Agenda of Orakei Local Board - 28 November 2013

Orakei Local Board

28 November 2013

1 Welcome

2 Apologies

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

3 Declaration of Interest

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

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Orakei Local Board:

a) confirm the extraordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Monday, 4 November 2013, as a true and correct record.

5 Leave of Absence

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

6 Acknowledgements

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

7 Petitions

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

8 Deputations

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

9 Public Forum

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

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

10 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 Notices of Motion

11.1 Notice of Motion - Auckland Transport

In accordance with Standing Order 3.11.1, the following Notice of Motion has been received from Member Churton for inclusion on the agenda for the Orakei Local Board meeting being held on day, Thursday, 28 November 2013:

Recommendation/s

That the Orakei Local Board:

a) Requests Auckland Transport to implement T2 where there is currently T3 along Remuera Road.

Background

Auckland Transport did not report back to the Board regarding the 'trial' of the Remuera Rd T3 before the end of last term as it had promised to do so.

I filed the original Notice of Motion near the beginning of last term seeking installation of T2 after it became apparent Auckland Transport was not supporting T2 or T-anything at that stage, and as a consequence the Local Board Chair met with Auckland Transport to help that CCO support the majority view of the Board in support of T2.

Author

Troy Churton, Orakei Local Board Member

11.2 Notice of Motion - Tree Protection Issues and Pre-1944 building demolition issues

Recommendation/s

That the Orakei Local Board:

a) In relation to general tree felling controls across all zones requests resource consent management to provide succinct data:

i. On the number of tree felling consent applications received in the last 3 years for the Orakei Local Board area, and;

ii. to distinguish also the number of broader consent applications that may (or may not) have tree felling integrated into those broader applications; and

iii. to provide an estimate of the number of tree applications therefore rendered no longer necessary by virtue of the loss of tree protection controls in residential zones.

b) Requests the planners to advise: why assessments of the suitability of trees nominated by members of the public for scheduling, whether the trees are on private or public land, are then not carried out by Council; and - how the nomination and scheduling of trees can be made easier for the public.

c) Requests planners to report on why the Coastal Yard and Scenic Way protections that apply under the District plan have been retained for the North Shore areas under the proposed unitary Plan but removed for other margins of the Waitemata such as Tamaki Drive.

d) Requests that any resource consent application received pending the proposed Unitary plan becoming operative relating to any new building or tree removal within the coastal yard margin in the Orakei Local Board area be submitted to the Board for comment, and that the application be processed weighting the objectives of the coastal yard and scenic way provisions of the District Plan.

e) Requires confirmation that all resource consent applications involving the demolition of any pre 1944 building within the Orakei Local Board area be directed to the Board's planning and regulatory portfolio lead for input on the decision whether the application is to be notified or not.

Background

1. The Board has fielded numerous enquiries and complaints regarding tree nuisance, tree removal, pre 1944 building demolition and loss of character particularly in Remuera and St Heliers areas. Numerous property owners sought Certificates of compliance to demolish property before the proposed Unitary Plan was notified in order to avoid resource consent requirements for new pre 1944 demolition controls proposed in the Unitary Plan.

2. Various meetings with Council staff have raised strong anecdotal opinion that the ecology and the character of many areas in our ward, and across the city, are not well served or likely to endure any sustainable management from the loss of general tree protection controls.

3. The Tamaki Drive protection Society has also obviated that the proposed Unitary Plan risks further tree removal and loss of coastal character along coastal margins in the Waitemata Harbour in Orakei but not on the North Shore

Author

Troy Churton, Orakei Local Board Member

Attachments

a Proposed Unitary Plan information........................................................ 65

Adoption of meeting schedule

File No.: CP2013/26257

Purpose

1. To seek the adoption of the meeting schedule for the 2013/16 term.

Executive Summary

2. A draft local board meeting schedule has been developed for the 2013/2016 electoral term; it is attached to this report. It is recommended that the local board adopts this schedule.

3. The specific times and dates for the hearings process, part of the special consultative process outlined in the Local Government Act 2002, for local board agreements and local board plans are yet to be finalised. Local board meeting schedules may therefore be updated and provision made for these hearings, once the details are confirmed.

Recommendation/s

That the Orakei Local Board:

a) Adopts its meeting schedule for the 2013/2016 electoral term:

DATE	TIME	VENUE
2013
12December 2013	3.30-8.00pm	St Chads Church & Community Centre
2014
13 February 2014	3.30-8.00pm	St Chads Church & Community Centre
6 March 2014	3.30-8.00pm	St Chads Church & Community Centre
3 April 2014	3.30-8.00pm	St Chads Church & Community Centre
1 May 2014	3.30-8.00pm	St Chads Church & Community Centre
5 June 2014	3.30-8.00pm	St Chads Church & Community Centre
3 July 2014	3.30-8.00pm	St Chads Church & Community Centre
7 August 2014	3.30-8.00pm	St Chads Church & Community Centre
4 September 2014	3.30-8.00pm	St Chads Church & Community Centre
2 October 2014	3.30-8.00pm	St Chads Church & Community Centre
6 November 2014	3.30-8.00pm	St Chads Church & Community Centre
4 December 2014	3.30-8.00pm	St Chads Church & Community Centre
2015
5 February 2015	3.30-8.00pm	TBC
5 March 2015	3.30-8.00pm	TBC
2 April 2015	3.30-8.00pm	TBC
7 May 2015	3.30-8.00pm	TBC
4 June 2015	3.30-8.00pm	TBC
2 July 2015	3.30-8.00pm	TBC
6 August 2015	3.30-8.00pm	TBC
3 September 2015	3.30-8.00pm	TBC
1 October 2015	3.30-8.00pm	TBC
5 November 2015	3.30-8.00pm	TBC
3 December 2015	3.30-8.00pm	TBC
2016
4 February 2016	3.30-8.00pm	TBC
3 March 2016	3.30-8.00pm	TBC
7 April 2016	3.30-8.00pm	TBC
5 May 2016	3.30-8.00pm	TBC
2 June 2016	3.30-8.00pm	TBC
7 July 2016	3.30-8.00pm	TBC
4 August 2016	3.30-8.00pm	TBC
1 September 2016	3.30-8.00pm	TBC

b) Notes that dates and times for hearings and deliberations for local board agreements and local board plans are yet to be finalised.

Discussion

4. Clause (5)(d), Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 requires a local board to adopt a schedule of business meetings at its first meeting in the electoral term.

5. Adopting a meeting schedule allows for a planned approach to workloads and ensures local board members have clarity about their commitments. It also gives an indication to the public of when meetings are to be held and meets the requirement of clause 19, Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002.

6. Each local board develops a Local Board Agreement annually and a Local Board Plan every three years. Both documents are subject to public consultation, with Local Board Plans being subject to a special consultative procedure process. The local board will hold hearings to give submitters the opportunity to express their views verbally.

7. The specific times and dates for the hearings process for the local board plan and agreements are yet to be finalised. Local board meeting schedules may therefore need to be updated and provision made for hearings, once details are confirmed.

8. In addition to local board meetings, local boards will hold workshops that are closed to the public. The proceedings of every workshop are recorded and considered at the next business meeting of the local board in accordance with current local board standing order provisions.

Consideration

Local Board Views

9. This decision falls under the local board’s delegated authority.

Māori Impact Statement

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

General

11. Clauses 19(4), 19(5) and 19(6), Schedule 7, of the Local Government Act 2002 states that:

“(4) A local authority must hold meetings at the times and places that it appoints.

(5) Unless clause 22 (extraordinary meeting) applies, the chief executive must give notice in writing to each member of the time and place of a meeting -

(a) not less than 14 days before the meeting; or

(b) if the local authority has adopted a schedule of meetings, not less than 14 days before the first meeting on the schedule.”

(6) If a local authority adopts a schedule of meetings, -

(a) the schedule –

(i) may cover any future period that the local authority considers appropriate; and

(ii) may be amended; and

(b) notification of the schedule or of any amendment to that schedule constitutes a notification of every meeting on the schedule or amendment.”

12. Similarly, the statutory requirement pursuant to clauses 46, 46(A) and 47 of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 mentions that:

· meetings of a local authority are publicly notified

· agendas and reports are available at least two working days before a meeting

· local board meetings are open to the public.

Implementation Issues

13. Meetings of the local boards are supported by Auckland Council’s Local Board Services Department.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Orakei Local Board Meeting Dates 2013-2016	11

Signatories

Author	Laura Bedwell - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Orakei Local Board

28 November 2013

Local Board Members portfolio allocation and urban design champion

File No.: CP2013/26261

Purpose

1. To adopt a portfolio allocation for 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

That the Orakei Local Board:

a) Appoints the following portfolio holders for the 2013/2016 triennium:

Local Board Portfolio	Portfolio holders
Local Board Portfolio	Lead	Alternate
Arts and Culture and Events	Member Cooke	Chair Simpson
· Local arts and culture facilities	· Member Cooke and Chair Simpson
· Local arts and culture initiatives	· Member Cooke and Chair Simpson
· Local events	· Member Cooke and Member Parkinson
Community Development	Chair Simpson	Member Cooke
· Local community development initiatives	· Member Cooke and Chair Simpson
· Local community facilities	· Member Cooke and Chair Simpson
· Local community safety programmes	· Member Cooke and Chair Simpson
Libraries	Member Churton and Member Davis (Joint)
· Local library facilities	· Member Churton and Davis
· Local library services	· Member Churton and Davis
· Facilities St Heliers	· Member Davis and Chair Simpson
· Facilities Remuera	· Member Churton and Member Thomas
· Services St Heliers	· Member Davis and Member Cooke
· Services Remuera	· Member Churton and Member Thomas
Parks, Recreation and Sport	Member Parkinson	Member Churton
· Local parks (excluding sports parks)	· Member Parkinson and Member Davis and suburban representative as appropriate
· Local parks (sports parks)	· Member Parkinson, Member Churton and Member Baguley
Environment and Heritage	Member Davis	Member Cooke, Member Baguley and Member Churton
· Local environment protection (including biodiversity and ecological restoration) and local heritage protection	· Member Davis, Member Parkinson, Chair Simpson and Member Thomas
Economic Development and Urban Design	Member Thomas	Member Cooke
· Local business area planning (including economic development strategy implementation)	· Member Thomas and suburban business representative as appropriate
· Local street environment and town centres (including urban design)	· Member Thomas, Member Baguley, Member Cooke and business representative as appropriate
· Visitor Strategy	· Member Thomas
Transport	Member Baguley	Member Davis
· Regional transport	· Member Baguley and Member Davis
· Local transport	· Member Baguley and rest of Board as appropriate
Infrastructure (Non Transport)	Member Davis	Member Parkinson
· Stormwater and wastewater	· Member Davis, Member Parkinson and rest of Board as appropriate
Strategy, Finance, Rates and Governance	Chair Simpson	Member Thomas
· Local Board Plans and Agreements, policy and governance	· Chair Simpson and the Deputy Chair
Regulatory, Bylaws and Compliance (excluding Unitary Plan)	Member Churton	Member Davis
· Regulatory, bylaws and compliance (excluding liquor licencing)	· Member Churton and Member Davis
· Liquor licensing	· Member Davis, Member Parkinson and Member Thomas
Unitary Plan (Area Plans)	Chair Simpson	Member Thomas and Member Churton
Civil defence and emergency management	Chair Simpson	Member Davis and Member Cooke
Walkways	Chair Simpson	N/A
· Walkway Planning	· Chair Simpson, Member Baguley and suburban representative as appropriate

b) Appoints Member Churton, and Member Davis as an alternate, to provide input into notification decisions for resource consent applications that trigger local board input.

c) Approves the following master plans and projects as whole of board:

Masterplans and Projects

Lead

Crossfield, Glover and Madills Master Plan

· Implementation group

Member Parkinson

· Whole of Board

Hobson Bay Action Plan

· Implementation group

Member Thomas

· Whole of Board

Tamaki Drive Master Plan

· Implementation group

Chair Simpson

· Whole of Board

The Landing

· Implementation group

Member Cooke

· Whole of Board

d) Approves the following Local Board Working Parties:

Local Board Working Parties
Ngahue Reserve Working Party	· Member Churton · Member Davis · Member Parkinson
Liston Park Working Party	· Member Churton · Member Davis · Member Parkinson
Ellerslie Racecourse Working Party (Inner Fields)	· Member Churton · Member Davis · Member Parkinson

e) Appoints Member (tbc) as the board’s representative as an urban design champion and Member (tbc) as the alternate representative.

Discussion

Portfolio

4. In the previous 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 proposed areas for portfolios are:

· Local planning, policy and governance

· Arts, culture and events

· Community services

· Libraries

· Recreation services

· Parks

· Built and natural environment

· Economic development

· Street environment and town centres

7. Additional portfolios outside of the delegation protocols may be required such as transport, or regulatory, bylaws and compliance.

8. The following portfolio areas have been discussed for the Orakei Local Board:

· Arts and Culture and Events

· Community Development

· Libraries

· Parks, Recreation and Sport

· Environment and Heritage

· Economic Development and Urban Design

· Transport

· Infrastructure (Non Transport)

· Strategy, Finance, Rates and Governance

· Regulatory, Bylaws and Compliance (excluding Unitary Plan)

· Unitary Plan (Area Plans)

· Civil defence and emergency management

· Walkways

9. A number of projects are of interest to the full board and have a lead team of board members. All board members are invited to meetings and workshops, and the lead team reports back regularly on progress and request feedback when necessary. These projects are:

Master Plans and Action Plans:

· Crossfield, Glover and Madills Master Plan

· Hobson Bay Action Plan

· Tamaki Drive Master Plan

· The Landing

Working Parties:

· Ngahue Reserve Working Party

· Liston Park Working Party

· Ellerslie Racecourse Working Party (Inner Fields)

Notification decisions on resource consent applications

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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. These appointees could be the regulatory, bylaws and compliance portfolio holder, if any.

Portfolio holder role

14. 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.

15. 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.

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

Communication

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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

20. 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

21. Auckland Council has set up local board champions to contribute to the drive toward creating the world’s most livable 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.

Consideration

Local Board Views

22. This report asks for the local board view.

23. 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

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

Implementation Issues

25. The network of design champions is supported by the built environment unit of the Chief Planning Office department, led by Tim Watts, manager built environment. The network is expected to be active for the second term of council from February 2014.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author	Laura Bedwell - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Orakei Local Board

28 November 2013

Appointment of Board Members to Outside Organisations and Community Networks

File No.: CP2013/26259

Purpose

1. To appoint board members to be representative to outside organisations and community networks within the local board area, including local Mainstreet or Business Improvement District (BID) executive committees, and Local Government New Zealand.

Executive Summary

2. Elected members participate on management, governance or networking groups in outside organisations for a number of reasons. This report provides details of the organisations and outlines and networks relevant to the local board. It included the appointment delegated to the local boards by the governing body (Resolution GB/2013/126).

3. The beginning of the new electoral term generates the need for new appointment. It is recommended that the board appoint one representative, and one alternate representative for each organisation and community network listed in the recommendations.

Recommendation/s

That the Orakei Local Board:

a) Allocates board members to outside organisations and community networks, as listed below:

Organisation	Lead/s	Alternate
*Advisory Groups*
Orakei Basin Advisory Group	Chair Simpson and Member Parkinson as Parks Portfolio Holder
*Residents Associations*
Ellerslie Residents Association	Chair Simpson	Member Baguley
Meadowbank-St Johns Residents Association	Member Churton and Member Cooke	Chair Simpson
Mission Bay-Kohimarama Residents Association	Member Parkinson	Member Baguley
St Heliers/Glendowie Residents Association	Chair Simpson	Member Davis
Remuera Residents Association	Member Thomas	Chair Simpson and Member Churton
Stonefields Residents Association	Member Davis	Chair Simpson
*Business Areas*
Mission Bay Business Association	Member Baguley	Member Parkinson
Ellerslie Business Improvement District	Member Cooke	Chair Simpson
Remuera Business Improvement District	Member Thomas	Chair Simpson
St Heliers Bay Village Association	Member Davis	Chair Simpson
Lunn Avenue / Stonefields business area	Member Parkinson	Member Davis
Orakei and Eastridge	Member Cooke	Member Thomas
*Reserves Boards*
Ngati Whatua Orakei Reserves Board	Member Parkinson	Member Davis
*Steering Groups*
Tamaki Estuary Environmental Forum	Member Parkinson	Member Davis
*Trusts*
East City Community Trust	Chair Simpson	Member Thomas
Remuera Arts Trust	Member Thomas	Member Cooke
Community Centres
Orakei Community Centre	Member Cooke	Chair Simpson
Meadowbank Community Centre	Member Churton	Member Cooke
St Heliers and Glendowie Community Centres	Member Davis	Chair Simpson
Ellerslie War Memorial and Leicester Hall	Chair Simpson	Member Cooke
Other
Friends of Madills	Member Parkinson	Member Churton
Friends of Churchill Park	Member Davis	Chair Simpson
Friends of Kepa Bush	Member Cooke	Member Parkinson
Friends of Waiatarua	Member Parkinson	Member Simpson
Friends of St Johns Bush	Member Churton	Member Cooke
Friends of Tahuna Torea	Member Davis	Member Parkinson
Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) Zone 1	Chair Simpson	Member Davis

Discussion

4. A number of external organisations provide for the formal participation of elected members in their affairs. Elected member appointees will have a variety of duties and liabilities depending on the individual organisation. Board members may provide updates of their activities with their allocated organisations at local board meetings.

5. The reasons for participation in external organisations can be described in a number of ways:

· a trust deed of an organisation providing for the council to appoint a trustee

· an organisation of interest to the council simply inviting representation at its meetings

· associations entered into by the council which provide for representation - such as Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ)

· organisation governance, or project or programme oversight, such as regional or local parks management groups

· a statutory or regulatory provision (for example a regulation providing for a community liaison committee)

· a resource consent requiring the formation of a representative committee

6. At the commencement of each triennium, committees and local boards recommend appointments to outside organisations as appropriate and the governing body reviews and either makes the appointments it sees fit and delegates the remaining appointments to local boards. At the end of each triennium, appointments to outside organisations must be reviewed by the appropriate officers as to current relevance, and a recommendation made to the appointing body as to whether or not representation should be continued.

7. It is recommended that the board appoint one representative, and one alternate representative for each organisation and community network listed in the recommendations.

8. In making decisions about these appointments, it is suggested that local boards are mindful of:

· Historical relationships

· Relevance and interest

· Time commitment.

9. In addition, the governing body has delegated appointment to the local boards (Resolution GB/2013/126).

Local Government New Zealand

10. Membership of Local Government New Zealand Zone One (i.e. Auckland and Northland) Committee includes a representative from each of the 21 local boards.

11. Each local board needs to consider selecting their representative, as well as an alternate. Meetings take place four times a year and the venue for meetings is shared across the entire Zone One area.

12. Further information on LGNZ is available in Attachment B.

BID Partnership Programmes

13. There are 46 BID Partnership Programmes operating within the Auckland region; many other business areas have also expressed an interest in involvement with the BID Partnership Programme. The programme provides a focal point for local business clusters to assist and help themselves in creating local employment opportunities. It provides a means for local innovation and economic growth. Details of the programme and the role of the local boards are provided in Attachment A.

14. There are three local Business Improvement District in the Orakei area, they are:

· Ellerslie

· Remuera

· St Heliers

15. The local board has a day-to-day relationship with the business associations as a joint partner in the BID Partnership Programme. The local board will work with the business associations to align the direction for the BID programme and local priorities expressed the Local Board Plan. The local board will receive regular reporting on the BID Partnership Programme and review progress against objectives.

16. It is recommended that the local board appoints a local board member and an alternate on each business association to represent the local board regarding all matters relating to the business association.

17. The business association may invite the appointed member onto the BID Governance Board or Executive Committee. The discretion on whether this member has voting rights will lie with the business association under the rules of their constitution.

Consideration

Local Board Views

18. This report seeks the local board’s decision on representatives to outside organisations and community networks.

19. The decisions in this report fall within the local board’s delegated authority.

Māori Impact Statement

20. This report has no specific impact on Māori. It covers appointments of local board members to outside organisations and community networks to represent the view of local communities, including Māori communities.

General

21. Members are delegated in their capacity as elected local board members. Should they no longer be a local board member, their nominations would be automatically repealed.

22. Elected representatives may be part of any organisation in their private capacity and personal interests.

23. Elected representatives are encouraged to disclose memberships to external organisations in the conflict of interest register.

Implementation Issues

24. The venues for Local Government NZ Zone One meetings are shared across the entire Zone One area and some travel costs may be incurred by local boards as a result of the appointments.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Business Improvement District Partnership Programme	23
b	Local Government New Zealand	27

Signatories

Author	Carole Canler - Advisor
Authoriser	Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Orakei Local Board

28 November 2013

Urgent Decision Process for the Orakei Local Board

File No.: CP2013/26262

Purpose

1. This report seeks the board’s agreement for a process for urgent decisions of the Orakei Local Board on matters that require a decision where it is not practical to call the full board together and meet the requirement of a quorum.

Executive Summary

2. This report details a process for urgent decisions of the local board on matters that require a decision where it is not practical to call the full board together and meet the requirement of a quorum.

Recommendation/s

That the Orakei Local Board:

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

b) Delegates authority to the Chair and Deputy Chair or any person acting in these roles to make an urgent decision on behalf of the local board.

c) Requests that all urgent decisions be reported to the next ordinary meeting of the local board.

Background

3. An extraordinary meeting is called when an urgent decision is required on matters that cannot wait until the next scheduled ordinary meeting of the local board. At times, such as during the Christmas and New Year period, it is not practical to call the full board together and meet the requirement of a quorum.

4. An alternative to calling for an extraordinary meeting is to delegate the authority to the Chair and Deputy Chair, or any person acting in these roles, to make the decision on behalf of the local board.

5. Urgent decisions are different from emergency decisions, which are only made if there is a risk to public health and safety.

Decision Making

6. It is recommended that the local board delegate the power to the Chair and Deputy Chair, or any person acting in these roles, to make urgent decisions on behalf of the board.

7. Any request for an urgent decision of the local board must be processed through the Local Board Services department, and the Local Board Relationship Manager must endorse the request for an urgent decision before commencing the process.

8. All requests for an urgent decision will be supported by a report stating the nature of the issue, reason for urgency and what decisions or resolutions are required. These reports will comply with the standard approval process.

9. A number of factors are considered before approval to use the urgent decision process is given such as:

· The timing of the next scheduled meeting.

· Confirmation that the local board has the delegation to make the decision.

· Consideration of the rationale for urgency.

· The significance of the decision and whether the urgent decision process is appropriate.

10. Any decision made by delegation will be reported as an information item to the next ordinary meeting of the local board.

11. 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.

Consideration

Local Board Views

12. This decision falls under the local board’s delegated authority.

Māori Impact Statement

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

Implementation Issues

14. The Local Board Relationship Managers can provide advice as to what might constitute an urgent decision.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author	Laura Bedwell - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Orakei Local Board

28 November 2013

Establishment of Swimming Pool Fencing Exemption Committee

File No.: CP2013/26260

Purpose

1. To establish the Orakei 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 fences exemptions has been delegated to local boards. To administer this delegation in the 2010 – 2013 political term, local boards formed committees 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 Orakei Local Board Swimming Pool Fencing Exemptions Committee.

Recommendation/s

That the Orakei Local Board:

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

b) Appoints the following four members to the Orakei Local Board Swimming Pool Fencing Exemptions Committee: Member Churton, Member Cooke, Member Davis and Member Parkinson.

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

Author	Laura Bedwell - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Orakei Local Board

28 November 2013

Central Facilities Partnership Committee

File No.: CP2013/26258

Purpose

1. This report seeks:

· agreement to continue the Central Facilities Partnership Committee for the 2013/2014 year in the absence of a regional policy

· agreement on the terms of reference

· nomination of a board’s representative and alternate representative to the Committee.

Executive Summary

2. The Central Facilities Partnership Committee was a joint committee established by the seven central local boards. It had decision-making responsibility to allocate the legacy Facility Partnerships funding in support of capital development projects that will assist Auckland Council to meet its identified strategic outcomes.

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. The Central Facility Partnerships Committee needs to be operational for the 2013/14 to administer legacy Facility Partnerships funding. This report seeks the board’s approval to re-establish the Central Facility Partnerships Committee for the 2013/2014 as a joint committee of the local boards, approval of the Terms of Reference and appointment of a member and an alternate to the Committee.

5. The Committee will consider applications to the 2013/2014 Facility Partnerships fund at a workshop on 27 November 2013, and hold a meeting on 11 December 2013 to ratify the decisions.

Recommendation/s

That the Orakei Local Board:

a) Agrees to re-establish the Central Facility Partnerships Committee with the Albert-Eden, Great Barrier, Orakei, Puketapapa, Waiheke, and Waitemata Local Boards, to collectively administer the Facility Partnerships fund.

b) Endorses the Terms of Reference and Guidelines for the Central Facility Partnerships Committee, which will be adopted by the Committee at its first meeting:

i. The Central Facility Partnerships Committee has a member from each of the following Local Boards: Albert-Eden, Great Barrier, Maungakiekie-Tamaki, Orakei, Puketapapa, Waiheke, Waitemata.

ii. The Central Facility Partnerships Committee has the authority to make funding decisions in 2013/2014 in relation to the Facility Partnership Guidelines.

iii. The Central Facility Partnerships Committee will appoint and may remove its own chairperson and deputy chairperson.

iv. The Central Facility Partnerships Committee will meet as required. It is envisaged there will be two procedural meetings and no less than one funding decision meeting in each financial year.

c) Appoints Chair Simpson, and Board Member Thomas as alternate, to the Central Facility Partnerships Committee with appropriate delegated authority to bind the board on decisions relating to the Central Facility Partnership Fund made by the Committee.

d) Notes that the first meeting of the Central Facility Partnerships Committee will be held on 11 December 2013.

Discussion

6. The legacy Facility Partnerships fund invites organisations to submit partnership proposals for capital development projects that will assist Auckland Council to meet its identified strategic outcomes.

7. Where a proposal fits identified strategic priorities and other criteria, council may contribute to the capital cost of the project. The level of financial assistance is informed by the level of benefit to, and access, the public will have to the facility once the project is completed.

8. Organisations participating in Facility Partnerships benefit from funding, as it enables them to leverage grants from other donors, and through technical assistance and support. Funding from council allows organisations (many of which are not-for-profit voluntary groups) to meet their objectives sooner and in some cases, develop a better facility than may otherwise have been possible.

9. Facility Partnerships benefit the council by delivering quality, community accessible facilities, without council providing all the development funding. Facility partnerships are not limited to sport and recreation facilities, and can be provided for other general or specific community purposes (for example a community hub or arts facility).

10. The wider Auckland community benefit from Facility Partnerships by having access to a greater number of quality, community facilities.

11. Auckland Council inherited several different approaches for managing Facility Partnerships. A new, integrated policy is being developed and is expected to be completed for the 2014/2015 year.

12. In the absence of an integrated regional policy, and to enable facility partnership funding to be allocated, the Regional Development and Operations Committee (RDOC) resolved on 24 May 2012 and again on 14 March 2013 that an interim approach be implemented for 2013/14.

13. RDOC also resolved that the interim approach would be implemented by devolving the legacy Facility Partnerships funding to “local board sub-regional funding committees.”

14. The seven central local boards consequently established a joint committee of local boards that deals specifically with central Facility Partnerships. Each of the seven central local boards appointed a representative to the the Central Facility Partnerships Committee to ensure that the Facility Partnerships fund can be implemented in a timely manner.

15. The Central Facility Partnerships Committee has a different focus to the Central Joint Funding Committee, with the latter having a focus on community and heritage funding. In contrast, facility partnership is a capital development fund that establishes partnerships between council and external organisations.

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

17. It is recommended that the board agrees to re-instate the Central Facility Partnerships Committee to administer the Facility Partnerships funding. This report also asks the seven central local boards to appoint a representative and an alternate to the Committee, with the appropriate delegated authority to bind the local boards on decisions relating to the legacy Facility Partnerships policy made by the Committee, and to agree the attached terms of reference (unchanged from last term).

Consideration

Local Board Views

18. This decision falls under the local board’s delegated authority.

Māori Impact Statement

19. Facility partnerships is a general programme of interest that is accessible to a wide range of groups, including Māori. No particular implications for the Māori community or Māori stakeholders have been identified from this report.

Implementation Issues

20. The Committee will hold its first workshop on 27 November 2013. The purpose of the workshop is to discuss and seek additional information on the partnership applications.

21. A first meeting is scheduled on 11 December 2013 to consider procedural matters including but not limited to electing a Chair and Deputy Chair; adopting the Central Facility Partnerships Committee Terms of Reference (attached) and considering funding applications received (Stage 1).

22. After the Central Facility Partnerships Committee has decided which projects to support, the local board where the project is based will be actively engaged with the project. The local board’s role may include setting expectations for community access to the facility.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Terms of Reference	39
b	Facility Partnerships 2012/2013 Guidelines	41

Signatories

Author	Laura Bedwell - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Orakei Local Board

28 November 2013

Central Joint Funding Committee

File No.: CP2013/26265

Purpose

1. To seek the local board’s agreement:

· to re-instate the Central Joint Funding Committee to oversee the relevant legacy community funding schemes

· on the Terms of Reference for the Central Joint Funding Committee

· to nominate a member and an alternate on the Central Joint Funding Committee.

Executive Summary

2. The Central Joint Funding Committee was a joint committee established by the seven central local boards with decision-making responsibility for the allocation of grants through the legacy community funding schemes.

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

4. The Central Joint Funding Committee needs to be operational for the 2013/2014 financial year to administer legacy community funding budgets. This report seeks the board’s approval to re-instate the Central Joint Funding Committee for the rest of the 2013/2014 financial year, approval of the Terms of Reference and appointment of a member to the Committee.

5. The establishment of the committee is 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. Formal consultation on the draft policy will be undertaken with local boards in 2014.

Recommendation/s

That the Orakei Local Board:

a) Agrees to re-instate the Central Joint Funding Committee for 2013/2014 to administer the legacy funds as per the Terms of Reference.

b) Endorses the draft Terms of Reference for the Central Joint Funding Committee

c) Appoints Chair Simpson, and Member Parkinson as alternate, to the Central 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

d) Notes that a region-wide Community Funding Policy is being developed and will in time replace the current interim funding arrangements.

Discussion

6. The Central Joint Funding Committee was a joint committee established by the seven central local boards - Albert-Eden, Great Barrier, Maungakiekie-Tamaki, Orakei, Puketapapa, Waiheke and Waitemata Local Boards. It had decision-making responsibility to allocate grants from the legacy community funding schemes.

7. Local boards continue to have full decision-making authority over their individual Local Boards Discretionary Grants schemes. These schemes were established as part of the interim funding programme, using budgets inherited from legacy community board funding schemes.

8. 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.

9. This means that, as per previous years, legacy community funding budgets are allocated to sub-regional joint funding committees of local boards, and that the Central Joint Funding Committee needs to be operational for the 2013/2014 financial year.

10. The previous local board agreed to the continuation of the Central Joint Funding Committee for 2013/2014, approved amended terms of reference and appointed a member and an alternate to the Committee. Attachment A presents the rationale behind this decision, as well as the details of the funds to be allocated.

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

12. Officers recommend that the board re-instates the Central Joint Funding Committee for the rest of the 2013/2014 financial year, approves the Terms of Reference and appoints a member to the Committee.

13. 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 are administering 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.

14. 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. However, any changes to current 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).

15. 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

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

Māori Impact Statement

17. 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

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

Implementation Issues

19. The Central Joint Funding Committee resolved in September 2013 to distribute the 2013/2014 legacy community funding schemes for the purposes of administering the funding, as follows:

Fund	Allocation
Auckland City Natural Heritage Fund $50,000	$40,000 for Great Barrier Island Local Board $10,000 for Waiheke Island Local Board For Hauraki Gulf Island projects only and noting that the funding split is based on historical allocation
Auckland City Cultural Heritage Fund $50,000	Five isthmus local boards to administer jointly
Community Group Accommodation Support Fund $676,900	$5,000 to Great Barrier Island Local Board $20,000 to Waiheke Island Local Board Remainder ($651,900) administered jointly by the five isthmus local boards
Community Group Assistance Fund $435,150	$15,000 to Waiheke Island Local Board Remainder ($420,150) administered jointly by the five isthmus local boards

20. The Central Joint Funding Committee also resolved that there would be two rounds only for the legacy community funding schemes (Community Group Assistance Fund, Community Group Accommodation Support, Auckland City Cultural Heritage, and Auckland City Natural Heritage):

i. Round one opened in June 2013 and closed on 15 July 2013 with decisions in September 2013

ii. Round two will open in November 2013 and close on 13 December 2013 (CGAF only) and 28 March 2014 (ACCHF) for decisions in May 2014.

21. The Central Joint Funding Committee will hold a workshop and a meeting (dates to be confirmed) to consider procedural matters including but not limited to:

i. electing a Chair and Deputy Chair

ii. adopting the Terms of Reference (attached)

iii. considering the applications received.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Agenda Report to the Orakei Local Board 2 May 2013	49
b	Draft terms of reference	57

Signatories

Author	Laura Bedwell - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Orakei Local Board

28 November 2013

Urgent decisions and officer delegated decisions during the 2013 election period

File No.: CP2013/26283

Purpose

1. To inform the Orakei Local Board of any urgent decisions or officer delegated decisions that took place over the 2013 election period.

Recommendation/s

That the Orakei Local Board:

a) Receives the urgent decisions and officer delegated decisions during the 2013 election period report.

Discussion

2. The table below details the urgent decisions and officer delegated decisions made during the 2013 election period.

Urgent Decisions
Date	Subject	Department	Authorised by
12 September 2013	Victoria Ave, Remuera Tree planting 2013/14 SLIPS OPEX budget allocation See Attachment A	SLIPs/Parks	Chair and Deputy
12 October 2013	Roberta Reserve Engagement Day budget allocation See Attachment B	Parks	Chair and Events portfolio holder
Officer Delegated Decisions
Date	Subject	Department	Authorised by
17 October 2013	Reallocation of 2013/14 SLIPs OPEX for ASB stadium signage rebranding to East City Community Trust .	SLIPs	SLIPs Team Leader
21 October 2013	St Kentigern School Fireworks Display landowner approval	Parks	Parks Manager
23 October 2013	Auckland East Art Council Easel Show 16-17/11 2013 and 08-09/02/2014 @ Selwyn Reserve, Mission Bay landowner approval	Parks	Parks Manager
24 October 2013	Roberta Reserve temporary playground equipment installation (2013/14 renewals budget)	Parks	Parks Manager
24 October 2013	Glover Park and Crossfields Reserve redevelopment proceed to tender	Parks	Parks Manager
25 October 2013	Cider Summer Lounge Proposal St Heliers Beach event - recommendation to applicant to not proceed with proposal	Events	Events Manager
29 October 2013	Auckland Scout Canoe Carnival 03/11/2013 @ Orakei Basin landowner approval	Events	Events/Parks Manager

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Victoria Ave, Remuera Tree Planting	60
b	Roberta Reserve Engagement Day	63

Signatories

Author	Laura Bedwell - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Adam Milina - Acting Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

Chairperson	Desley Simpson, JP
Deputy Chairperson	Mark Thomas
Members	Ken Baguley
	Troy Churton
	Kate Cooke
	Colin Davis, JP
	Kit Parkinson