

General Administration bylaw	G
On track
Based on research to date a report is being prepared to present to the April Regulatory and Bylaw Committee seeking endorsement of the recommendation to replace bylaws about bylaw administration matters with a Bylaw Standard (a form of regulatory policy). This reinforces the current approach that every bylaw be standalone (self contained). The Bylaw Standard will ensure all bylaws address administrative matters in the same way to have consistent form. This recommendation will then be presented to the Governing Body at their next regular meeting.

Liquor control bylaw	A
Delay proposed
New requirements for liquor control bylaws are contained in the Alcohol Reform Bill. The passing of the Bill in parliament has been delayed. Accordingly, the bylaw review has been put on hold.

Solid waste bylaw	A
New Timetable Approved
In line with the decision to process the consolidated bylaw and the Auckland Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) concurrently, formal consultation on the draft WMMP commenced through the Special Consultative Procedure on the 17 November 2011 and ran until 31 January 2012. A total of 2088 submissions were received, including 53 after the closing date. Hearings were held in March. The development of the bylaw will follow after the approval of the WMMP (as stated previously, this is expected to be in May 2012).

Transport bylaw - Traffic	G
On track
Auckland Transport have approved the development of the Traffic Bylaw separately. As discussed above, formal consultation with stakeholders has been completed and public consultation commenced on the 29^th February. Submissions closed 30^th March.

Transport bylaw - Speed	G
On track
Auckland Transport have approved the development of the Speed Bylaw separately. As discussed above, formal consultation with stakeholders has been completed and public consultation commenced on the 29^th February. Submissions closed 30^th March.

Stormwater bylaw	G
On track
A comparative analysis of existing waste bylaws across the region has been completed. Only three of the legacy councils had stormwater bylaws, and one council had prepared a draft bylaw. Officers are working with the Unitary Plan and Stormwater Unit to prepare an issues report for internal consultation, and assess the best tool to deal with each specific stormwater issue. Following that report an options paper will be presented to the Local Boards mid next year.

Trade waste bylaw	A
On Hold
Watercare Ltd have requested that the trade waste bylaw work be paused until after the adoption of the Auckland Council Long Term Plan in July 2012.

Amusement galleries bylaw	A
On track
Based on feedback from NZ Police, it is likely that the legacy bylaws for this topic will be revoked.

Food Hygiene bylaw	A
On Hold
The draft bylaw has been completed and now moves into the implementation assessment phase.

Health Protection bylaw (previously known as Pools, Health and Beauty Services)

On track

The previous bylaw topic of ‘Pools, Health and Beauty Services’ has been reviewed in light of the Commercial Sex Industry Programme – refer below. It is suggested that this bylaw focus on the issues associated with the activities – not just the activities perse. Consequently, this bylaw will be looking at the public health aspects of all these activities.

It is desirable that this programme be progressed in conjunction with the Commercial Sex Industry Programme below.

On-site wastewater bylaw	A
On track
This topic is now being progressed in conjunction with the Unitary Plan.

Public Places and Trading in Public Places (previously known as Public Safety and Amenity bylaws) MOVED TO PHASE ONE

On track

The Public Safety and Amenity Bylaws topic has been renamed Public Places and Trading in Public Places to reflect the fact that the project includes reviewing all bylaws relating to:

· Public Places (which also includes 'Barbed Wire Fences' and 'Street Naming and numbering' which is identified as a Phase 2 topic)

· Trading in public places (i.e 'street trading').

The review is a joint Auckland Council and Auckland Transport project with the units of both organisations responsible for the bylaws agreeing to work jointly on the review of the public places and trading in public places bylaws. This project also includes developing a Trading in Public Place Policy and will be undertaken in conjunction with the Trading in Public Places bylaw review.

Commercial Sex Industry bylaws

On track

The Commercial Sex Industry Programme is being led by Community and Cultural Policy.

In 2011, research was conducted and workshops were held with internal, external and political stakeholders to identify issues associated with the commercial sex industry in Auckland, and options for addressing those issues. This work informed a report to Council’s Regulatory and Bylaws Committee in December 2011, which focussed on regulatory options for managing negative effects. The Regulatory and Bylaws Committee endorsed the development of new regulations for the commercial sex industry which prioritise the use of general Bylaw and Unitary Plan provisions to address issues relating to the location, operation and appearance of the industry but does not preclude using specific commercial sex industry bylaws and Unitary Plan provisions if required.

A work plan for 2012 has been approved with key consultation periods with Local Boards scheduled for May-July 2012.

Signs (including electoral)	A
On track
As stated above, the electoral signs have been merged with signs. This work is now closely linked with the assessment of signs through development of the Unitary Plan.

Offensive Trades	G
On track
Following on from the memo presented to the legacy Manukau City Council area boards in September 2011, a report is being prepared for presentation to those relevant local boards in April 2012.

Working party meetings for the bylaw review topics

The Regulatory and Bylaws committee resolved to establish five working parties to allow political input into the bylaw development process. These working parties provide a key opportunity for discussions and workshops on the outcomes being sought, possible approaches to these outcomes, and issues raised during pre-consultation with key stakeholders.

Past and planned meetings with the working parties are shown below.

Table 3: Working parties for the bylaw review – meetings

Working Party	Bylaw topic(s)	Aug – Nov quarter	Dec – April ’12 quarter	Next quarter
Commercial sex premises	Commercial Sex Industry	Oct
Dog control	Dog control	Sept, Nov
Infrastructure	Trade waste		Dec
services	Wastewater
	Water supply
	Stormwater
Liquor control	Liquor control	Sept
Public safety	Transport	Sept
and transport	Solid waste		March 2012
	Skin piercing	Aug
	Health Protection	Aug / second round Oct
	On-site wastewater
	Food premises	Aug / second round Oct
	Environmental protection
	Hazardous substances
	Public safety and amenity		Nov (round 1)
	Fire

Local board activities

No proposals for local bylaws have been received for this quarter.

Local boards have raised queries in relation to the following interim bylaw topics:

Liquor control policy

Advice and information continues to be sought for local liquor bans – refer Table 1 above. In the last quarter the following were progressing through their respective local boards.

These include:

· Wiri Central area – includes eight parks/ reserves – pending committee meeting

· Auckland Museum – Xmas in the Park (temporary ban) – adopted and completed

· Waitakere Xmas Festival (temporary ban) – adopted and completed

· UNITEC Music Festival, Mt Albert (temporary ban) – adopted and completed

· Fergusson Park/ Oranga Rugby Club rooms – pending local board meeting

Improving analysis and communication

In the last quarter a business case was created to seek further funding to increase the flexibility/detail around mapping for dogs. This is currently with the manager, Economic Development for their consideration.

Significance of Decision

This report does not trigger the Council’s significance policy

Maori Impact Statement

This report does not raise any specific issues relating to Maori.

Consultation

This report has no specific consultation requirements

Local Board Views

This report does not raise any specific issues requiring Local Board views. These are being sought through the processing of each bylaw .

Financial and Resourcing Implications

This report has no specific financial or resourcing implications

Legal and Legislative Implications

This report has no specific legal implications

Implementation Issues

This report has no specific implementation implications

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Overview of Bylaw Review Programme - Phase 1	339
b View	Overview of Bylaw Review - Other Topics	341

Signatories

Authors

Helgard Wagener, Acting Manager Planning, Policy and Bylaws

Authorisers

Roger King, Manager Business Development and Support And Policies and Bylaws

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

02 May 2012

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Review of Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson Positions

File No.: CP2012/05844

Executive Summary

In accordance with Schedule 7, clause 21(5)(b) of the Local Government Act 2002, a Chairperson and a Deputy Chairperson were elected at the inaugural meeting of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board, on 4 November 2010.

At the inaugural meeting, the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board resolved as follows:

5 Election of Chairperson

The Chief Operating Officer, Patricia Reade called for nominations for the

office of Chairperson of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board.

Resolution number HB/2010/3

MOVED by Member Cooper, seconded Member Kirikiri:

That Board Member Parfitt be elected as Chairperson of the Hibiscus and Bays Local

Board.

CARRIED

8. Review of Appointment of Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson

Resolution number HB/2010/4

MOVED by Member Parfitt, seconded Member Watson:

That the appointment of Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson be reviewed at the 18 month mark.

CARRIED

9 Election of Deputy Chairperson

The Chairperson called for nominations for the office of Deputy Chairperson of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board.

Resolution number UH/2010/5

MOVED by Member Kirikiri, seconded Member Whyte:

That Board Member Holmes be elected as Deputy Chairperson of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board.

CARRIED

Recommendation/s

a) That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Review of Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson positions for the remainder of the 2010-2013 term report be received.

b) That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board receive the letter of resignation from the Deputy Chairperson, Gary Holmes.

Background

The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board’s 18 month tenure concludes on Friday, 4 May 2012. The current Deputy Chairperson, Mr Gary Holmes, has submitted his resignation from the position of the Deputy Chairperson of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board. (Attachment A).

The purpose of this report is for the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board to review the position of Chairperson and elect a new Deputy Chairperson.

To effect the resolutions above, the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board needs to determine what method they will apply to elect the deputy chairperson and if determined may, after review of the Chairperson’s position, seek to elect a Chairperson. The process for election of the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson is outlined in the Local Government Act 2001, Schedule 7, Clause 25.

Schedule 7, Part 1, Clause 25 of the Local Government Act 2002 stipulates that:

25 Voting systems for certain appointments

(1) This clause applies to—

(a) the election or appointment of the chairperson and deputy chairperson of a regional council; and

(b) the election or appointment of the deputy mayor; and

(d) the election or appointment of a representative of a local authority.

(2) If this clause applies, a local authority or a committee (if the local authority has so directed) must determine by resolution that a person be elected or appointed by using one of the following systems of voting:

(a) the voting system in subclause (3) (system A):

(b) the voting system in subclause (4) (system B).

(3) System A—

(a) requires that a person is elected or appointed if he or she receives the votes of a majority of the members of the local authority or committee present and voting; and

(b) has the following characteristics:

(i) there is a first round of voting for all candidates; and

(ii) if no candidate is successful in that round there is a second round of voting from which the candidate with the fewest votes in the first round is excluded; and

(iii) if no candidate is successful in the second round there is a third, and ifnecessary subsequent, round of voting from which, each time, the candidate with the fewest votes in the previous round is excluded; and

(iv) in any round of voting, if 2 or more candidates tie for the lowest number of votes, the person excluded from the next round is resolved by lot.

(4) System B—

(a) requires that a person is elected or appointed if he or she receives more votes than any other candidate; and

(b) has the following characteristics:

(i) there is only 1 round of voting; and

(ii) if 2 or more candidates tie for the most votes, the tie is resolved by lot.

There is no casting vote in either system

Decision Making

The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board have agreed to review their Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson roles. The Deputy Chairperson has tendered his resignation which will require that the Local Board confirm the method to elect a new Deputy Chairperson. Additionally, the Local Board have agreed to review the Chairperson’s role and in undertaking that review may determine that a new Chairperson should be elected or may confirm the current Chairperson in the role for the remainder of the term.

Significance of Decision

This decision is not trigger the Auckland Council’s significance policy.

Maori Impact Statement

This decision is not considered one which impacts directly on Maori.

Consultation

No consultation is required.

Local Board Views

The Local Board is the decision maker.

Financial and Resourcing Implications

There are no financial or resourcing implications.

Legal and Legislative Implications

Schedule 7of the Local Government Act 2002, Clause 25, outlines the voting system to be used for the election of a chairperson and deputy chairperson.

Implementation Issues

There are no implementation issues.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Letter of Resignation from the Local Board Deputy Chairperson	357

Signatories

Authors	Vivienne Sullivan - Committee Secretary
Authorisers	Lesley Jenkins – Relationship Manager

Chairperson	Julia Parfitt, JP
Deputy Chairperson	Gary Holmes
Members	David Cooper
	Gaye Harding
	John Kirikiri, JP
	Greg Sayers
	John Watson
	Lisa Whyte

Authors	Vanessa Jackson, Harbourmaster Administrator, Harbourmaster’s Office
Authorisers	Andrew Hayton, Harbourmaster

Authors	Manager Local Libraries North & West – Mirla Edmundson
Authorisers	Manager Libraries & Information – Allison Dobbie

Authors	Mike Giddey, Committee Secretary, Democracy Services
Authorisers

Authors	Barbara Watson – Committee secretary
Authorisers	Sarndra O’Toole – Acting manager, governance support

Authors	Ron Hewson – Land Surveyor Northern Resource Consenting and Compliance
Authorisers	Bonnie Lees – Resource Consents Team Manager

Authors	Anna Bray – Policy and Planning Manager, Local Board Services
Authorisers	Karen Lyons – Manager, Local Board Services Department

No.	Title	Page
a View	Memorial Application Form	55
b View	Plaques and Memorial Interim Guidelines	59
c View	Photographs and Cadastral Plan of Proposed Memorial Seat Location	65