Agenda of Franklin Local Board

Franklin Local Board

26 November 2013

Road Name Approval for Subdivision Application Number S12035 by Taraire Developments Limited for a Road within a property located at Chamberlain Road, Bombay

File No.: CP2013/24738

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to seek approval from the Franklin Local Board, for a road name for a road created by way of a staged subdivision at Chamberlain Road, Bombay.

Executive Summary

2. This report outlines the background for one road name sought for a road created by way of a subdivision (Reference S12035) by Taraire Developments Limited, the Applicant at Chamberlain Road, Bombay (consent approved on 16 April 2013).

3. The legacy Franklin District Council had a road naming policy, which set out the requirements and criteria of the Council for proposed road names. These requirements and criteria are applied in terms of this application, to ensure consistency of road naming within the former Franklin area, until Auckland Council adopts a new road naming policy.

4. The Applicant’s proposed preferred name is ‘Niccone Place’ and this name meets the road naming policy criteria. This road name is recommended to be considered for approval by the Local Board.

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board, pursuant to section 319(j) of the Local Government Act 1974, considers for approval the name ‘Niccone Place’ proposed by the Applicant, for the road created by a subdivision at Chamberlain Road, Bombay, noting that this name meets the relevant road naming criteria.

Discussion

Background

5. The legacy Franklin District Council road naming policy provided that where a new road needs to be named as a result of a subdivision or development, the subdivider/developer would be given the opportunity to suggest their preferred new road name for Council’s approval.

6. Taraire Developments Limited (the Applicant) has proposed the name “Niccone Place” for a road created by way of a subdivision, Council Reference S12035. The land is located at Chamberlain Road, Bombay and is legally described as Part Allotment 220 Parish of Opaheke (CRS NA43B/198) and Lot 1 DP 87149 (CFR NA44C/800). Council granted consent to subdivide the ‘Rural’ zoned property into thirteen lots, see scheme plan attached to this report. Conditions 1(e) of Stage Two of the subdivision requires Lot 200 to be vested into Council as a road. Lot 200 will extend into Lot 300 at Stage Three of the subdivision. The road to be named is no-exit.

7. The subdivision (Reference S12035) was approved by Council on 16 April 2013. The Subdivision Plan, as shown above, highlights the location of the Road to be named (Lot 200), including the final Stage Three (Lot 300).

8. The Applicant has submitted one preferred and two alternative road names for consideration to the Local Board. The preferred name is ‘Niccone Place’ and the alternative names are ‘Niccone Lane and ‘Soroka Lane’.

9. The preferred name ‘Niccone Place’ (pronounced Nik-co-knee) refers to the Niccone Valley, where the province of Tuscany meets the province of Umbria. The village of Niccone, stands in the mouth of the Niccone Valley. The applicant feels connected to this village and spent time in both of those provinces. According to the applicant, cultural relations stimulate interactions between the people of different countries and cultures, on a people-to-people basis. This people-to-people contact between countries and cultures will provide a mutual exchange of people, ideas and connections, hence the name’ Niccone’.

10. An alternative name ‘Niccone Lane’ is similar as the preferred name, except the name ‘Lane’ replaces ‘Place’.

11. Another alternative name, ‘Soroka Lane’ has been chosen by the applicant as it originates from the Ukrainian and Jewish language, meaning: ‘magpie’, ‘dweller at the sign of the magpie’, denoting garrulous or thievish persons, or someone with a streak of white among black hair. ‘Lane’ as explained previously in this report, is more appropriate for a ‘through-road’. The road to be named is a no-exit road.

Decision Making

12. The Auckland Council, by way of the Auckland Council Long Term Community Plan (2012 – 2022), allocated the responsibility for the naming of roads to Local Boards.

13. A decision is sought from the Franklin Local Board to confirm their approval for one road name for a road created at Chamberlain Road, Bombay, by Taraire Developments Limited, pursuant to section 319(j) of the Local Government Act 1974.

14. The applicant’s preferred road name has been assessed against the criteria set out in the legacy Franklin District Council road naming policy. The proposed road name is considered to be appropriate as it is consistent with the following criteria of the road naming policy:

15. Preferred Road Name – Assessment

Policy number	Summary of Road Naming Policy	Comments
i.	The duplication of names already in current usage in the Auckland metropolitan area (either spelling or pronunciation) is not desirable and should be avoided.	There is no other ‘Niccone’ Place in the Auckland region.
ii.	Names should be reasonably brief.	The name meets the criterion.
iii.	Short roads will be given short names to avoid cartographic problems.	The name meets the criterion.
iv.	The use of more than one word and hypens is generally to be avoided.	The name meets the criterion.
v.	The possessive form is not acceptable.	The name meets the criterion.
vi.	Descriptive names are acceptable provided they are not ambiguous.	The name meets the criterion.
vii.	Council encourages the use of names with historic or geographic significance and the use of names of early explorers, early settlers and early notable people or events with connections to the area concerned.	The name does not have historic or geographic connection to New Zealand, but has a connection with the homeland of the applicant, as described in section 9 above.
viii.	The use of Maori names when known is encouraged.	The Maori names for the area are not known and the applicant has sought comments from local Iwi, but no comments have been provided.
ix.	Use of themes for road names.	There are no themes of road names within the area.
x.	Road names should have an association with other names in the locality where such an association or grouping of names exists.	There are no grouping of names in the locality.
xi.	Terms such as ‘road’, ‘avenue’ etc are to be used in circumstances appropriate to the situation.	The name ‘Place’ is appropriate, as it is in accordance with the Australian/New Zealand Road standard, which describes ‘Place’ as ‘Short, sometimes narrow, enclosed roadway’.
xii.	Other relevant factors.	No other factors are considered relevant.

	Consultation with LINZ	LINZ searched the title plan’s geometry and agreed that ‘Place’ is a correct name, as the road is dead-ended, in accordance with AS/NZA 4819:2011 Australian/New Zealand Addressing Standard. LINZ is of the opinion that the name ‘Niccone Place’ is unique within the Auckland region.
	Consultation with New Zealand Post.	There is no ‘Niccone Place’ within the Auckland region and no similar sounding names within the Pukekohe region.

16. Considering the above, the preferred road name, ‘Niccone Place’, is in accordance with Council’s policy. New Zealand Post has no concerns with the preferred name. LINZ thinks that the name is unique within the Auckland region. For these reasons the preferred name, ‘Niccone Place’, is considered appropriate.

Alternative names’ assessment.

17. The applicant proposed alternative road names for the road are ‘Niccone Lane’ and ‘Soroka Lane’.

18. Both alternative names do not exist within the Auckland Region.

19. The name ‘Niccone Lane’ is similar to the preferred name, except the name ‘Lane’ replaces ‘Place’. The Australian/New Zealand Road standard describes ‘Lane’ as ‘Narrow road way between walls, buildings or a narrow country roadway’. It is noted that Lot 200 (the road to be named) will continue into Lot 300 as Stage three of this subdivision. ‘Lane’ as may be more appropriate for a ‘through-road’, with this road being a no-exit road.

20. The name ‘Soroka Lane’ originates from the Ukrainian and Jewish language as explained in section 11 of this report. ‘Lane’ as explained previously in this report, is more appropriate for a ‘through-road’, with this road being a no-exit road.

Consideration

Significance of Decision

21. The decision sought from the Franklin Local Board for this report does not trigger any significance policy and is not considered to have any immediate impact on the community.

Maori Impact Statement

22. The decision sought from the Franklin Local Board does not adversely affect Maori communities, as the naming of roads is not linked to one of Council’s strategic priorities for Maori. The applicant has sought comments from local Iwi, but no comments or suggestions have been received at the time of writing this report.

Consultation

23. The Applicant has put forward the names to local Iwi, Ngati Tamaoho (Lucille Rutherfurd), but no comments have been received at the time of writing this report. New Zealand Post and Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) have commented that the names ‘Niccone’ and ‘Soroka’ are appropriate for the specific road..

Financial and Resourcing Implications

24. The cost of processing the approval of the proposed new road name and any installation of road name signage is recoverable in accordance with Council’s Administrative Charges.

Legal and Legislative Implications

25. The decision sought from the Franklin Local Board for this report is not considered to have any legal or legislative impactions.

Implementation Issues

26. The Southern Compliance and Monitoring Team is involved in ensuring that appropriate road name signage will be installed accordingly once an approval is obtained for the new road name.

Conclusion

27. The Applicant has supplied one preferred name for the one new road. The suggested name, ‘Niccone Place’ meets the road naming criteria and the name is not in use within the Auckland region.

28. This name has been put forward for consideration and approval by the Franklin Local Board.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Mineke Meyerink - Intermediate Planner

Authorisers

Heather Harris - Manager Resource Consents

Teresa Turner - Relationship Manager

Franklin Local Board

26 November 2013

Auckland Transport Monthly Update – November 2013

File No.: CP2013/26295

Purpose

1. Providing an update on transport matters for the information of the Franklin Local Board and a register of transport issues in the Franklin Local Board area, as collated by Auckland Transport’s Elected Member Relationship Manager (South).

2. Seeking construction approval for the installation of variable warning signage at the Mill Road/Harrisville Road intersection to be funded from the Board’s Transport Capital Fund.

Executive Summary

3. This report covers matters of specific application and interest to the Franklin Local Board and its community; matters of general interest relating to Auckland Transport activities or the transport sector; and Auckland Transport media releases for the information of the Board and community.

4. In particular, this report provides information on:

· the Franklin Local Board’s transport capital fund

· Hunua village pedestrian facility

· Glenbrook Road/Glenbrook Station Road intersection

· Chorus UFB programme

· Pukekohe Area Travel Plan

· Pukekohe Comprehensive Parking Management Plan

· Mill Road Corridor Project update.

Recommendation/s

a) That the Franklin Local Board receives the report entitled ‘Auckland Transport Update – November 2013’ and the attached issues register from Auckland Transport’s Elected Member Relationship Manager (South).

b) That the Franklin Local Board gives construction approval for the installation of variable 70 km/h rural intersection activated warning signage at the Mill Road/Harrisville Road intersection to be funded from the Transport Capital Fund, based on the firm cost estimate of $67,000.

Discussion

Franklin Items

A1. Local board transport capital fund

5. The Franklin Local Board’s funding allocation under the local board transport capital fund was $434,966 in the 2012/13 financial year, and the same amount in the current 2013/14 financial year. Following the recent elections, the Board is also now able to access funding from the subsequent two financial years.

6. The Board’s approved projects are included in Table 1 below (NB: ROC = rough order of costs; FEC = firm estimate of cost):

Table 1:

ID#

Project Description

Progress/Current Status

077

Second View Avenue, Beachlands – install 240m of new kerb and channel between Wakelin Road and Sunkist Bay Road (south side)

· ROC estimated at $120,000

· FIRM estimate of cost $135,000

· Final cost $123,894

· Construction completed.

· The final cost for the project was $123,894.

080

Patumahoe Road/Waiuku Road/Attewell Road intersection, Pukekohe/Puni – investigation of intersection improvements

· ROC estimated at $40,000

· Final cost $45,567

· This ‘design only’ project was undertaken in the 2012/13 FY.

· The Road Safety team is able to accommodate the construction of the proposed roundabout into the Regional Road Safety Programme, with the projected $1.1 million cost spread across the 2013/14 and 2014/15 financial years. Land purchase and enabling works are expected to occur in the current financial year, and construction in the next.

· Interim signage and marking safety improvements proposed by the design project were implemented by the end of Sep-13.

· The final cost for the project was $45,567.

081

Pukeoware School – installation of variable 40 km/h electronic school speed zone

· ROC estimated at $22,000

· FIRM estimate of cost $18,000

· Funding COMMITTED

· Final cost to be advised

· The centerline of Bald Hill Road is the boundary between the Auckland Council area and the Waikato District, meaning both Auckland Transport and the Waikato District Council (WDC) need to implement this school speed zone under their respective Speed Limits Bylaws.

· The WDC’s practice is to amend its Speed Limits Bylaw in July each year and to impose any speed limit changes required in the interim on a temporary basis until the next July.

· A permanent 40km/h school speed zone has been resolved by AT’s Traffic Control Committee for the Auckland side of Bald Hill Road and a temporary speed limit has been approved by the WDC for its side.

· The supply and installation contract for the electronic signs was put out for tender in Oct-13.

· The electronic signs are expected to be installed before the start of the first school term of 2014.

083

Mill Road/Harrisville Road intersection, Bombay/Pukekohe – installation of variable 70 km/h rural intersection activated warning signage

· ROC estimated at $35,000

· Firm estimate of cost $67,000

· On 11-Dec-12, based on a ROC of $35,000, the Board resolved to proceed to detailed design and costing phase.

· Design work has been completed and consultation undertaken. Formal traffic resolutions have been prepared and will be submitted for approval to the Traffic Control Committee.

· The FEC provided by the contractor is $67,000. The ROC was provided by AT without reference to the specific contractor, and was underestimated.

· Approval for construction based on the FEC of $67,000 is sought from the Board

131

Pedestrian overbridge at Pukekohe train station

· COMMITTED funding of $150,000

· Construction completed in 2012/13 FY.

· As requested, Auckland Transport is monitoring the potential use of the land situated behind 82 Manukau Road as a temporary park and ride with the landowner. No issues have arisen to date.

130

Upgrade of Waiuku town centre pavers

· FIRM estimate of cost $135,000

· Funding COMMITTED

· While originally planned for October, the Chorus UFB installation works ran into delays. AT has therefore instructed that UFB works should not begin in the main street until 6-Jan-14, so as not to disrupt the Christmas trading period.

133

Footpath on Papakura-Clevedon Road outside Ardmore School

· ROC estimated at $16,000

· Funding COMMITTED based on ROC

· Final cost $15,094

· Construction completed by the end of Jun-13

· The final cost for the project was $15,094.

172

Installation of park bench/seat outside Fire Station, Harris Street Pukekohe

· ROC estimated at $2,000

· Funding COMMITTED based on ROC

· Final cost to be advised

· On 28-May-13, the Board approved this small project to progress straight to construction.

· The seat will be installed in November through the Franklin Rural maintenance contract.

074

Third View Avenue, Beachlands – install 300m of new kerb and channel between Sunkist Bay Road and Cherrie Road (both sides)

· ROC estimated at $300,000

· The ROC previously reported was $300,000 (not including stormwater [SW] infrastructure).

· On 27-Aug-13, the Board resolved to proceed to detailed design and costing phase, and also sought confirmation regarding the availability of funding from Auckland Council’s Stormwater team in the current financial year to cover the SW component of the project.

· Discussions will be held with Council’s Stormwater team, which wants to explore the option of installing a swale system instead of kerb and channel.

075

Third View Avenue, Beachlands – install 250m of new kerb and channel between Wakelin Road and Sunkist Bay Road (north side)

· ROC estimated at $125,000

· The ROC previously reported was $125,000 (not including SW infrastructure).

· Discussions will be held with Council’s Stormwater team, which wants to explore the option of installing a swale system instead of kerb and channel.

7. The Franklin Local Board’s transport capital fund to date is summarised below.

Franklin Local Board transport capital fund summary:

Franklin Local Board funding allocation for 2012/13 FY	$434,966
Franklin Local Board funding allocation for 2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16 FYs	$1,304,898
*Total funding available (across 4 FYs)*	$1,739,864
Completed projects reporting final costs (Second View kerb and channel; Patumahoe/Waiuku/Attewell Roads investigation; Pukekohe station overbridge; Ardmore School footpath)	-$334,555
Committed allocations based on rough or firm estimates (Pukeoware School signs; Waiuku pavers upgrade; Harris St bench)	-$155,000
*Funding still available to allocate*	$1,250,309
Firm estimate for project awaiting construction approval (Mill/Harrisville electronic signage)	$67,000
Rough estimates for projects at detailed design and costing stage (2x Third View Ave kerb and channel projects)	$425,000

A2. Hunua village update

8. In June it was reported that Auckland Transport would be carrying out further investigations to consider other measures that might be used to slow operating speeds through Hunua village.

9. Auckland Transport’s Traffic Operations team has now completed an investigation into the provision of traffic island options where school children cross near the hall.

10. Auckland Transport has developed a concept design for a centralised pedestrian refuge that would provide both traffic calming and pedestrian protection functionality. A streetlighting upgrade would also be necessary to highlight the existence of the refuge for vehicular traffic during the hours of darkness.

11. The concept design will now be passed to consultants for detailed design. The project will then be considered for implementation in the 2014/15 financial year from the Minor Improvements programme, subject to consultation, prioritisation and funding.

12. Auckland Transport does not expect to revisit the speed limit issue until physical measures are in place and the impact on operating speeds can be observed.

A3. Glenbrook Road/Glenbrook Station Road intersection update

13. Auckland Transport’s Traffic Operations team presented its assessment of the heavy vehicle and overtaking concerns at the intersection of Glenbrook Road and Glenbrook Station Road at a Franklin Local Board workshop held on 17 September.

14. The Traffic Operations team has now completed the detail design of the road marking and signage improvements recommended to, and endorsed, by the Franklin Local Board at the 17 September workshop. The improvements include audio tactile no-overtaking lines, new flush median on the northern side of Glenbrook Road, truck signs, edge line improvements and minor relocation of 80 km/h speed limit sign further away from the kindergarten.

15. The design will be passed to Auckland Transport’s Road Corridor Maintenance team for implementation within the next two months. The expected completion date is by the end of January 2014.

A4. Chorus UFB programme update

16. Pukekohe town centre - Chorus made an agreement with Auckland Transport to use ducts they have in the area so there could be minimum disruption and a quicker deployment. However, on further investigation, Chorus discovered that there are existing power cables in the ducts and therefore needed to redesign the network, which has created a delay. Given the desirability to complete work in the main street before Christmas, Chorus has been asked by Auckland Transport to start the work early in January.

17. Waiuku town centre - The network required a new design to ensure there is minimum disruption to the footpaths given the special nature of the pavers (refer also to item 3 of Attachment D). Chorus wants to ensure the work done is correctly carried out, taking into account the environment. Auckland Transport also asked Chorus to start the work after New Year so as not to create a nuisance to businesses before Christmas. Work will now start in early January.

A5. Pukekohe Area Travel Plan update

18. The naming competition for the Travel Plan continues for local school students, with the closing date extended to 22 November. The Pukekohe Business Association and the Huakina Development Trust also offered to promote the competition within their networks. The Community Transport South team will provide the entries to the Franklin Local Board in time to judge entries and select a winner at the Board meeting on 26 November.

19. A meeting with community stakeholders has been tentatively booked for 4 December at 2pm at the Pukekohe Library. The aim of this meeting will be to present the concept of the Pukekohe Travel Plan to these stakeholders and gauge interest in an on-going community steering group. The Franklin Local Board is invited to send a representative to this meeting.

A6. Pukekohe Comprehensive Parking Management Plan

20. Auckland Council is currently preparing an Area Plan for Pukekohe. To assist with its input into this process, Auckland Transport will now be undertaking a Comprehensive Parking Management Plan (CPMP) for Pukekohe, which is a more extensive exercise than the town centre parking review previously begun.

21. The CPMP will involve looking at on-street and off-street parking in Pukekohe. It will investigate the likely level of land development in the future (mainly the next 10 years but also looking out 30 years) and the resulting parking demand. It will then recommend the amount and location of parking that should be provided to respond to the projected demand.

22. Auckland Transport is in the process of engaging a consultant to develop the CPMP.

23. Auckland Transport should have some draft recommendations from this study to feed into the Area Plan in time for its next consultation phase in early 2014.

A7. Waiuku town centre maintenance meeting

24. Auckland Transport and Transfield Services staff met with the Waiuku town centre manager and representatives of the Waiuku Business and Development Association on 8 November to discuss ongoing maintenance concerns (separate from the ongoing issues with the Waiuku pavers and the planned steam cleaning and sealing that will now begin after Chorus UFB work early in the New Year).

25. The Waiuku town centre manager and Transfield Services agreed to meet on a quarterly basis to cement good working relationships and address any maintenance issues that may arise. A Transfield representative also undertook to meet with the town centre manager the following week to discuss and address the immediate concerns raised.

A8. Mill Road Corridor project update

26. The project update as at October 2013 is:

a. The Scheme Assessment Report is complete

b. The draft Notice of Requirement (NoR) documents are being reviewed internally and by the legal team

c. The Project team will seek the Auckland Transport Board’s approval for the project objectives (at the end of December 2103) and then the preferred alignment (likely in early 2014) prior to lodgment of the NoR with Auckland Council

d. It is anticipated that the NoR will be lodged with Auckland Council in early 2014

e. The NoR will in due course be publicly notified and any submitter will have an opportunity to be heard and it is anticipated that a recommendation on the NoR following the Council hearing process will be released in 2015.

f. A review of the previously completed Corridor Management Plan (by Papakura District Council) is underway that will inform the investigation work on the Southern Section of the Mill Road Corridor. This work will be publicly tendered and is likely to be awarded in February/March 2014.

A9. Consultation documents on proposed improvements

27. Proposed mobility parking space on Clevedon-Papakura Road, Clevedon – Auckland Transport has received a request to implement a new mobility parking space in Clevedon village.

28. A plan of the proposal has been included at Attachment A. The proposal is to install a P180 time restricted mobility parking space outside #18 Papakura-Clevedon Road to allow for safe and accessible parking location for mobility card holders. The restriction will operate “At all times”.

29. Prior to the election, feedback on the proposal was provided by both the Board’s chairperson and Deputy chairperson on the Board’s behalf. That feedback indicated support for the concept and location of the proposed mobility parking space, but queried whether the P180 time limit was excessive in the local context.

30. The standard process going forward is that, following public consultation, proposals and feedback received are reported to Auckland Transport Traffic Control Committee for final determination.

31. Proposed ‘No Stopping At All Times’ parking restrictions, North Road, Clevedon – it was reported in March 2013 that an Auckland Transport investigation had revealed that when vehicles are parked adjacent to #10 North Road and in close proximity to the existing pedestrian refuge island, the northbound traffic lane is narrowed. The lane narrowing can force large vehicles to navigate to the right of the pedestrian refuge and into the southbound traffic lane, which is a road safety issue. Auckland Transport therefore proposed to extend existing NSAATs on the north-western side of North Road to address the issue.

32. Back in March, the feedback received from the Board’s transport spokesperson raised concerns about the effect of the proposal on the limited parking available for parents picking up and dropping off children at Clevedon School during peak school times. As Auckland Transport’s Community Transport team had recently begun working with Clevedon School on a safe school travel plan, it was agreed that the proposal be referred to Community Transport so that all issues impacting on school road safety could be taken into account as part of the wider school travel planning process.

33. The proposal, as shown on the plan at Attachment B, has now been raised with and considered by Clevedon School as part of its school travel plan. As the School has indicated it is very supportive of the proposal, the proposal has been reactivated.

34. On re-consulting with the Franklin Local Board, feedback in support of the proposal was provided by the Board’s chairperson on the Board’s behalf.

General Information Items

B1. Legal blood alcohol limit to drop

35. On 4 November, it was announced that the Cabinet had agreed to lower the legal blood alcohol limit from 80 to 50 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood for drivers aged over 20, with legislation to bring about the change to receive its first reading before Christmas.

36. Alcohol impairment is a major cause of road accidents in New Zealand, with an average of 61 fatalities, 244 serious injuries, and 761 minor injuries every year caused by at-fault drivers who have been drinking. The social cost of these injuries and fatalities is $446 million.

37. A two year review of the impact of lowering the legal blood alcohol limit by 30 milligrams suggests 3.4 lives will be saved a year and 64 injury causing crashes avoided – and save $200 million in social costs over 10 years.

38. Data collected by Police over the past 22 months shows 53 drivers were involved in fatal and serious injury crashes with blood alcohol readings of between 51 and 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

39. It’s proposed the new regime will impose civil infringements on drivers with between 50 and 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. Drivers testing positive for this lower limit will receive a $200 fine and gain 50 demerit points.

40. Testing positive to over 80 micrograms of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood while in charge of a motor vehicle will remain a criminal offence.

B2. Law change for use of child restraints

41. From 1 November the mandatory use of child restraints in vehicles was extended by two years, with all children required to be correctly secured in an approved restraint until their 7th birthday. This rule change brought New Zealand into line with the requirements of Australia, and is an important step forward in improving the safety of children on New Zealand roads.

42. NZTA Road Safety Director Ernst Zollner said, "Children are especially vulnerable to injury in crashes, and the standard seats and safety belts installed in most vehicles are designed to protect an average sized adult. Because children are smaller and have different body shapes, they need more protection to keep them safe in a car. These changes will make travel safer for New Zealand children and they will help to reduce tragic and preventable deaths and serious injuries among our youngest road users."

43. Road crashes are a leading cause of death and injury for children in New Zealand and can happen to anyone at any time. Child Restraint use is a proven strategy for reducing death and injury in road crashes. However, an appropriate child restraint needs to be used every time and used properly.

44. Children must be restrained at all times when travelling in a vehicle, even when travelling a short distance. Drivers who buckle up are more likely to have child passengers who buckle up.

45. An NZTA guide to child restraints is included at Attachment C.

46. Child restraints can be difficult to install. This can result in people either not using a restraint properly or not using a child restraint at all. Child Restraint Technicians can assist parents and caregivers to select, install and use child restraints safely.

47. Use the following link to find a Child Restraint Technician in your area:

http://www.nzta.govt.nz/traffic/students-parents/child-restraints-technician-list.html

B3. Regional Public Transport Plan adopted

48. The Regional Public Transport Plan (RPTP) was formally adopted by the Board of Auckland Transport on 23 September 2013. A copy of the adopted RPTP will be sent to local boards in November when printed copies become available.

49. In the interim, copies of the adopted RPTP are available by visiting the consultation website on www.aucklandtransport.govt.nz/rptp

B4. AT HOP update

50. The roll-out of the AT HOP system onto bus services recommenced on 13 October with North Star buses. The roll-out had been briefly delayed due to an intermittent technical issue on tag off devices found on Birkenhead Transport buses and issues with Wi-Fi connections in the Birkenhead area. Auckland Transport’s technology provider, Thales, identified the problem and tested the solution, ensuring the roll-out could be recommenced.

51. The North Star roll-out is being followed by Metrolink and the LINK services in November, and continuing with Go West and Waka Pacific through to December. The rollout post-Christmas will be targeted at Bayes Coachlines early in the New Year, followed by Ritchies, Northern Express, Waiheke buses, 380 Airporter and Howick & Eastern buses over February and March.

52. Auckland Transport will confirm timings to customers nearer the time for each bus operator.

53. By necessity, this means that as individual operators (or business units within operators) roll out with AT HOP, customers who use more than one bus operator or a mix of services will need to retain their historic card(s) and use these in parallel with AT HOP until AT HOP has been implemented across all the bus services they use.

54. AT HOP is the new way to pay for trains, buses and ferries in Auckland. When fully implemented the AT HOP card will be the one card used to pay on all public transport in Auckland (except the Airbus). It will provide at least a 10% discount on cash fares and have monthly pass options that will be valid for every bus and train service (previous monthly passes could only be used on operator-specific services). Ferry monthly passes will be developed for the AT HOP card.

55. An ‘all-zones’ AT HOP monthly pass costs $250 and covers travel from Pukekohe in the South to Waiwera in the North, and from Westgate in the West to Botany in the East. It can be used on all trains and all buses once they have changed to AT HOP. Other monthly pass options are available.

Media Releases

C1. More train services for Auckland commuters

56. On 29 October, new timetables were introduced for train services including doubling weekend services to the west to cope with demand, with the Western Line to get half hourly services on Saturday and Sunday between Britomart and Swanson.

57. Changes made on other lines include:

· Earlier services from Papakura on the weekends.

· Some Onehunga services being re-timed to further improve punctuality across the network

· An extra night service to Onehunga on Saturday and Sunday nights

· An extra service to and from Onehunga mid-morning Monday to Friday

· An extra service from Manukau departing at 9.08am Monday to Friday

· An extra weekday evening service to Pukekohe departing from Britomart at 8.10pm.

58. As well as the timetable changes, buses replace trains on the Southern and Eastern lines from approximately 8.40pm each evening, seven days a week. These closures are required for KiwiRail to carry out major works associated with the on-going upgrade and electrification of Auckland’s rail network and for testing of new electric trains.

59. Buses replacing trains are marked ‘RAIL BUS’. All valid tickets and passes currently accepted on trains are able to be used on rail bus replacements.

60. Auckland Transport asks train users to please check the timetable before travelling.

C2. Bike park trial at train stations and ferry terminal

61. On 8 October, new bike parking facilities opened at two train stations and a ferry terminal.

62. Auckland Transport is trialling enclosed, covered bike parking at Papakura and Papatoetoe train stations and Birkenhead ferry terminal.

63. The parks at the train stations hold 20 bikes while the one at the Birkenhead ferry terminal can store 30 bikes. All three parks offer a choice of standing racks and hanging bike parking.

64. Auckland Transport’s Manager of Community Transport, Matthew Rednall, said “We want to encourage people to leave their car at home and get on their bike to connect with the train or the ferry. It’s a chance to get fit and takes another vehicle off the road.”

65. The bike parks are covered by CCTV cameras and, to add to security, access is by a proximity card which is issued after registering on-line.

66. The parks at the rail stations also have bike repair stands for small jobs like fixing punctures.

67. Cycle Action Auckland Chair, Barbara Cuthbert, said “Bike parking has moved into a new age with these superb facilities - they even have a bike pump as part of the installation. Secure, undercover bike parking will allow more of us to cycle to the train or ferry, and have peace of mind out bike will be ready and waiting at the end of the day.”

68. Access to the bike parks is on a six-monthly basis, patrons will be contacted before their registration runs out in time to renew or cancel it.

69. For more information and to register go to: http://www.aucklandtransport.govt.nz/moving-around/biking-cycleways/cycling-and-public-transport/Pages/default.aspx

C3. New electric trains testing at any time

70. On 9 October, Auckland Transport launched a campaign to push the safety message around its new electric trains.

71. The first of the trains is now being tested and could be on the tracks at any time of the day or night.

72. The new trains are quieter and accelerate faster, so everyone needs to take care.

· Always cross at proper crossings

· Watch and listen for bells at crossings

· Always look both ways

· Stay off the tracks

· Pay attention to train horns

· Stay behind the yellow lines on platforms

73. The electric train safety campaign features local press advertising, radio, online advertising street posters and billboards. There was also a mail-out to 18,000 households, especially around railway tracks in South Auckland where most of the early testing is taking place.

74. Safety is a primary concern for Auckland Transport, KiwiRail and Transdev during the testing and roll-out of Auckland’s new trains.

Issues Register

75. The regular monthly issues register is Attachment D to this report.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Plan of proposed mobility parking space on Papakura-Clevedon Road, Clevedon	25
b	Plan of proposed ‘No Stopping At All Times’ parking restrictions, North Road, Clevedon	27
c	NZTA Guide to Child Restraints	29
d	Issues Register – Franklin Local Board – November 2013	31

Signatories

Author

Jenni Wild – Elected Member Relationship Manager (South); Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon – Elected Member Relationship Team Manager; AT

Teresa Turner – Relationship Manager

Franklin Local Board

26 November 2013

Infrastructure and Environmental Services Update Report

File No.: CP2013/25259

Purpose

1. This quarterly update from the Infrastructure and Environmental Services (I&ES) department covers the period from August to October 2013. It reports on both regional and place based activities undertaken by the three I&ES units – Environmental Services, Stormwater and Solid Waste.

2. This report also tracks the delivery and expenditure of environmental budget lines from the 2013/2014 Local Board Agreement (LBA), as assigned to the Infrastructure and Environmental Services Department.

Executive Summary

3. The I&ES Department delivers on the Auckland Plan and Local Board Plans through the delivery of environmental programmes, regional stormwater and waste services, as well as the maintenance and enhancement of Auckland's natural environment.

4. This report has been written to update the Board on the delivery of activities and work programmes by I&ES. A number of these regional activities have a distinct local involvement and impact and are detailed in the attachments to this report.

5. This report also includes some background information for newly elected board members, to familiarise them with the work programme and priorities of the department.

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board receives the Infrastructure and Environmental Services update report, for the period August to October 2013.

Discussion

6. This report and attachments specifically details the activities delivered by the three units of I&ES within the Board area which support and contribute to the following Local Board Plan priorities and initiatives:

Priorities:

Protecting and Enhancing our Natural Environment

Building Our Rural Economy

Celebrate Our Heritage, Identity and Culture

Initiatives:

Environmental programmes to improve water quality

Programmes to remove mangroves and non-cultivated oysters

Protect sites of coastal and cultural significance, eg. Awhitu Peninsula

7. In addition this report may detail activities which may not be specifically identified in the Local Board Plan but which will; impact on the local area.

8. The following provides some background information for board members, to familiarise them with the work programmes and priorities delivered by the three units within the I&ES department.

Environmental Services Unit

9. The Auckland Plan describes a transformational shift to ‘strongly commit to environmental action and green growth’. It is the responsibility of the Environmental Services Unit (ESU) within I&ES to support that shift through the development, promotion and implementation of projects that support environment and sustainability outcomes.

10. Improving freshwater quality is a key focus for ESU and is supported through the implementation of catchment-based restoration projects (such as the Sustainable Catchments Programme and Project Twin Streams), land management programmes, and community education initiatives such as Wai Care.

11. The vision of the Indigenous Biodiversity Strategy is to ensure that Auckland’s biodiversity is flourishing and treasured. In supporting this vision, as well as that of the Auckland Plan, the biodiversity team provide technical advice to ecological restoration projects being delivered by either Council or private landowners. Biodiversity staff also provides technical input into the evaluation of resource consent applications and other statutory processes, such as the development of the draft unitary plan.

12. Biosecurity works alongside biodiversity to contribute to environmental outcomes. Biosecurity is responsible for the implementation of the Regional Pest Management Strategy through a number of programmes, and is also responsible for the regional coordination of national biosecurity management programmes, such as the local response to kauri dieback and kiwifruit vine disease (PSA).

13. ESU also delivers a number of projects that support community development through engaging communities in environment and sustainability projects. These projects include Wai Care, Enviroschools and Trees for Survival. In addition, ESU is currently developing and trialling a number of household sustainability initiatives in various local board areas.

Solid Waste Unit

14. The Solid Waste Unit, within the Infrastructure and Environmental Services Department, is responsible for the management of the region’s kerbside domestic refuse, recycling, hazardous waste, inorganics, illegal dumping and litter collection. It also manages some transfer stations, and develops and delivers waste minimisation programmes. It is made up of four main operational delivery groups; Waste Planning, Waste Minimisation, Waste Operations and Waste Infrastructure and Assets.

15. The Waste Planning team is responsible for carrying out implementation planning for the delivery of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) and ensuring our waste operations and plans are consistent with regional waste bylaws and national level waste legislation. They advocate council views to central government on waste issues.

16. The Waste Minimisation team is responsible for the development, management and delivery of waste minimisation behaviour change and education programmes to households, businesses, and schools. This includes programmes such as the Create Your Own Eden composting courses and WasteWise schools.

17. The Waste Operations team is responsible for the management of the region’s kerbside domestic refuse, recycling and inorganic waste collection services, servicing and maintaining public litter bins and loose litter cleaning.

18. The Waste Assets and Infrastructure team is responsible for providing infrastructure to ensure Auckland meets its obligations under the Waste Management Act for the safe and efficient recovery, recycling and disposal of waste across the region.

19. These infrastructure requirements are managed in many ways. For example, through direct service supply contracts for delivery of waste to landfill, Build Operate Own and Transfer contracts for facilities to process recycling, and through council-owned assets and operations such as those at the Waitakere Transfer Station in Henderson and the Claris Landfill on Great Barrier Island. In addition, the team also procures and manages the stock of refuse and recycling bins and public litter bins. Finally, they work with suppliers to make provision for hazardous waste drop off, recovery and disposal through service contracts.

Stormwater Unit

20. Council’s Stormwater Unit is largely responsible for two of the activities outlined in the 2010 amendment of the Local Government Act 2002: Stormwater drainage, and flood protection and control, and is required to comply with the Resource Management Act and other legal requirements.

The purpose of these activities is to minimise the nuisance of flooding, protect people and property from the adverse effects of extreme storm events and protect the environment and public health by reducing stormwater contaminant and sediment runoff that is discharged into natural waters.

21. Council’s stormwater functions are guided by the draft Stormwater Unit Strategic Direction and the Stormwater Asset Management Plan 2012-2032.

22. The Stormwater Asset Management Plan is updated every three years and its review is a key focus for the 2013/14 financial year. The Stormwater Asset Management Plan spans a 20-year period with focus on the ten year period covered in the council’s 10-year Long Term Plan (LTP). The Stormwater Asset Management Plan addresses all major asset based activities. A primary purpose of asset management planning is to ensure that present and future customer service requirements are met while managing assets in the most cost effective manner.

23. The draft Stormwater Unit Strategic Direction was completed in 2013. It is a non-statutory document aligned to the Auckland Plan that guides the operational matters of the council in relation to stormwater that informs and engenders support from internal and external parties involved in stormwater management. The document ultimately will be incorporated into the updated Stormwater Unit Asset Management Plan 2015-2035.

Consideration

Local Board Views

24. This is a report prepared specifically for the Local Board.

Maori Impact Statement

25. While this report is for information only and does not require any decision making, it is recognised that environmental management, water quality and land management has integral links with the mauri of the environments and concepts of kaitiakitanga.

Implementation Issues

26. The activities detailed in this report are within budget. Any decisions arising from discussions and planned changes to work programmes will have financial and resourcing implications which will need to be managed.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Environmental Services Unit update	43
b	Solid Waste Update Report	45
c	Auckland Household Waste Prevention Study	51
d	Stormwater Local Board Update Report	55

Signatories

Authors

Lucy Hawcroft - Relationship Advisor

Varsha Belwalkar - Stormwater Liaison Advisor

Emma Joyce - Relationship Advisor

Mara Bebich - Senior Relationship & Engagement Advisor

Authorisers

John Dragicevich - Manager Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Teresa Turner - Relationship Manager

Franklin Local Board

26 November 2013

Solid Waste Local Board Update Report (Franklin)

Relevant to Local Board Priority: Protecting and enhancing our natural environment

Overview

This update describes the activities of the Solid Waste unit with regards to Local Board projects and regional programmes over the update period, August to October 2013. Some background information about the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) is also provided for newly elected board members.

The Waste Management and Minimisation Plan

A major priority for the Solid Waste unit over the next four years will be to implement the Auckland WMMP. This plan was approved by the governing body in June 2012, after extensive consultation with the public, key stakeholders and local boards. Its vision is that:

“To become the most liveable city in the world, Auckland will aim for the long-term, aspirational goal of ‘Zero Waste’ by 2040, turning its waste into resources.”

To help achieve this goal, the plan also sets some bold targets. These are:

· to reduce the amount of domestic kerbside waste sent to landfill by 30% by 2018, from 160 kg to 110 kg per capita per year.

· to reduce council’s own in-house waste by 30% per capita by 2018

· to reduce total council and private sector influenced waste to landfill by 30% by 2027. To achieve this final goal, council will have to work closely with the commercial sector as council only influences approximately 17% of the waste stream.

To achieve these targets, the WMMP identifies a series of key actions. These include major changes in waste collection services for some board areas. These changes will take place after July 2015 and are outlined in the table below.

Table One. Waste collection services to be provided under the WMMP

Service type	Current service in board area	Current funding system	Service to be provided under WMMP	Future funding system
Organics	No current service	NA	A kerbside collection of organic waste in bins from all Aucklanders living in urban areas. No service in rural areas.	Rates
Recycling	Fortnightly recycling collection in a 240 litre bin (drop off in remote areas)	Rates	A fortnightly recycling service in bins will be provided to all Aucklanders. Typical bin size will be 240 litres, with a choice from 140 to 360 litres.	Targeted rate
Inorganics	Drop off inorganics at key locations.	User pays (per drop off)	An improved inorganics service will be provided to all Aucklanders annually. Residents will make a booking in advance and have inorganic material collected from their property, rather than from the kerb.	Targeted rate
Rubbish	Weekly rubbish collection in bags.	User pays (per bag)	A fortnightly “user pays” rubbish collection will be provided to all residents. Typical bin size for urban residents will be 120 litres, with a choice from 60 to 240 litres. Rural residents will have a choice of bins or bags.	User pays (per bin lift or bag)

One of the benefits of making these changes is that all Aucklanders will receive a regionally consistent level of waste services.

Some other key projects included in the WMMP that council is working on include:

Development of a Resource Recovery Network (RRN)

The RRN would consist of a network of facilities across the region that would provide a convenient place for local residents to drop off their used furniture, clothes, whiteware, hazardous waste and other materials. Planning for the RRN is still underway but it is envisaged it would include:

· a small number of large Resource Recovery Parks focused predominantly on commercial waste or resources that would act as more substantial hubs of the network

· a larger number of smaller Community Recycling Centres (CRCs) focused on serving local households and businesses

· local Drop-off Depots for isolated areas or where there is limited space.

These facilities would be spread across the city and run by businesses, community organisations, voluntary sector organisations and iwi. They will enable large quantities of reusable and recyclable materials to be diverted from landfill for reuse, repair or refurbishment and sale. They would also create valuable opportunities for local employment.

Several local boards have already become involved in funding or supporting feasibility studies for Community Recycling Centres, and this is an area where other local boards may wish to have further involvement in future.

In the short-term, five council-owned sites have been identified as being priorities for redevelopment into resource recovery facilities in 2014. These are the:

1. Waiuku Transfer Station

2. Waitakere Refuse and Recycling Centre

3. Central isthmus site (location to be identified)

4. Devonport Transfer Station

5. Helensville Resource Recovery Centre

The board will be given more information about the redesign of the Waiuku Transfer Station into a resource recovery facility as this project progresses.

Community engagement and education programmes

Local education programmes will be key to achieving the goals of the WMMP and supporting the service changes outlined above. They will be particularly focused on areas in South Auckland and the Hauraki Gulf Islands which will experience greater change as a result of the WMMP. However, these programmes will be introduced across the region. They could potentially include local waste minimisation projects that are developed in conjunction with local boards and are shaped by Local Board priorities and community needs.

Update on Ongoing Solid Waste Activities

Waste Planning

This team is responsible for carrying out implementation planning for the delivery of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) and ensuring our waste operations and plans are consistent with regional waste bylaws and national level waste legislation. They advocate council views to central government on waste issues.

Regional activities and achievements

Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund: The second round of the waste fund closed on 31 October 2013. This round has a total value of $475,000. A list of applications to the fund will be sent to board members in November, and they will be asked to give feedback and local input on applications from their area.

Waste collection controls: These controls regulate issues such as the times that waste can be collected and the levels of contamination allowed in refuse and recycling containers. After consultation with local boards in July and August, the controls were approved by the Regional Development and Operations Committee in September. They will become operational on 1 November.

TV TakeBack programme: This programme enables Aucklanders to recycle their old analogue televisions at various drop off points around the region for just $2 at council subsidised sites. It is being delivered by Ministry for the Environment, with some council support. A memo was sent to all local board members with more information about the scheme in early October, before it opened on 23 October. A full list of all the available sites for residents to use and the cost of each is available at www.tvtakeback.govt.nz. Sites will remain open until roughly 70,000 televisions have been recycled.

Waste Minimisation

This team is responsible for the development, management and delivery of waste minimisation behaviour change and education programmes to households, businesses, and schools. This includes programmes such as Create Your Own Eden and WasteWise schools.

Regional activities and achievements

Auckland Household Waste Prevention Survey: This was the first regionally representative survey of Aucklanders’ attitudes and behaviours towards waste carried out by council. Analysing and publishing the results of this survey has been a major focus for the team over the update period. A summary of survey results is provided in Attachment D.

Supporting events to minimise their waste: Council is working with the Auckland Community Zero Waste Alliance (ACZWA) to support 15-20 events around the region to reduce their waste. The first event which was chosen for support was the Waitakere Festival, which was held in Henderson in late October. This had an excellent result with a diversion of 95% of all event waste from landfill. Officers are still working to confirm which events, if any, will be supported in the board area. Board members will be informed as soon as an event is chosen for their area.

Text Box:
Composting for Community tutors celebrate the first year of the programme. Composting for Communities: This programme focuses on large households with high volumes of food waste in the Asian and Pacific communities. In the first 18 months of the programme, eight tutors from the Tongan, Cook Islands, Niuean, Chinese and Samoan communities have delivered 22 courses in composting and bokashi.

The results of this new programme were recently assessed. The assessment found that the 426 households involved diverted 161 tonnes per annum, an average of 8.2kg per household per week. The average family involved in the programme has gone from putting out two and a half bags of rubbish a week to just one. Particularly significant progress has been made in working with the Tongan community and residents of Otara.

Local activities and achievements

Text Box:
Valley School WasteWise graduation, with Andy Baker (Franklin Local Board Chair) and Ian Stupple (manager, Solid Waste) WasteWise schools: This programme offers schools structured support over two years to reduce their waste through tools such as recycling, worm farms and composting. In the board area, five schools are currently enrolled in WasteWise. These are:

· Pukekohe Intermediate

· Puni Primary School

· Waiuku Primary School

· Pukekohe High School

· Maraetai Beach School (starting this year).

During the update period Valley School in Pukekohe graduated from the programme. Some key achievements of the school include:

· Reducing their waste by 63% through worm farms, recycling, and reducing their paper use

· Planting fruit trees

Council officers are now recruiting new schools to join the programme in 2014. If board members are aware of any schools in their area that might be interested, the schools can contact our officers on wastewise@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz to find out more about what this would involve.

Learning outreach to schools: This programme offers printed resources, workshops and practical support to interested schools to help them minimise waste. During the update period, two schools received our support:

· Paerata School conducted a waste audit with support from one of our facilitators

· Pukekohe East School used our waste minimisation at events gear at their school gala

Create Your Own Eden composting courses: This programme offers free three hour workshops which are open to all Aucklanders, they train participants in how to minimise organic waste through composting, bokashi and worm farms. Two workshops were held in the board area during the update period in Pukekohe in September with 15 participants. A further workshop will be held in Clevedon on 16 November and is open for enrolments online.

Waste Operations

The operations team is responsible for the management of the region’s kerbside domestic refuse, recycling and inorganic waste services, servicing and maintaining public litter bins and loose litter cleaning.

Regional activities and achievements

Customer service: One of the main ways that council has to measure customer satisfaction is to analyse how many requests we receive from customers relating to issues such as late collections, missed bins or loose litter. As shown in Figure One below, from August to September 2013 council received 6,963 Requests for Service (RFS) from the public relating to waste operations. This is lower than the same period in 2012 when 7,213 RFS were received. This shows that the various new waste contracts that were introduced around the region from July 2013 onwards are progressing well.

Figure One: Requests for service relating to waste issues received in 2012-13

Recycling education trials: From June to August, council conducted a 12 week trial in targeted areas of the North Shore and West Auckland to educate residents about how to recycle correctly. This trial was focused on areas which had been identified as having problems with contamination of recycling. It involved a visual inspection of residents’ recycling bins, with stickers being attached to bins where residents were recycling incorrectly and an educational letter left in their mail box.

In some cases, highly contaminated recycling bins were not collected for a fortnight (one collection cycle). Final results of the trial are still being analysed but initial results indicate that for the duration of the trial a reduction of up to 50% in the percentage of contamination found in recycling bins was achieved in the targeted areas.

Local activities and achievements

New collection contract: The new contract for kerbside rubbish collections which commenced in July for Franklin is progressing well, with all key performance indicators being met.

New streetscape contracts: The new contractor for streetscape services (litter bin emptying and loose litter collection) in the Franklin area is settling in well. Regular auditing of the contractor’s performance is carried out by council staff to ensure high standards are maintained.

Drop off inorganic collections: Locations for residents to drop off their inorganic waste will be provided in the upcoming months as follows:

· Awhitu Peninsula – early February

· Hunua – early March

· Patumahoe – mid April

More details will be sent to local board members once confirmed. The drop offs are user-pays with the residents paying $25 for a trailer load, and $10 of this charge going to the local community organisation who are helping on the day.

Waste Assets and Infrastructure

This team is responsible for providing the infrastructure to ensure that Auckland meets its obligations under the Waste Minimisation Act for the safe and efficient recovery, recycling or final end disposal of waste from residents and ratepayers. This infrastructure includes transfer stations, recycling facilities, litter, rubbish and recycling bins, and hazardous waste sites.

Regional Activities

Tonnages collected and disposed of by council: From August to September 2013 council collected 28,562 tonnes of waste and 18,420 tonnes of recycling from kerbsides around Auckland. In total, including the waste collections, inorganic collections and material received at our own transfer stations, council disposed of 42,180 tonnes of waste to landfill. These figures represent a slight decrease on the same period in 2012. This continues a general trend of waste volumes collected by council decreasing over time, possibly due to slower economic growth over the last few years.

Hazardous waste drop-off centres: Work continues on this project to open a network of sites around the region at which residents will be able to drop off their household hazardous waste for free. This will ensure these dangerous substances are removed from the environment in a controlled way. Two potential sites have been identified at Constellation Drive in the North Shore and Pikes Point in Onehunga. These are expected to open before the end of the year. Officers are also investigating potential sites in Pukekohe and Wiri. These will complement the existing hazardous waste drop off sites at Henderson, Silverdale, Waiheke and Great Barrier. More details about the locations, function and opening date of these new drop-off sites will be provided once confirmed.

Better management of our litter bins: Council is working to develop an Asset Management Database for our litter bins around the region. This will ensure that litter bins which are in poor condition or reaching the ends of their lives are replaced as required. The database will also combine all legacy bin records into one central system to ensure operational efficiencies.

Franklin Local Board

26 November 2013

Stormwater Local Board Update Report (Franklin)

Relevant to Local Board priority: Protecting and enhancing our natural environment

Auckland Council’s Stormwater Unit is largely responsible for two of the activities outlined in the 2010 amendment of the Local Government Act 2002: Stormwater drainage, and flood protection and control, and is required to comply with the Resource Management Act and other legal requirements. The purpose of these activities is to minimise flooding, protect people and property from the adverse effects of extreme storm events and protect the environment and public health by reducing stormwater contaminant and sediment runoff that discharge into natural waterways.

The Stormwater Unit operates and maintains an extensive stormwater network comprising 6,000 km of pipe, 10,000 km of streams, 140,000 manholes, and 370 ponds and wetlands. Stormwater activities are generally of a regional activity with both local and regional impacts. This report provides the local board with its quarterly update on delivery of the stormwater work programme including any key highlights and is structured to reflect the levels on which the regional stormwater programme is delivered:

- Regional (e.g. annual plan, asset management plan)

- Sub-regional (e.g. network consents)

- Local (e.g. catchment plans and programmes)

- Site specific (projects)

This report detail highlights on these stormwater programmes, including the Unitary Plan, technical guidelines, education initiatives, and network discharge consents.

Managing stormwater requires co-operation from a number of parties within and external to council (Figure 1)

Figure 1. Contributors to stormwater outcomes.

Regional

Strategic Documents

Council’s stormwater functions are guided by the draft Stormwater Unit Strategic Direction and the Stormwater Asset Management Plan 2012-2032. The Stormwater Asset Management Plan is updated every three years and its review is a key focus for the 2013/14 financial year. The Stormwater Asset Management Plan spans a 20-year period with focus on the ten year period covered in the council’s 10-year Long Term Plan (LTP). The Stormwater Asset Management Plan addresses all major asset based activities. A primary purpose of asset management planning is to ensure that present and future customer service requirements are met while managing assets in the most cost effective manner.

The draft Stormwater Unit Strategic Direction was completed in 2013. It is a non-statutory document aligned to the Auckland Plan that guides the operational matters of the council in relation to stormwater that informs and engenders support from internal and external parties involved in stormwater management. The document ultimately will be incorporated into the updated Stormwater Unit Asset Management Plan 2015-2035.

Figure 2 encapsulates the direction and way that council manages stormwater and shows the commitment to the Auckland Plan vision to become the world’s most liveable city.

Figure 2. Auckland Council Stormwater Objectives

Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP) was notified on Monday 30 September and is available on the Auckland Council website. The Stormwater Unit is working through how the provisions with immediate legal effect may impact the stormwater capital works consenting. The Unit is also working with the Special Housing Office, Resource Consents Department, and Unitary Plan teams to support implementation of stormwater management and flooding provisions in the PAUP.

Best Practice, Stormwater Education, and Technical Advice

The Council publishes stormwater and sediment best practice guidelines and construction practice notes, which are non-statutory documents. Best practice guidelines are reviewed and updated at regular intervals to remain current. A number of guidelines are under review and scheduled for update in the next three years as detailed below.

Table 1. Stormwater and sediment best practice guidelines

Guideline or standard	Anticipated completion date
Stormwater Code of Practice	Completed (2013)
GD01 (TP10) Design guideline manual for stormwater treatment devices (ARC 2003)	2014
GD02 (TP108) Guideline for stormwater runoff modelling in the Auckland region (ARC 1999)	2014
GD 03 Proprietary Device Evaluation Protocol for Stormwater Quality Treatment Devices.	GD03/2012 published
GD04 (TP124) Low impact design manual for the Auckland region (ARC 2000)	Nov 2013
GD05 (TP90) Erosion and sediment control guideline for land disturbing activities in the Auckland region (ARC 1999)	2014
Soakage design manual (ACC 2002)	TR2013/040 published
On-site stormwater management manual (ACC 2003)	TR2013/040 published
GD06 (TP58) On-site wastewater management (ARC 2004)	2015

Stormwater Education and Community Programmes

Council manages a range of educational and community programmes that support stormwater and environmental outcomes. The focus of this team over the next year will be implementing the Regional Stormwater Education Implementation Plan. This plan lays out a three year plan with a regional focus to meet network discharge consent requirements and activities including:

· Development and promotion of Water Sensitive Design demonstration sites,

· Updated content for the Environmental Training for Industry education courses.

· Delivery of new courses for the Environmental Training for Industry programme including Water Sensitive Design,

· Delivery of stormwater education events including the annual Sediment Field Day and Auckland Council Stormwater Seminar,

· Development of a pre-application advisory service to support update of Water Sensitive Design and stream restoration,

· Educational outreach (e.g. Great Drain Game, low impact design competition with the University of Auckland),

· A region wide attitudes, awareness and behaviors research survey,

· Development of an integrated communications plan for stormwater initiatives and programmes

· Development of a regional pollution prevention plan, and

· Development of proactive education programmes focused on minimising sedimentation from small construction sites.

Sub-Regional

Operations

Currently Stormwater operations contracts to manage stormwater assets in the road corridor are managed by Auckland Council Stormwater Unit in the south, central and west of Auckland.

The northern contract is currently still managed by Auckland Transport and will be handed over to Auckland Council in July 2014.

In the 2013/14 financial year, Stormwater Operations is focusing on:

· effectively operating and maintaining the stormwater network,

· responding to incidents and storm events,

· working collaboratively with the maintenance contractors to improve customer services and responses,

· the successful procurement of the new northern maintenance contract,

· driving health and safety for our staff and stakeholders and implementation of a safety improvement programme,

· securing knowledge of our critical assets and renewals,

· prioritise and carry out works with efficiency and sound financial management to ensure value for money, and

· undertaking minor stormwater pond rehabilitation and capital works renewals.

Network Discharge Consents

Network Discharge Consents based on Consolidated Receiving Environments (Figure 3) are currently being prepared for the Waitemata Harbour, Greater Tamaki, Hauraki Gulf Islands, and Manukau Harbour. The Waitemata Harbour Network Discharge Consent will be the first of its kind. Consultation on the Greater Tamaki Consolidated Receiving Environment has commenced and consultation on the Hauraki Gulf Island and Manukau Harbour Consolidated Receiving Environment are scheduled for later in this financial year.

CRE Catchments 2

Figure 3. Stormwater Consolidated Receiving Environments

Local

Catchment Planning

In the 2012/13 financial year, catchment planning provided significant input into the preparation of the Unitary Plan including mapping flood areas, Stormwater Management Areas – Flow (SMAF), and into the location of mixed and terraced housing zones.

The Catchment Planning Group was also involved in the Rural Urban Boundary investigations and undertaking cost estimates to service growth and inputting into the Housing Accord.

A focus for the Council in 2013/14 is to provide input into initiatives to enable growth delivery in priority areas including Housing Accord zones. Input consists of:

· preparing base information related to catchment planning to enable quick responses to development related initiatives, and

· taking part in strategic initiatives such as Rural Urban Boundary-investigations, area planning, submission process to the Unitary Plan and precinct plans.

Site specific

Stormwater Physical Works Programme 2013/14

The Council’s 2013/14 stormwater capital works programme consists of 159 physical works projects as reported by local board area in the previous local board quarterly report. An update on the status and progress of physical works projects within your local board area will be provided in the next update report.

Franklin Local Board

26 November 2013

Integrated Business Precinct Plan: Industrial South Auckland

File No.: CP2013/25697

Purpose

1. The purpose of the report is to ask the Local Board to support, in principle, the development of an integrated business precinct plan for the industrial south, incorporating the industrial precincts within the Franklin local board area. The Board is also requested to nominate a representative to sit on the political working group for the development of the precinct plan.

Executive Summary

2. The Business and Local Economic Development Planning Team are developing an Integrated Business Precinct Plan for the Industrial South.

3. This will investigate economic linkages between industrial areas, and determine key economic drivers, to provide a co-ordinated framework for Local Boards to develop projects and programmes to enhance the economic performance of the industrial precincts in their respective areas.

4. As part of the development of the precinct plan, a political working group has been established so that affected Local Boards are able to input into the development of the plan. This report asks the Local Board to support the development of the integrated plan and nominate a representative to the political working group.

Recommendation/s

a) That the Franklin Local Board supports, in principle, the development of the Integrated Business Precinct Plan for the Industrial South.

b) That the Franklin Local Board nominates Member X to sit on the political working group.

Discussion

5. Introduction

The Business and Local Economic Development Planning Team are working with the Mangere – Otahuhu, Maungakiekie-Tamaki, Otara – Papatoetoe, Manurewa, Papakura and Howick Local Boards, Auckland Transport, local iwi and representatives from business groups and businesses as well as other relevant Council services to develop an integrated Business Precinct Plan for the industrial precincts located in South Auckland.

Following the initial meeting of the political working group it was recommended that, in light of the potential increase in industrial / business land at Drury South that Franklin Local Board be asked to endorse the widening of the scope of the BPP to include the main industrial precincts within Franklin and that a representative from the Franklin Local Board attends the working group.

5.1 Project Outline

The Integrated Business Precinct Plan will, through consultation:

· Describe the strategic economic context for the industrial south area;

· Set out an analysis of current and future economic trends and linkages for the area as a whole and significant trends in each of the local board areas covered within the plan;

· Set a vision for the main industrial precincts in South Auckland. This vision will define the desired outcomes for the industrial precincts.

Once completed, the business precinct plan will provide a co-ordinated framework for Local Boards to develop projects and programmes to enhance the economic performance of the industrial precincts in their respective areas.

Key components of the plan include the development of a spatial concept map and a series of high-level actions that will address the issues and opportunities identified within the relevant precinct areas.

5.2 Study Area

The study area for the Business Precinct Plan will incorporate the following key industrial precincts: Wiri, Penrose, Mount Wellington, Auckland International Airport, Favona, Mahunga Drive, East Tamaki, Takanini, Pukekohe, and the potential development of industrial land at Drury South.

The industrial precincts within the project area are key strategic areas for the Auckland Region. In order to ensure they continue to contribute to ongoing economic growth and prosperity, the plan will consider how elements such as land use planning, transport, infrastructure, built form and amenity contribute to business and employment growth within the industrial south, and in turn, support the city’s wider economic goals.

A business precinct plan has already been developed for East Tamaki therefore; this existing work will be incorporated into the integrated plan. Howick Local Board will be represented on the Political Working Group and the East Tamaki Business Precinct Plan will inform the development of the Integrated Business Precinct Plan.

A large proportion of the study area falls within The Southern Initiative (TSI) boundary, in addition to this there are a number of significant transport projects planned including Auckland-Manukau Eastern Transport Initiative (AMETI), Multi-Modal East West Study (MMEWS), and the South-western Multi Modal Airport Rapid Transit (SMART).

The precinct plan will need to respond to these projects and provide a framework for the industrial precincts in the study area. This will enable the precincts to maximize the benefits and growth opportunities that will arise as a result of the identified projects and initiatives.

5.3 Political Working Group

To facilitate the development of the Integrated Plan a political working group has been established to ensure that Local Boards are able to input into the development of the plan. This report asks the Franklin Local Board to nominate a member to sit on the political working group.

The role of the Political Working Group is:

· To steer the strategic direction of the Integrated Business Precinct Plan.

· Ensure that the plan responds to the priorities for the Local Board Areas as defined in the Local Board Plans.

· Act as the representative for the relevant Local Board.

· To provide comments on the draft plan prior to consultation and prior to finalisation of the plan

· Approve the draft Integrated Business Precinct Plan prior to formally seeking approval from the Local Board and relevant Governing Body Committee.

Consideration

Local Board Views

6. The views of the Local Board are being sought after considering this report.

Maori Impact Statement

7. There are no particular impacts on Maori arising from the recommendations of this report. Future agenda items relating to the development of the Integrated Business Precinct Plan may have implications for Maori and the Auckland Plan identified Maori outcomes, which will be addressed in the respective reports

Implementation Issues

8. Any actions identified within the Business Precinct Plan will need to be funded by the Governing Body or the Local Boards through their Annual Plan, Local Board Agreements or Long Term Plan

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

John Norman - Strategic Planner Local Economic Development

Authorisers

Janet Schofield - Business Area Planning Manager

David Hawkey - Acting Manager Economic Development

Teresa Turner - Relationship Manager

Franklin Local Board

26 November 2013

Local board members' portfolio allocation 2013-2016

File No.: CP2013/25967

Purpose

1. To adopt portfolio allocations for Franklin local board members.

Executive Summary

2. Portfolios are established by local boards to oversee local board work programmes and consider issues relating to key council activities.

3. It is recommended that the local board allocates each portfolio area to two members, and nominates a lead and an alternate.

Recommendation/s

a) That the Franklin Local Board appoints the following members as lead and alternate for each portfolio area, as follows:

Local Board Portfolio	Portfolio holders
Local Board Portfolio	Lead	Alternate/s
Governance, civic duties & leadership, key relationships, planning and policy
Economic development and finance
Arts and culture, events, community development & safety, community facilities and libraries
Recreation Services and parks
Transport
Built and natural environment, and heritage
Town centres, urban design, and urban
Rural
Regulatory, bylaws and compliance

b) Appoints member X, and member Y as an alternate, to provide input into notification decisions for resource consent applications that trigger local board input

c) Appoints member x as the board’s representative as an urban design champion and member xx as the alternate representative.

Discussion

Portfolio

4. In the 2010-2013 electoral term, portfolio areas varied across the local boards. In that term, officers proposed that local boards consider portfolio areas which reflected the committee and forum structure adopted by the governing body and the key areas the board had a decision-making/input role. The interest and background of local board members also influenced the establishment of some portfolios.

5. Three years on, local boards have their local board plans with their own priorities; and the organisation has aligned itself to meet the needs of local boards. Rather than reflecting the governing body’s committee and forum structure as a framework for portfolios, it makes sense to align portfolios to the delegation protocols adopted last year, which guide the organisation in working with and supporting local boards.

6. A portfolio approach will assist board members in having a strategic overview of programmes and activities rather than feeling they are dealing with issues in an ad-hoc manner. It also provides for a consistent approach that is familiar to staff working to these delegations and will assist with the running of the portfolio (e.g. regular portfolio briefings/workshops with staff from one activity). The Franklin local board has workshopped the following areas for portfolios:

· Governance, civic duties & leadership, key relationships, planning and policy Arts, culture and events

· Economic development and finance

· Arts and culture, events, community development & safety, community facilities and libraries

· Recreation services and parks

· Transport planning and operations

· Built and natural environment, and heritage

· Town centres, urban environments and urban design

· Rural

· Regulatory and compliance

Attachment A outlines the proposed issues to be covered by each of these portfolio areas.

Notification decisions on resource consent applications

7. In the previous electoral term, the governing body considered the role of local boards in regulatory matters, and resolved, amongst other things, that local boards be given the opportunity, within statutory timeframes, to provide their views on whether or not certain applications should be notified.

8. The council’s Resource Consents department worked with local boards to establish a process for local board input: a portfolio holder or spokesperson provides comments within three working days on applications that the board requested and that trigger local board input. Those comments are then included in the planners' report on the application.

9. By enabling local boards to have input into notification decision, the local voice can be heard at an early stage in the resource consent process.

10. Local boards that wish to have input into notification decisions on applications that trigger local board input, should appoint a lead and alternate for this role. It is recommended that this is delegated to the Governance, civic duties and leadership, key relationships, planning and policy portfolio holder.

Portfolio holder role

11. A useful starting point for board members is to consider their role as portfolio holder as that of a “sounding board” on behalf of the board. Staff from departments across the organisation will need to regularly talk to board members for a number of reasons. This may be to provide a progress up-date to the board on projects and work programmes that have been agreed with the board, to test the level of interest a board has on a particular issue so the department can consider how best to progress matters, or to advise on any issues that may be arising from a project/activity. Portfolio holders are the key board member contacts for departmental staff and in that way assist staff to progress the work programme.

Board members are not required to give advice to staff on the operational details of projects or activities. The important consideration for members is that they are appointed to be the local board representative on a particular area – they represent the views of the board (not their own views) to give direction/steer to staff.

12. If there is no known board view on an issue, board members will need to canvass views of fellow board members and then form the view on what the board position is. If it is likely to be a contentious issue with competing views, it is best referred to a full workshop to allow board members to discuss the issue and formulate a position.

13. Portfolio holders should have a lead and an alternate to help share the workload.

Communication

14. Feedback from the previous term indicates that communication from portfolio holders back to other board members was an area that could be improved. Portfolio holders have a responsibility to provide a feedback loop to other board members – this includes updating on how issues are progressing (or not), putting issues on the radar for all members, bringing issues to the table if guidance is needed from other board members. Local board advisors can provide assistance and advice about how to progress these types of issues.

15. Communication needs to be regular (for example, monthly) and can be done in a range of ways – scheduled slots on workshop agendas can be an effective way to keep everyone informed about the key things that are happening in the portfolio.

16. The work on portfolio areas will often eventuate in formal reports to the whole board requesting a decision or providing an update – so it is important for portfolio holders to have provided regular and clear communication on the portfolio area so that all board members are briefed and there are no surprises.

Decision-making

17. Decision-making is carried out at formal board business meetings. However in some cases – generally quite limited – decision-making has been delegated to the portfolio holder – for example when it is a straight forward issue and a decision may be needed quickly such as landowner consents. Any delegation of decision-making to portfolio-holders would need to be made through a formal business meeting. If a portfolio-holder has delegated decision-making and is asked to consider a significant/complex decision it is advisable to refer to the wider group of board members.

Urban Design Champion

18. Auckland Council has set up local board champions to contribute to the drive toward creating the world’s most liveable city. Each of the 21 local boards is asked to appoint a member as the board’s urban design champion or advocate. The governing body will also appoint an urban design champion. It is recommended that the Franklin urban design champion is the Town Centres, Urban Environments and Urban Design portfolio holder.

Consideration

Local Board Views

19. The local board is the decision maker.

20. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Act 2013 provides for local boards to delegate to committees, sub-committees members of the local board or Auckland Council officers, any of its responsibilities, duties and power, with some specific exceptions.

Māori Impact Statement

21. There is no specific impact for Māori arising from this report.

Implementation Issues

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Franklin Local Board Portfolios	69

Signatories

Authors	Debra Langton - Senior Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	Teresa Turner - Relationship Manager

PORTFOLIO	RESPONSIBILITIES
GOVERNANCE, CIVIC DUTIES & LEADERSHIP, KEY RELATIONSHIPS, PLANNING & POLICY	· LEADERSHIP OF LOCAL BOARD · RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL BOARD AND KEY STAKEHOLDERS § GOVERNING BODY (WARD COUNCILLOR) § OTHER LOCAL BOARDS § COUNCIL CONTROLLED ORGANISATIONS § GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES § IWI § ETHNIC COMMUNITIES · CIVIC DUTIES · LOCAL BOARD PLAN · SPATIAL PLANNING · UNITARY PLANNING · RESOURCE CONSENTS · Pukekohe Area Plan
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, FINANCE	· LOCAL BOARD AGREEMENT · BUDGET AND FINANCE · ANNUAL PLAN · LONG TERM PLAN · LOCAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT · Annual Report
ARTS, CULTURE, EVENTS, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND LIBRARIES	· ARTS & CULTURAL SERVICES AND ENDEAVOURS · COUNCIL SUPPORTED OR MANAGED EVENTS · Community development § YOUTH § SENIORS § COMMUNITY FUNDING · Community Safety · Community Facilities · COMMUNITY LEASES · LIBRARY SERVICES LIAISON

PORTFOLIO	RESPONSIBILITIES
RECREATION SERVICES AND PARKS	· Local Parks § SPORTS PARKS § LOCAL PASSIVE RECREATION PARKS & PLAYGROUNDS § COUNCIL RESERVES § PARKS DESIGN, MAINTENANCE § RECREATIONAL WALKWAYS AND MULTI USE PATHWAYS § STANDARDS OF SERVICE MONITORING § Landowner Consent · RECREATION CENTRES · Regional Parks · COASTAL EROSION
TRANSPORT PLANNING & OPERATIONS	· LOCAL ROADING NETWORK · LOCAL INPUT INTO REGIONAL OR NATIONAL TRANSPORT INITIATIVES AND PROJECTS · ADVOCACY
BUILT AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, HERITAGE	· GENERAL HISTORICAL HERITAGE · ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES · BUILT HERITAGE · NATURAL ENVIRONMENT · WATERWAYS & HARBOURS
TOWN CENTRES, URBAN ENVIRONMENTS AND URBAN DESIGN	· URBAN DESIGN FORUMS · TOWN CENTRE UPGRADES · AREA PLANNING · URBAN ISSUES
RURAL	· RURAL ISSUES · RURAL PLANNING · RURAL STAKEHOLDERS
REGULATORY & COMPLIANCE	· BYLAWS · GENERAL COUNCIL POLICY · COMPLIANCE MONITORING · RISK AND PERFORMANCE

Franklin Local Board

26 November 2013

Southern Joint Funding Committee

File No.: CP2013/25969

Purpose

1. To seek the local board’s agreement on:

· the Terms of Reference for the Southern Joint Funding Committee

· the re-establishment of the Southern Joint Funding Committee, in case it is required again in the 2013/2014 year.

· the funding budget allocations made to southern local boards for contestable grants for community, heritage assistance and facility partnership funding by the Southern Joint Funding Committee in May 2013

Executive Summary

2. The Southern Joint Funding Committee was a joint committee established by the six southern local boards and has decision-making responsibility for the allocation of funding budgets for contestable grants from legacy community funding schemes for the 2013/2014 financial year.

3. In accordance with Clause 30(7) of the Local Government Act 2002, the committee has been automatically dissolved following the 2013 Local Government elections.

4. This report seeks the board’s approval to reinstate the Southern Joint Funding Committee in case it is required again in the 2013/2014 financial year, to approve the Terms of Reference for the Southern Joint Funding Committee, to appoint the Chair to the committee and to update the board on the funding budget allocations for contestable grants made to southern local boards for community, heritage assistance and facility partnership funding by the committee in May 2013.

5. The establishment of this committee has been an interim approach until a region-wide community funding policy is finalised. Financial analysis is currently underway to inform options and a supporting budget structure for the new funding policy. Local boards will be consulted on the draft policy in 2014.

Recommendation/s

That the Franklin Local Board:

a) That the Franklin Local Board agrees to re-instate the Southern Joint Funding Committee for 2013/2014 to operate as per its Terms of Reference.

b) That the Franklin Local Board supports the draft Terms of Reference for the Southern Joint Funding Committee presented in Attachment A.

c) That the Franklin Local Board appoints the local board Chair to the Southern Joint Funding Committee for 2013/2014 with appropriate delegated authority to bind the board on decisions relating to the legacy community funding schemes made by the committee, noting that funding budget allocations have already been made to southern local boards for the 2013/2014 financial year.

d) That the Franklin Local Board notes that a region-wide Community Funding Policy is being developed and will in time replace the current interim funding arrangements and that officers will engage with the board on this in the coming months.

Discussion

6. The Southern Joint Funding Committee was a joint committee established by the six southern local boards - Mangere-Otahuhu, Otara-Papatoetoe, Manurewa, Papakura, Howick and Franklin local boards. It has Terms of Reference (Attachment A) and decision-making responsibility to allocate funding budgets across the southern local boards for community, heritage assistance and facility partnership funding. These allocations were made in May 2013 for the 2013/2014 financial year and are described in paragraphs 19, 20 and 21 below.

7. At its March 2013 meeting, the Regional Development and Operations Committee resolved to continue the Community Assistance Programme for 2013/2014 within unchanged structural and budgetary parameters, while the region-wide Community Funding Policy is in development.

8. This means that, as per previous years, legacy community funding budgets are allocated to sub-regional joint funding committees of local boards.

9. Through its Terms of Reference, the Southern Joint Funding Committee agrees principles on behalf of the six southern local boards to support a common process for the administration of legacy contestable funding schemes and the local board discretionary community scheme and can make recommendations to boards on decisions around multi-board applications. The committee also has authority to make minor changes to the criteria of funding schemes, with a view to better responding to community needs. Therefore it is recommended that the Southern Joint Funding Committee be reinstated for the rest of the until the region-wide community funding policy is adopted, to meet on an as-required basis.

10. In accordance with Clause 30(7) of the Local Government Act 2002, the committee was automatically dissolved following the 2013 Local Government elections, so a resolution of each of the southern local boards is required to re-establish the committee.

11. Each of the legacy councils had a different approach to investing in their communities, and community grant funding is only one of several mechanisms for making this investment. In April 2013, the Regional Development and Operations Committee requested comprehensive financial analysis of all community development-related spending, including (but not limited to) the legacy community funding budgets that local boards currently administer through the interim programme (Resolution number RDO/2013/55). The Regional Development and Operations Committee required this work to be completed prior to development of the second iteration of a new Community Funding Policy.

12. The financial analysis is currently underway and will be reported to the relevant committee early in 2014. It is anticipated that the findings will provide a clearer picture of current budget distribution and show the variation in inherited community investment models in place around the region. This will provide a valuable basis for developing new policy options and outlining the appropriate budget structures to underpin them. Any change to budget distribution will be proposed as part of the Local Board Funding Policy (not the Community Funding Policy) for implementation as part of the Long Term Plan (from 2015).

13. Officers will be formally engaging with local boards around further development of the region-wide Community Funding Policy in the coming months.

Consideration

Local Board Views

14. The legacy funding schemes are a key way for local boards to support their communities.

Māori Impact Statement

15. The legacy community funding schemes are of general interest to communities and accessible to a wide range of groups, including Māori. No particular implications for the Māori community or Māori stakeholders have been identified as arising from this report.

General

16. The recommendations contained in this report fall within the local board’s delegated authority.

Implementation Issues

17. The Southern Joint Funding Committee received the following legacy Manukau, Papakura and Franklin community funding budgets:

· Social Investment

· School Holiday Programme

· Community Crime Prevention

· Immediate Response Crime Safety

· Marae Assistance

· Rates Assistance to Community Groups Owning Land in Manukau

· School Swimming Pool

· Papakura Local Community

· Franklin Partnership Loans Scheme (no longer available)

· Heritage Assistance

· Community Facilities Partnership Scheme.

18. The Southern Joint Funding Committee met in May 2013 to allocate funding budgets for the 2013/14 financial year.

19. Community funding allocations were resolved in SJFC/2013/3 as follows:

*Fund*	*Franklin*	*Howick*	*Mangere-Otahuhu*	*Manurewa*	*Otara-Papatoetoe*	*Papakura*
*Local Board Discretionary Community Grants*	*$29,618*	*$59,012*	*$35,028*	*$40,168*	*$37,102*	*$20,827*
Social Investment - Single Board	$10,979	$16,103	$11,711	$14,639	$12,443	$7,320
Social Investment - Multiple Boards	$21,493	$46,567	$28,657	$39,403	$34,030	$8,955
School Holiday Programme	$4,536	$15,624	$8,064	$11,592	$8,568	$2,016
School Swimming Pool	$0	$7,695	$3,078	$3,078	$3,270	$2,116
Rates Assistance	$0	$25,761	$8,244	$8,759	$8,759	$0
Community Crime Prevention	$6,733	$31,741	$15,390	$21,161	$16,352	$4,809
Immediate Response Crime/Safety	$3,276	$9,829	$5,242	$6,880	$5,570	$1,966
Marae Assistance	$15,957	$8,704	$37,716	$31,914	$33,364	$17,407
Papakura Local Community Grants	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0	$41,245
2013/2014 Budgets	$92,592	$221,036	$153,130	$177,594	$159,458	$106,661

20. Heritage assistance funding allocations were resolved in SJFC/2013/4 as follows:

Franklin

Howick

Mangere-Otahuhu

Manurewa

Otara-Papatoetoe

Papakura

Manukau Heritage Item Assistance Total Fund: $83,500

$29,618

$59,012

$35,028

$40,168

$37,102

$20,827

21. Facility partnership fund allocations were resolved in SJFC/2013/5 as follows:

Franklin

Howick

Mangere-Otahuhu

Manurewa

Otara-Papatoetoe

Facility Partnership Fund

$105,524

$486,729

$247,321

$278,319

$201,155

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Draft terms of reference	79

Signatories

Authors	Carole Canler - Advisor
Authorisers	Teresa Turner - Relationship Manager

Franklin Local Board

26 November 2013

Establishment of Swimming Pool Fencing Exemption Committee

File No.: CP2013/25971

Purpose

1. To establish the Franklin Local Board Swimming Pool Fencing Exemptions Committee to assess and consider applications in relation to the Special Exemption under S6 of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987, and to appoint a maximum of four local board members to the committee.

Executive Summary

2. Under S6 of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987, territorial authorities may grant exemptions from the requirements in the Act for particular pools if satisfied that it “would not significantly increase danger to young children”.

3. The decision-making responsibility for swimming pool fence exemptions has been delegated to local boards. To administer this delegation in the 2010 – 2013 political term, local boards formed committees or subcommittees to assess and consider swimming pool fencing exemption applications.

4. In accordance with Clause 30(7) of the Local Government Act 2002, all committees have been automatically dissolved following the 2013 Local Government elections.

5. Officers recommend that the local board:

· Establishes a committee to assess and consider applications in relation to the Special Exemption under S6 of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987

· Appoints a maximum of four local board members to the Franklin Local Board Swimming Pool Fencing Exemptions Committee.

Recommendation/s

a) That the Franklin Local Board establishes the Franklin Local Board Swimming Pool Fencing Exemptions Committee to assess and consider swimming pool fencing exemption applications.

b) That the Franklin Local Board appoints the following four members to the Franklin Local Board Swimming Pool Fencing Exemptions Committee: member X, member Y, member Z and member ZZ.

Discussion

6. The purpose of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 (the Act) is to promote the safety of young children by requiring the fencing of certain swimming pools. The Act places an obligation on territorial authorities to ensure that pool owners comply with the Act, both at the time when the pool is built, and subsequently by occasional inspections of pools to ensure ongoing compliance.

7. Under S6 of the Act, territorial authorities may grant exemptions from the requirements in the Act for particular pools. Territorial authorities can also impose special conditions on a property and a pool. A territorial authority can only grant an exemption, or impose a special condition, if, after having regard to the characteristics of the pool and the property, it is satisfied that it “would not significantly increase danger to young children”. No exemption is required for a new pool fence, or an alteration to an existing fence, if the new or altered fence is at least as safe as one built in accordance with the standard in the schedule of the Act.

8. The governing body has delegated decision-making responsibility for swimming pool fences exemptions to local boards (resolution GB/2011/163). This decision is documented in the following report: “Auckland Council Long Term Plan 2012-20122. Volume three: Financial information, policies and fees. Chapter one: Allocation of decision-making responsibility for non-regulatory activities. Part one: Source of decision-making responsibilities”.

9. To administer this delegation, the previous local boards considered two options, as detailed in the table below.

Option one: Creation of swimming pool fencing exemption subcommittee
(recommended option)

Description

A subcommittee is created to assess and consider swimming pool fencing exemption applications

Benefits

· enables decision-making to be undertaken in a timely manner as and when applications are received

· the application and hearing can be the appropriate consideration away from a congested business meeting agenda

· provides flexibility to organise a meeting as some applications will require a site visit

Costs / risks

· additional workload for local board members

· not all local board members will sit on the subcommittee

· can be difficult to organise a meeting time with members on an ad-hoc basis

Option two: Application considered at local board business meeting

Description

Local board assess and consider swimming pool fencing exemption applications at their business meetings

Benefits

· consistent and streamlined approach that is considered at the next local board business meeting

· no additional workload for local board members

Costs / risks

· item may not be given due consideration amongst congested local board business meeting

· site visits

10. After consideration, the previous local boards opted for option one and established committees to assess and consider swimming pool fencing exemption applications. Under this option, the committee is called together when a suitable number of applications are to be heard. A particular time is set aside to hear the applications, giving each applicant sufficient time to present their case. Some applications for exemption require a site visit; the committee meeting may be adjourned for that purpose, and reconvened following the site visit.

11. In accordance with Clause 30(7) of the Local Government Act 2002, all committees have been automatically dissolved following the 2013 Local Government elections.

12. Officers recommend that in the 2013 – 2016 political, local boards re-establish committees to assess and consider applications in relation to the Special Exemption under S6 of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987.

13. It is also recommended that the boards each appoint a maximum of four local board members to their local board swimming pool fencing exemptions committees.

Consideration

Local Board Views

14. The recommendations within this report fall within the local board’s delegated authority.

Māori Impact Statement

15. This report does not specifically impact on Māori population or iwi.

General

16. The local board’s decision on this matter does not trigger the Auckland Council Significance Policy.

Implementation Issues

17. Costs associated with the formation of the Local Board Swimming Pool Fencing Exemptions Committee will be met within internal operating budgets.

18. The decision of a local board following an exemption hearing is open to challenge by a judicial review process. Members appointed to the Local Board Swimming Pool Fencing Exemptions Committee will be briefed by Legal Services and Building Control officers regarding the requirements of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987, the Building Act and the appropriate considerations to take into account when determining an application by a hearings process.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors	Carole Canler - Advisor
Authorisers	Teresa Turner - Relationship Manager

Franklin Local Board

26 November 2013

School Swimming Pool Fund Applications for 2013/2014

File No.: CP2013/25448

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to consider applications for funding from primary schools in Franklin to the school swimming pool fund for 2013/14.

Executive Summary

2. In April 2013, Franklin Local Board approved criteria for assessing applications received for School Swimming Pool Grants.

3. In 2013/2014, Franklin Local Board allocated $15,759 to this fund. There is $8,124 remaining in the fund as $7,635 was granted to three Franklin schools in September 2013.

4. Five schools have applied for total funding of $18,170.

Recommendation/s

a) That the Franklin Local Board approve, decline or partially fund the following applications for funding for school swimming pools from the School Pool Capital Grants budget and/or the discretionary operational budget:

School	Total requested	Details	Decision
Waiau Pa	$4,850	To repair top edge of swimming pool.
Ararimu	$5,000	Contribution towards: New pool cover $3,181 Shade sails $820 Operational costs $4058
Mauku	$1,500	Chemicals, repairs and utility costs
Glenbrook	$3,170	Operational costs (chemicals, repairs, utilities, water testing, mowing, painting)
Clevedon	$3,650	Purchase chemical dosing system
TOTAL	$18,170

Discussion

5. School Pool Capital Grants originated in 2009 when Franklin District Council entered into a three year funding agreement with three rural schools located outside a 20km catchment area of public swimming pools located in Tuakau, Pukekohe and Waiuku. The three schools received a $10,000 grant in the first year followed by a $5,000 grant in the second and third years.

6. Following the amalgamation of councils on 1 November 2010, only one of the original schools (Awhitu District School) is within the Auckland Council boundary. Awhitu District School continued to receive an annual grant until June 2012 when the three-year agreement ended.

7. In 2012/2013, Franklin Local Board provided grants to Awhitu District School ($6,249.18), Waiau Pa School ($4,447.20) and Clevedon School ($4,798.62).

8. On 23 April 2013, Franklin Local Board resolved that:

a)“from 2013/2014, the Franklin Local Board School Pool Capital Grants fund be contestable and that the Franklin Local Board notifies the availability of School Pool Capital Grants to schools that open their swimming pool to the wider Franklin community.

That for 2013/2014, the following criteria and process for school pool capital grants be used to assess applications:

i) Access of the pool to the wider community and school community.

ii) Steps the school has taken to increase usage of the pool by the wider community.

iii) There is an existing user agreement with at least one community user group/organisation (e.g., a learn-to-swim provider).

iv) The school agrees to ensure there is a certified person to undertake water testing (i.e., has attained the NZQA unit standards in swimming pool water quality).

v) Distance from a public swimming pool.

vi) Evidence of pool usage for the previous summer, including number of keys sold”.

9. In September 2013, Franklin Local Board granted $7,635 from the fund to three schools that applied to the School Swimming Pool Fund, which has no allocated budget for the Franklin Local Board area in 2013/2014. The schools are Beachlands School, Maraetai School and Clevedon School. The local board resolved that: FR/2013/210

“Franklin Local Board approves the applications to the 2013/2014 Round One Community Group Fund from the School Pool Capital Grants Fund (now operational expenditure) as per the following table:

Fund Type	Organisation Name	Description of Project	Amount Requested from this Board	Approve/ Decline/ Amount
School Pool Capital Grants Fund	Beachlands School Board of Trustees	costs to open the school pool outside school hours from 19 December 2013 to 6 February 2014.	$2,650	Approve $2,650
School Pool Capital Grants Fund	Clevedon School Board of Trustees	costs to open the school pool outside school hours from 1 December to 30 April 2014.	$3,985	Approve $3,985
School Pool Capital Grants Fund	Maraetai Beach School	costs to open the school pool outside school hours from 15 December 2013 to 30 April 2014	$1,000	Approve $1,000”

10. Nine schools in Franklin Local Board area open their school pool to the wider community and the school community. In September 2013, the following schools were notified that they were eligible for a grant: Awhitu District School, Waiau Pa School, Ararimu School, Hunua School, Mauku School, Glenbrook School, Beachlands School, Clevedon School and Maraetai Beach School.

11. Applications were received from five schools, as follows: Waiau Pa School, Ararimu School, Mauku School, Glenbrook School and Clevedon School. A summary of applicant information is presented in Attachment 1.

12. The total operational budget line in the 2013/14 local board budget has $15,759 allocated. $8,124 remains unallocated. If the local board wishes to fund all applications, it could fund these through its discretionary operational budget.

Consideration

Local Board Views

13. Franklin Local Board is the decision maker.

Maori Impact Statement

14. No particular implications for the Maori community or Maori stakeholders have been identified as arising from this report.

Implementation Issues

15. There are no implementation issues.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Assessment against Criteria for Franklin School Pool Capital Grants 2013/2014	103

Signatories

Authors

Rose Ward - Parks and Recreation Advisor

Authorisers

Ian Maxwell - Manager Parks, Sports & Recreation

Teresa Turner - Relationship Manager

Chairperson	Andrew Baker
Deputy Chairperson	Jill Naysmith
Members	Malcolm Bell
	Alan Cole
	Brendon Crompton
	Angela Fulljames
	Sarah Higgins
	Murray Kay
	Dr Lyn Murphy

Authors	Gaylene Harvey - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Teresa Turner - Relationship Manager

Authors	Carole Canler – Advisor
Authorisers	Teresa Turner – Relationship Manager