Agenda of Upper Harbour Local Board

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

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

Tuesday, 12 November 2013

9.30am

Upper Harbour Local Board Office
30 Kell Drive
Albany

Upper Harbour Local Board

OPEN AGENDA

MEMBERSHIP

Chairperson	Brian Neeson JP
Deputy Chairperson	Lisa Whyte
Members	Callum Blair
	John McLean
	Margaret Miles, JP
	Christine Rankin-MacIntyre

(Quorum 3 members)

Lesley Sharp

Local Board Democracy Advisor

6 November 2013

Contact Telephone: (09) 414 2684

Email: lesley.sharp@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Upper Harbour Local Board

12 November 2013

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 Welcome 5

2 Apologies 5

3 Declaration of Interest 5

4 Confirmation of Minutes 5

5 Leave of Absence 5

6 Acknowledgements 5

7 Petitions 5

8 Deputations 5

9 Public Forum 5

10 Extraordinary Business 6

11 Notices of Motion 6

12 Road Name Approval for Subdivision at 150 Greenhithe Road, Greenhithe 7

13 Proposed private Plan Change 42 - Albany centre Business 11 zoning amendments 11

14 Local Event Support Fund - R2 2013/2014 39

15 Quarterly Performance Report for the Upper Harbour Local Board for the period ended 30 September 2013 51

16 Report of use of the urgent decision making procedure during local government election period 65

17 Allocation of Upper Harbour Local Board portfolio roles 71

18 Reconstitution of Working Parties 91

19 Upper Harbour Local Board meeting schedule for the 2013-2016 Triennium 95

20 Board Members' Reports 101

21 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

1 Welcome

2 Apologies

An apology has been received from Member Callum Blair for absence.

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 Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) confirms the minutes of its inaugural 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

Standing Order 3.20 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are required to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications are approved by the Chairperson of the Upper Harbour Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

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

9 Public Forum

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

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

10 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 Notices of Motion

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

Upper Harbour Local Board

12 November 2013

Road Name Approval for Subdivision at 150 Greenhithe Road, Greenhithe

File No.: CP2013/25067

Purpose

1. This report seeks the approval of the Upper Harbour Local Board for the road names for two new public roads, currently under construction to service an 83 lot residential subdivision being developed by Kyle Road Limited (the Applicant), at 150 Greenhithe Road (formerly 175 Kyle Road), Greenhithe.

Executive Summary

2. Two names for each road have been proposed by Kyle Road Limited, and the Board can choose its preferred names.

3. The proposed names are Ruaruhe Drive or Mackay Drive for the main road, and Mauku Lane or Jacks Way for the cul-de-sac road.

4. The names reflect collaborative and constructive discussions held between Kyle Road Limited and the Independent Maori Statutory Board (IMSB).

5. The names are not outside the procedures and guidelines currently being developed for the naming of roads in an Auckland Council region wide context or the legacy North Shore City Council road naming guidelines.

6. The names are not duplicated elsewhere within the wider Auckland Council region.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) considers the road names Ruaruhe Drive or Mackay Drive for the main road, and Mauku Lane or Jacks Way for the cul-de-sac road, currently being constructed for the residential subdivision being undertaken by Kyle Road Limited at 150 Greenhithe Road, Greenhithe.

Discussion

7. Kyle Road Limited has assessed the topographical characteristics of the site and surrounds, undertaken local historical research and liaised with the IMSB for their input, and the names they have put forward reflect both the applicants and the IMSB views.

8. The IMSB has suggested Ruaruhe Drive for the main roadway, which refers to the native tree fern that was historically prevalent in the greater Greenhithe area and Mauku Lane for the short cul-de-sac road, which also reflects existing tree fern still present around the fringes of the site and the surrounding area.

9. Kyle Road Limited has suggested Mackay Drive, which refers to one of the first recorded settlers to marry in the Greenhithe area, for the main roadway and also Mauku Lane or Jacks Way for the short cul-de-sac road. Jacks Way refers to a family member of the applicant.

10. None of the proposed names are duplicated in the wider Auckland Council region.

Consideration

11. Procedures and guidelines for road naming are still being developed by Auckland Council to achieve consistent region wide protocols and policies on road naming.

12. The new Auckland Council guidelines are still in the formative stage, and in the meantime it is considered appropriate to have regard to the legacy North Shore City Council road naming guidelines.

13. These typically required that road names have either some local historical significance, reflect the natural characteristics of the land or locality or establish or extend a theme in a locality. Names would also sometimes reflect a developer’s particular desire.

14. Aside from Jacks Way, the names submitted reflect the legacy council’s preferred outcomes.

15. Notwithstanding all of the above, Kyle Road Limited has advised they are somewhat relaxed regarding what road names the Board may prefer.

Maori Impact Statement

16. The Independent Maori Statutory Board (IMSB) is charged with assisting the Council in acting in an appropriate manner that respects te reo and Maori culture and values in all its dealings.

17. Kyle Road Limited has liaised with the Independent IMSB to seek their views on appropriate road names.

18. That liaison has been collaborative and constructive and has resulted in appropriate names being presented by the applicant for the Board’s consideration and approval.

General

19. The decision to approve the road names does not trigger any specific policy or have any impact on the immediate and wider community, or have any legal or cost implication to the Council.

Implementation Issues

20. The Northern Resource Consenting and Compliance Unit Subdivision team will ensure that appropriately compliant road signage is installed by the consent holder in conjunction with the completion of the subdivision.

Conclusion

21. In the absence of an Auckland Council road naming guideline or policy, the submitted road names meet the legacy North Shore City Council guideline for road naming and could be considered as acceptable for the locality.

22. The Upper Harbour Local Board has the delegated authority to approve road names.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Plan showing location of proposed new public roads servicing the subdivision at 150 Greenhithe Road	9

Signatories

Authors

John Benefield – Senior Subdivisions Advisor

Authorisers

Heather Harris - Manager Resource Consents

Eric Perry – Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

12 November 2013

Proposed private Plan Change 42 - Albany centre Business 11 zoning amendments

File No.: CP2013/25189

Purpose

1. This report advises the Upper Harbour Local Board of a private plan change request that seeks to amend the Business 11 zoning provisions at the Albany metropolitan centre, to provide for residential development at ground floor in the Business 11A subzone. The Board has the opportunity to comment in broad terms on the proposal, not as to whether or not it agrees with the proposed plan change but whether the change has sufficient merit to be processed by the Council. Any comments will be included in a report to the Urban and Rural Development Committee, which has the delegation to make the decision on acceptance, rejection or adoption of the private plan change for processing.

Executive Summary

2. A private plan change request has been received and a ‘process’ decision is required. The Board now has an opportunity to comment on the request, so that the Urban and Rural Development Committee can consider its views. It is noted also that the Board could submit on the plan change request when it is notified.

3. The request affects the Business 11 zoning provisions at the Albany metropolitan centre, and seeks to enable residential development at ground floor in specified (rezoned) areas where the current operative District Plan (North Shore section) provisions require commercial and retail activities at ground floor (with residential above). It also provides for a corresponding (greater) focus on the proposed ‘mainstreet’ that is intended to develop along Cornerstone Drive, between Don McKinnon Drive and Elliot Rose Place (and the bus station). Two new subzones are proposed – Business 11E, and, for the ‘mainstreet’, Business 11F.

4. The application seeks to achieve a ‘critical mass’ of residents within the Albany centre “to deliver the Council’s objectives of a truly metropolitan centre at Albany” (paragraph1.8, page 2 of planning report). Various technical assessments accompany the request. The issues and effects of the plan change have been adequately addressed in the application, sufficient for the Council and the public to understand the plan change. The application will be peer reviewed by Council-appointed experts.

5. Clause 25 of the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991 (‘the Act’) requires that Council makes a decision to accept, reject or adopt (as its own) the plan change. It outlines specific criteria by which a ‘reject’ decision might be made. Staff do not consider there are any reasons to ‘reject’, and that the request should therefore be ‘accepted’ and publicly notified.

6. It is intended to report to the Urban and Rural Development Committee in December, recommending that Council ‘accept’ the plan change and then notify it early in the new year, or once the Council and the applicant have revised it (if necessary) to prepare it for notification.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) confirms that it supports a decision to ‘accept’ (and process) the private plan change request by Albany City Development Corporation Ltd (PPC 42) seeking to enable ground floor residential development in the Business 11A and 11B zones of the Albany metropolitan centre, and that this be advised to the Urban and Rural Development Committee when it determines the matter.

Discussion

7. Albany Centre Development Corporation Ltd (ACDC) has requested that the operative District Plan (North Shore section) be changed to enable residential development at ground floor in certain parts of the existing Business 11A and 11B zones at the Albany metropolitan centre – refer to location map, attachment one. The operative provisions require that commercial and retail uses be at ground floor and that residential development be above ground. Currently only the Business 11C zone allows for residential at ground floor. The letter of introduction to the plan change is attached as attachment two, and the full planning report (and its appendices) is available on request (being too large to include in the agenda).

8. The decision required at this stage is a procedural one. Council must decide whether the request should be accepted, rejected or adopted (or made subject to a resource consent process). The Council may reject a request, in whole or in part, but only on limited grounds, such as that the request is frivolous or vexatious, or is not in accordance with sound resource management practice. The Council is not required to undertake a substantive assessment at this point in the process.

9. The assessment made by staff to date is that the request has sufficient merit and should be ‘accepted’ and processed to a decision. The plan change is not seeking anything that is inconsistent with the Act’s purpose or principles. The request affects District Plan provisions that have been operative for well over two years, and seeks to change these provisions in a way that could advance the Council’s objectives for the growth of the Albany metropolitan centre (provided potential adverse effects do not eventuate). The substance of the request, being residential at ground floor in the subject areas, has not been considered formally by Council in recent years, and the request is not ‘frivolous’, but raises issues and questions that staff accept warrant a robust reconsideration at this time. Accordingly, staff recommend that the request be accepted so that it can be notified and submissions called for.

Nature of plan change request

10. The detailed plan change provisions proposed are relatively minor. The affected areas are proposed to be rezoned with two new Business 11 subzones, being 11E and 11F - refer to attachment three.

11. The ‘mainstreet’ outcome of the operative Plan would be carried through in the new Business 11F zone: retail activities at ground floor in this zone would still be required, and residential development would be non-complying. The Business 11E zone would have similar provisions to the Business 11A zone, but enable residential at ground floor (as is the case in the operative Business 11C zone). A resource consent application would still be required, enabling Council to consider the design and quality of developments. The plan change request also proposes minor changes to the “Albany Centre - structure plan” of the operative Plan, which subdivision and development is to conform with (it is Appendix 10 of the District Plan maps). These changes shift some of the locations for the required ‘landmark’ (or gateway) developments fronting major or minor road intersections.

12. The planning report (not attached) summarises and argues for the plan change request as follows:

“This private plan change request seeks to modify the development controls of the Business 11 zone to provide greater opportunity for residential development within the mixed use parameters of the Business 11 zone. The …change proposes a refinement to the existing controls …(and) does not propose wholesale change to the Council’s goals, strategic objectives and policy direction for the integrated management of business activities.

“Albany City Centre was originally envisaged as a major metropolitan centre for the North Shore to complement the Takapuna metropolitan centre. It was intended to provide for a broad range of….retail, business, residential and community activities. The reality is that while retail and business activity has flourished, no residential development has occurred in the city centre. This despite substantial portions of the Albany City Centre land being developed, with much land now committed to long term use.

“If Albany is to achieve a balance of retail, business, residential and community facilities, then a different planning response is needed. This private plan change request promotes the development of a residential “quarter” or sub-precinct. This will give a residential heart to the …centre, and the opportunity to grow a residential community of sufficient critical mass to deliver the Council’s objectives of a truly metropolitan centre at Albany”.

13. The planning report is accompanied by a number of technical assessments, covering urban design, landscape, transport and traffic, and economic considerations. The application is comprehensive and provides appropriately for the Council and the public to understand the application and its likely outcomes. All of the technical assessments are now in the process of being peer reviewed by Council-appointed experts. The overarching question the plan change process needs to address is whether the modified provisions would better provide for the ‘sustainable management’ of the Albany metropolitan centre.

Consideration

Local Board Views

14. This report seeks the Board’s views about a private plan change request affecting the Albany metropolitan centre, and more specifically the rules providing for residential development at ground floor in certain Business 11 zones. It is a ‘high level’ assessment only that is required at this stage, affecting the way the plan change request is to be processed. A decision is not required as to the substantive merits of the plan change request – this assessment comes later on in the process.

Maori Impact Statement

15. The plan change, if it were to proceed to operative status, would enable a greater amount of residential development to occur more quickly at the Albany metropolitan centre. This would assist, in some small way, all Aucklanders, including Maori, seeking housing on the North Shore, by providing more choice in this location and potentially better affordability.

16. It should be noted, however, that this report is not concerned with the merits of the rezoning request as a whole, but rather with whether or not the request has sufficient merit to be further processed by Council, and to be notified with submissions being heard. Further information on iwi views is currently being sought for the Urban and Rural Development Committee.

General

17. The applicant company had discussions with Council prior to the notification of the proposed Unitary Plan, seeking to incorporate the request into that plan. However, it was determined at that stage that the work required to fully evaluate the proposed changes could not be completed satisfactorily in the time available. The operative provisions for Albany metropolitan centre have therefore been carried forward into the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan’s Business Metropolitan Zone, including specific ‘precinct’ provisions which overlay the zoning. These provisions do not at this stage provide for the nature of developments the applicant seeks via this private plan change request.

Implementation Issues

18. This private plan change request is recommended to be ‘accepted’ by the Council and publicly notified, as there are not considered any valid reasons for ‘rejecting’ the request.

19. All costs of processing an ‘accepted’ request are borne by the applicant.

20. A private plan change has no legal effect until, and only if, it becomes fully operative (at the end of the process). It is expected that this could take in the order of 18 months, subject to appeals.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Location and zoning map - PPC 42 Albany	15
b	PPC 42 Introduction letter	17
c	PPC 42 - proposed District Plan amendments	23

Signatories

Authors

Ewen Patience - Principal Planner, Area Planning and Policy North

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

12 November 2013

Local Event Support Fund – Round 2 2013/2014

File No.: CP2013/25232

Purpose

1. To present a summary of applications received in round two of the local event support fund for 2013/2014 for the Upper Harbour Local Board.

Executive Summary

2. A local events support fund of $35,000 is available to the Upper Harbour Local Board for distribution over two funding rounds in the 2013/2014 financial year. In round one, the Upper Harbour Local Board distributed $20,330 from the local event support fund, leaving a balance of $14,670 for disbursement in round two.

3. In round one, the Upper Harbour Local Board also distributed $14,055 from the Upper Harbour Local Board discretionary fund to events that the Board wanted to support over the long term.

4. For round two, eight applications totalling $70,300 have been received (presented as Attachment A).

Recommendations

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) agrees to fund the round two 2013/2014 Local Event Support Fund applications as follows:

Applicant	Event	Venue	Date	Amount Requested	Amount Recommended
Pinehurst School Inc	Outside In Sport Expo	Pinehurst School	2 March 2014	$5,000	$5,000
Harcourts Greenhithe Cooper and Co.	Greenhithe Christmas Parade	Greenhithe Road	8 December 2013	$4,500	$4,500
Meadowood Community House	Neighbours Day	Meadowood Community House	29 March 2014	$2,500	$2,000
Meadowood Community House	International Food Festival	Meadowood Community House	19 October 2013	$2,500	0
Older Women’s Network	Ideas of March Festival	Positive Aging Centre, Takapuna	15 March 2014	$1,000	$125
Meadowood Community House	Matariki Festival	Meadowood Community House	28 June 2014	$2,800	$2,000
Bruce Mason Centre	School Holiday Programme 2014	Bruce Mason Centre	April, July, October & December 2014	$30,000	$750
Bruce Mason Centre	Morning Melodies 2014	Bruce Mason Centre	February – December 2014	$22,000	$500
TOTAL				$70,300	$14,875

Discussion

5. The local events support fund provides the opportunity for the Upper Harbour Local Board to work in partnership with local event organisers to develop an events programme that reflects the aspirations of the community and supports the local board plan.

6. The local events support fund has two funding rounds, which close at specified times during the 2013/2014 financial year as follows:

Round	Applications close	Assessment	Decision-making
1	31 May 2013	June 2013	July/August 2013
2	31 October 2013	November 2013	December 2013/February 2014

7. Round two of the 2013/2014 local events fund received eight applications (presented as Attachment A). A summary of these is as follows:

Applicant	Event	Venue	Date	Amount Requested
Pinehurst School Inc	Outside In Sport Expo	Pinehurst School	2 March 2014	$5,000
Harcourts Greenhithe Cooper and Co.	Greenhithe Christmas Parade	Greenhithe Road	8 December 2013	$4,500
Meadowood Community House	Neighbours Day	Meadowood Community House	29 March 2014	$2,500
Meadowood Community House	International Food Festival	Meadowood Community House	19 October 2013	$2,500
Older Women’s Network	Ideas of March Festival	Positive Aging Centre, Takapuna	15 March 2014	$1,000
Meadowood Community House	Matariki Festival	Meadowood Community House	28 June 2014	$2,800
Bruce Mason Centre	School Holiday Programme 2014	Bruce Mason Centre	April, July, October & December 2014	$30,000
Bruce Mason Centre	Morning Melodies 2014	Bruce Mason Centre	February – December 2014	$22,000
TOTAL				$70,300

8. Local event support funding criteria guidelines for 2013/2014 have been established to assist applicants in understanding the focus of this fund and to guide decision-making. The applications have been assessed in accordance with the local event support fund guidelines.

9. The Upper Harbour Local Board has the opportunity to refer applications to a more appropriate fund or to allocate funding from within its local event fund.

Consideration

10. Local boards are responsible for the decision-making and allocation of local board event funding, including the local event support fund. The Upper Harbour Local Board has identified key priorities for the local area within its local board plan, some of which could be achieved through events.

11. The Upper Harbour Local Board seeks to engage with diverse communities and provide for social and cultural needs. Supporting local community events assists in building a strong sense of community and ensures that each community maintains its own identity.

Local Board Views

12. No workshop was held to discuss these applications. Local board views will be discussed at the meeting on 12 November 2013 and will be reflected in the final funding decisions.

Maori Impact Statement

13. This fund does not specifically target Maori groups; however, Maori communities are likely to benefit from the events supported by the local board, alongside other groups in the community.

General

14. The decisions sought within this report fall within the local board delegations.

15. The decisions sought do not invoke the Auckland Council Significance Policy.

Implementation Issues

16. Once the Upper Harbour Local Board has resolved the funding applications, staff will contact all applicants to notify them of the outcome, and commence contracting and payment.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Local Event Support Fund Application Cover Sheets – Round 2 2013/2014	43

Signatories

Authors

Barbara Cade - Team Leader Events North/West

Authorisers

Louise Mason - Manager Community Development, Arts and Culture

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

12 November 2013

Quarterly Performance Report for the Upper Harbour Local Board for the period ended 30 September 2013

File No.: CP2013/25355

Purpose

1. To update the Upper Harbour Local Board members on progress towards their objectives for the year from 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2014 as set out in their local board agreement.

Executive Summary

2. The Net Cost of Service year to date is $100k, which is primarily to the year to date (YTD) budget. Minor favourable variances have occurred in the local parks services, local arts, culture and events services, local natural and built environment and local governance activities. There are a number of projects currently underway to review the accuracy of the detail of the financial data, e.g. the coding of the parks maintenance costs are not aligning fully with the new contracts, which commenced on the 1 July 2012. These costs are being reviewed to ensure that in future they reflect the new contracts.

3. During the September quarter, the following was achieved:

· Tenders awarded for the Albany Stadium Pool and Collins Park skate bowl

· Installation of the Greenhithe War Memorial sportsfield lighting

· Completion of the macrocarpa sculpture at Sanders Reserve

· New signage installed in the Unsworth Heights Reserve.

4. Capital expenditure to date is 2% of the annual budget. Substantial expenditure on the Albany Stadium Pool and Parks projects is expected later in the financial year. A special senior project delivery team is overseeing the planning and delivery of capital projects in the financial year.

Rame Road Jetty and Pontoon

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receives the Quarterly Performance Report for the Upper Harbour Local Board for the period ended 30 September 2013.

Discussion

5. Financial overview

Expenditure relating to the local board is summarised in Table 1 and discussed in respect of each Group of Activity below.

Table 1: Financial Overview

*The Revised Budget includes adjustments for capex deferred from the prior year

Comment:

YTD the Net Cost of Service is $3.6m. This is 3% lower than budget. The under spend is due to lower expenditure on parks maintenance, local built and natural environment and local governance. A review of the parks expenditure is underway to ensure it reflects the new contracts that came into effect on 1 July 2012.

Capital expenditure for the current quarter is $361k which is 6% of planned budget spend. The YTD spend is 2% of the annual budget. Substantial expenditure on the Albany Stadium Pool and Parks projects are expected later in the financial year.

6. Local libraries

Table 2: Financial Overview: Local library facilities and services

Comment:

Net Cost of service is $345k. This is $13k or 4% over budget.

Revenue is to budget.

Operating expenditure is $347k, 4% higher than budget due to higher property costs due to higher hygiene, cleaning and repair costs.

7. Local community services

Table 3: Financial Overview: Local community services

Comment:

Net cost of service is $297k. This is a variance of $6k which is to budget.

Capital renewals are negative as a result of the reclassification of 2012/13 renewal works to operational expenditure.

8. Local arts, culture and events services

Table 4: Financial Overview: Local arts, culture and events services

Comment:

Net Cost of Service is $60k. This is $21k or 26% lower than budget. The savings results lower department overheads.

9. Local parks services

Table 5: Financial Overview: Local parks

Comment:

Net cost of service is $2.3m. This is $33k under spent which is to budget:

Generally parks contract maintenance costs do not align fully with the new contracts. A review of the parks expenditure is underway to ensure that in future they reflect the new contracts that came into effect on 1 July 2012.

Parks services have substantially met their maintenance standards in accordance with the contracts with a pass mark in quality of work of 94%.

Sportsfields during this last quarter largely remained open and all code tournaments were completed.

The majority of key initiatives and projects are on track bar:

· Rame Reserve Canoe Ramp – work commenced on the pontoon. It is due for completion in November

· Rame Road Car Park – car park design complete. Tenders sent out in September

· Greenhithe War Memorial Sportsfield Floodlights have been installed

· Albany Youth facility in Parks – the tender for Collins Park skate bowl was awarded.

10. Local recreation services

Table 6: Financial Overview: Local recreational initiatives and facilities

Comment:

Net Cost of service is $145k this is to budget.

The Albany Stadium Pool is progressing well. The tender for the project has now been awarded with the majority of construction to be completed in the 2014 and 2015 financial years.

11. Local economic development

Table 7: Financial Overview: Local economic development

Comment:

Net cost of service is $151k. This is 7.0% under budget.

Payment to the North Harbour BID has been made in accordance with the budgeted amount. Street amenities maintenance costs are current sitting in the Parks activity and will be transferred in due course.

12. Local environment and heritage protection

Table 8: Financial Overview: Local environment and heritage protection

Comment:

Net cost of service is $35k. This is 39% lower than budget. The underspend results from later expenditure on SW Septic tank management and Christmas beach restoration study.

13. Local governance

Table 10: Financial Overview: Local planning, policy and governance

Comment:

Net Cost of Service is $266k, which is 10% lower than budget. This is due to delayed expenditure on member training and public information and engagement costs.

The Capital expenditure budget mainly relates to Local board discretionary capital and small local improvement projects.

14. Allocation of Discretionary Funding

Table 11: Financial Overview: Discretionary funding

Fund	Available Allocation ($000)	Allocation made ($000)	Available to Allocate ($000)
Discretionary Fund – Opex	228	30	198
Discretionary Fund – Capex	50	25	25
Small local improvement projects – capex¹	129	277	(148)

Note 1. Expenditure in 2013/14 over and above the budget of $277k will need to be funded by bringing forward the expenditure from the 2015 and future financial years.

Note 2. Savings to be used to fund over allocation in small local improvement projects.

Consideration

Local Board Views

15. The Board’s views are sought on the content of this report.

Maori Impact Statement

16. This report applies to all; there is no particular impact on Maori.

General

17. The report has been prepared using a new format as presented to the local board chairs on 18 February 2013. A revised format and focus is being developed and will be presented in the future.

Implementation Issues

18. There are no implementation issues.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Upper Harbour Local Board Discretionary funding - Allocation and Expenditure	61
b	Capital Expenditure by Project Report for the year to date 30 September 2013	63

Signatories

Authors

Colin Duffee – Lead Financial Advisor

Authorisers

Christine Watson - Manager Financial Advisory Services - Local Boards

Eric Perry – Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

12 November 2013

Report of use of the urgent decision making procedure during local government election period

File No.: CP2013/25271

Purpose

1. To report an urgent decision made by the former Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Upper Harbour Local Board, as required under the Board’s urgent decision-making procedure during the local government election period.

Executive Summary

2. The former Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson made an urgent decision to authorise expenditure on a traffic study required as part of the Albany Community Facility project, on Friday, 4 October 2013.

3. This decision was made in accordance with the urgent decision process adopted by the Upper Harbour Local Board, when it became apparent that the traffic study was required in order to progress the concept design phase into detail design, and that the delay in conducting the traffic study would delay progress on the project.

4. The urgent decision was made to ensure that the project could be undertaken in line with the Upper Harbour Local Board’s expectations and timeframe.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) notes that an urgent decision was made by the former Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson, under delegated authority, on Friday, 4 October 2013, to approve expenditure on a traffic study required as part of the Albany Community Facility project.

Discussion

Urgent decision procedure

5. On 10 September 2013, the Upper Harbour Local Board adopted its temporary arrangements for urgent local board decisions during the local government election period. This process delegated authority to the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson, or any members acting in these roles, to make a decision where it is not practical to call the full board together and meet the requirement of a quorum (resolution number UH/2013/201). The procedure requires that any decision be reported to the next meeting of the Board, hence this report.

Albany Community Hub Project

6. As reported to the Upper Harbour Local Board meeting on 10 September, the concept design for Albany Community Hub consists of a u-shape building with an internal courtyard and a provisional car park design to make the current site safer and improve capacity to serve the new facility.

7. At the meeting, staff reported that the project needs to demonstrate that the facility can be constructed within budget, prior to proceeding to detailed design drawings and the release of funds for construction. As part of the process, a traffic study would be required to give an early indication as to what changes to the existing car park could occur and whether any budget savings might be possible as a result.

8. An Auckland Council approved supplier, Traffic Solutions Ltd, provided a quote to the value of $5,000.00 to conduct the traffic study. The quote is attached as Attachment A to the report. The description of works included:

Ÿ Determining the impact of the new facility on car park design requirements;

Ÿ Determining the impact of any potential expansion footprint, which could potentially double the capacity of the facility;

Ÿ Considering site safety issues raised by Albany Community Preschool;

Ÿ Considering a car park design that is sympathetic with the open space aesthetic of the reserve;

Ÿ Determining the impact of the new facility on accessibility to and within the site;

Ÿ Site inspection and surveys to determine traffic and pedestrian patterns on the site, particularly amongst preschool, Albany House and sports field users;

Ÿ Possible staging options for the car park design to correspond with possible staging of the facility development.

Key deliverables would be:

Ÿ A traffic report for the resource consent, with summarised findings;

Ÿ Proposed car park design amendments to the concept design drawings (marking up the current plan).

Urgent decision

9. The Acting Relationship Manager considered it appropriate to invoke the urgent decision making procedure to approve expenditure on this project for the following reasons:

· an oversight by the reporting officer that the Board did not authorise this study at its 10 September 2013 meeting, as part of the concept design for Albany Community Hub report;

· the traffic study is a fundamental aspect of the Albany Community Hub project plan;

· the project is one of two main priority projects for the Board, and the Board is supportive of the project being progressed as a matter of urgency.

10. The Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson were briefed on this issue. They were requested to approve expenditure up to $5,000 on this project. Both the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson gave their approval on Friday, 4 October 2013.

Consideration

Local Board Views

11. The project is one of two main priority projects for the Upper Harbour Local Board and the Board is supportive of the project being progressed as a matter of urgency.

Maori Impact Statement

12. There are no specific impacts on Maori communities.

Implementation Issues

13. There are no implementation issues.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Traffic study quote from Traffic Solutions Ltd	69

Signatories

Authors	Karen Marais - Local Board Services
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

12 November 2013

Allocation of Upper Harbour Local Board portfolio roles

File No.: CP2013/25330

Purpose

1. This report provides the Upper Harbour Local Board an opportunity to discuss portfolio areas and the allocation of responsibilities and workload between board members.

Executive Summary

2. The Upper Harbour Local Board implemented the use of portfolio areas in July 2012. Due to the recent local body elections and the election of a new local board member to the Board, the allocation of portfolio areas needs to be revisited. This report provides the opportunity to discuss portfolio areas and the allocation of responsibilities between board members.

3. It is recommended that the Upper Harbour Local Board identifies which portfolio areas it wishes to implement, and which board members will be nominated as the lead and alternate for each identified portfolio area.

4. It is pertinent to note that portfolio holding is not intended to replace effective governance and decision making by the whole local board, but rather should enhance and strengthen elected member involvement in the delivery of projects and services in the Upper Harbour area.

5. To ensure effective communication between portfolio holders and the rest of the Board, members are encouraged to utilise the ‘members reports’ item on the business meeting agenda to report back to the rest of the local board on issues or decisions arising from their respective portfolio areas.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receives the Allocation of Upper Harbour Local Board portfolio roles report.

b) identifies which portfolio areas it wishes to implement.

c) nominates a lead and an alternate board member for each portfolio area.

d) specifies the level of authority granted to the portfolio holder with regard to acting on behalf of the Board.

Discussion

6. As of 1 November 2010, Auckland Council has had a new governance structure with two complementary governance arms: the governing body and 21 local boards. To date the governing body has focused on the regional perspective and region-wide decisions. Local boards have primarily been making decisions on local matters, providing leadership within their communities and building strong local relationships.

7. The role of local boards encompasses a wide range of activities and services. These include making decisions on, or advocating for (but not limited to):

· transport

· heritage

· sports and recreation facilities

· policy development

· waste management and minimization

· bylaws

· community development

· resource consents

· parks.

8. To ensure that the local board is effective and able to fulfil its obligations, it is recommended that the Upper Harbour Local Board utilises portfolio areas and allocates responsibilities to individual board members. These portfolio holders will be delegated discretionary authority by the Board to progress issues, projects and the like on behalf of the Board.

9. As it is extremely difficult for board members to attend the multitude of meetings, cluster briefings and workshops across Council, the allocation of responsibilities to individual members will increase the likelihood of the Upper Harbour Local Board having adequate representation at all sessions. Portfolio areas will also ensure that the workload is distributed evenly amongst members and will give members an opportunity to focus on areas of interest and expertise.

10. It is proposed that a lead and an alternate board member are nominated for each of the responsibility/portfolio areas, so that there is continuity if one member is unable to attend. Should more than one member be able to attend a session, it allows for different perspectives and the capturing of additional information.

11. Allocating responsibilities/portfolio areas to specific board members does not preclude any other member of the Board from attending a session. This model ensures that there is a person or two people who have in-depth knowledge of specific topics. Those members will be better able to advise the rest of the Board on that specific matter when it arises in a meeting or in discussion. The Chairperson will be invited to attend all sessions and will be provided with all the supporting documentation. This ensures that the Chairperson remains informed and is able to determine which session she/he would like to attend.

12. To ensure that the whole board is made aware of information being shared with portfolio holders (including decisions taken where applicable and the issues dealt with), members are encouraged to utilise the ‘members reports’ item on the business meeting agenda to report back to the rest of the local board. A report template has been developed to assist members, and Local Board Services staff will support members in submitting these reports to agendas (refer to attachments B and C of this report for reference).

13. It is proposed that the current portfolio areas be retained, and that the allocation of specific portfolio areas reflect the expertise, interests, experience and opportunities to develop new skills for local board members.

Consideration

Local Board Views

14. This report gives the Upper Harbour Local Board the opportunity to present its views on the issue.

Maori Impact Statement

15. There are not matters of significance to Maori in this report.

General

16. In considering the allocation of responsibilities, the Upper Harbour Local Board should be cognisant of two main clauses within the Local Government Act 2002 that guide governance principles and structures as follows:

Section 39 (b) – A local authority should ensure that the governance structures and process are effective, open and transparent.

Section 14 (1) – In performing its role, a local authority must act in accordance with the following principles:

a) Give effect to its identified priorities and desired outcomes in an efficient and effective manner;

b) A local authority should ensure prudent stewardship and efficient and effective use of its resources in the interests of the district and region.

The following table compares the advantages and disadvantages of the use of portfolios:

Option

Advantage

Disadvantage

Portfolios

- Portfolio members develop expertise and strong relationships with key stakeholders in specific areas

- Collaborative option to share local board responsibilities and meet community expectations

- Enables close monitoring of projects and priorities within the allocated portfolio, facilitating successful outcomes

- Portfolio teams report to full board ensuring all members have the opportunity to ask questions and develop understanding

- Advocates on behalf of the local board to governing body on those matters that are regional but with local interest within portfolio

- Efficient administration in that portfolio topics can be incorporated within a single agenda without the need for creation of separate agendas, minutes

- Simplicity for the public in that all matters are decided by the Local Board and not splintered

- Avoids fragmentation of function and decision making

- Portfolio members develop expertise to a greater level than the board members not participating in the portfolio

- Public perception that portfolio members may be progressing matters without the sanction of the full board

17. It is recommended that portfolios are adopted and that responsibilities be allocated across the local board members to reflect experience and opportunities to develop new skills and knowledge.

Implementation Issues

18. There are no implications that result from implementing the recommendation of this report.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Portfolio Guide	75
b	Proposed template for Chairperson's Report	87
c	Proposed template for Members' Report	89

Signatories

Authors	Karen Marais - Local Board Services
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

12 November 2013

Reconstitution of Working Parties

File No.: CP2013/25375

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to reconstitute the working parties for the Albany Stadium Pool, the Albany Community Hub and the swimming pool fencing exemption applications.

Executive Summary

2. In order to assist with the progression of the Albany Stadium Pool project, the Albany Community Hub project and the swimming pool fencing exemption applications, the Upper Harbour Local Board constituted working parties in the 2010-2013 term.

3. Due to the recent local government elections and the election of a new member to the Board, the working parties will need to be reconstituted.

4. It is proposed that the Upper Harbour Local Board elects three board members to each of the Albany Stadium Pool, Albany Community Hub and the swimming pool fencing exemption working parties.

5. It is recommended that the Board delegates authority to each of the working parties in order to enable them to function effectively and progress time sensitive matters.

6. All three working parties would be expected to report progress to the full board at an official business meeting. Quarterly progress reports will be required for the Albany Stadium Pool and Albany Community Hub projects. A report recommending the approval or decline of swimming pool fencing exemption applications will be presented to the first business meeting after considering the application/s.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) reconstitutes the working party for the Albany Stadium Pool and elects three members to the working party.

b) reconstitutes the working party for the Albany Community Hub and elects three members to the working party.

c) reconstitutes the working party to consider the swimming pool fencing exemption applications and elects three members to the working party.

d) specifies the level of authority delegated to the working parties with regard to acting on behalf of the Board, as follows:

i) Albany Stadium Pool working party – full delegated authority to make decisions on behalf of the Board, with quarterly written reports to the full board;

ii) Albany Community Hub working party – full delegated authority to make decisions on behalf of the Board, with quarterly written reports to the full board;

iii) Swimming pool fencing exemption applications working party – delegated authority to consider applications, hear applicant arguments and report recommendations on applications to the first business meeting after considering the application/s.

Discussion

7. Where a responsibility is allocated to the local board or directly conferred on the local board by the Auckland Council Act, the local board has autonomous decision-making power and is accountable for the decisions it makes. Examples of decisions allocated to local board include the design, build and fit-out of new local facilities such as swimming pools and community centres, and the leasing of local community facilities to community groups.

8. The Upper Harbour Local Board identified the need to set up working parties in the previous term, in order to expedite decision-making regarding the design, build and fit-out of the two priority facilities (the swimming pool and community facility) without having to present reports to the full board at predetermined business meetings. The board did not want to be seen to be hindering the progression of the projects and the consideration of applications for the exemption of fencing of swimming pools/spas.

9. It is recommended that the working parties are formed from a minimum of 3 elected local board members. The benefit of the working parties is that they can be assembled at short notice when issues of significance arise, or when a suitable number of applications are to be heard and site visits conducted.

10. Allocating delegations to working parties will enable decision-making to be undertaken in a timely manner, and would remove the hearing of these matters from the busy and protracted agenda process.

11. The Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 (FOSPA) is an Act to promote the safety of young children by requiring the fencing of swimming pools. Every territorial authority has the obligation to ensure that FOSPA is complied with within its district (section 10 FOSPA). The power to grant exemptions from the requirement to comply with FOSPA has been delegated to the local boards by the Governing Body by resolution GB/2011/163 at the 28 July 2011 meeting.

12. Exemption applications must be determined by resolution according to section 6 of FOSPA. Hearings are conducted according to general principles of administrative law. The local board must conduct a hearing to allow parties an opportunity to be heard in person if they wish, and to undertake proper consideration of relevant issues. Section 6 of FOSPA requires the local board to have knowledge of the particular characteristics of the property and the pool, and any other relevant circumstances and conditions it may impose.

13. At its meeting of 8 November 2011, the Board resolved to form a working party in order to assess swimming pool fencing exemption applications, as per the resolution below:

Item 15: Granting of exemptions from the requirement to comply with the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 (FOSPA)

Resolution number UH/2011/1

MOVED by Member Blair, seconded Member Whyte:

a) That the report on granting of exemptions from the requirement to comply with the fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 (FOSPA) be received.

b) That the Upper Harbour Local Board nominate the following three members:

a) Warren Flaunty

b) Brian Neeson

c) Christine Rankin-MacIntyre

to consider applications for exemptions under the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 and make recommendations to the Upper Harbour Local Board for decision-making.

c) That the members nominated in (b) report their recommendations on applications to the first business meeting after considering the application.

d) The above is subject to confirmation that individual members are not liable in any way for the outcome of the decision made by the Upper Harbour Local Board, in regard to swimming pool exemptions.

CARRIED

14. On 14 August 2012, the Board resolved to form the Albany Stadium Pool working party as follows:

Item 18: Parks, Sports and Recreation Quarterly Update to the Upper Harbour Local Board for the April to June 2012 period

Resolution number UH/2012/2

MOVED by Member MA Miles, seconded Member CR Rankin-MacIntyre:

a) That the Parks, Sports and Recreation Quarterly Update to the Upper Harbour Local Board for the April to June 2012 period report, be received.

b) That a working group be formed to liaise with officers during the progression of the Northern Recreation Facility (NRF – working group).

c) That the working group comprise of the Chairperson and Member Whyte as the portfolio holders of sport and recreation and Member Blair as portfolio holder for community, social well-being and local facilities.

d) That the working group reports back to the Board with updates on the Northern Recreational Facility.

CARRIED

15. Thereafter the Board resolved to form the Albany Community Hub working party on 23 April 2013. The resolution is reflected below:

Item 13: Concept design development for the Albany Community Hub

Resolution number UH/2013/3

MOVED by Member LW Whyte, seconded Member CR Rankin-MacIntyre:

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) Delegates a Political Working Party consisting of Chairperson Margaret Miles, Members Callum Blair and Christine Rankin-MacIntyre, with Members Brian Neeson and Lisa Whyte as alternates, to make decisions associated with concept design for the Albany Community Hub.

CARRIED

16. It is proposed that the Upper Harbour Local Board reconstitute the three working parties mentioned above and provide each working party with delegated authority to ensure that the working parties function effectively and efficiently.

Consideration

Local Board Views

17. This report gives the Upper Harbour Local Board the opportunity to present its views on the issue.

Maori Impact Statement

18. There are not matters of significance to Maori in this report.

General

19. In considering an allocation of responsibilities, the Upper Harbour Local Board needs to be cognisant of two main clauses within the Local Government Act that guide governance principles and structures, these are:

Section 39 (b) – A local authority should ensure that the governance structures and process are effective, open and transparent.

Section 14 (1) – In performing its role, a local authority must act in accordance with the following principles:

a) Give effect to its identified priorities and desired outcomes in an efficient and effective manner;

b) A local authority should ensure prudent stewardship and efficient and effective use of its resources in the interests of the district and region.

Implementation Issues

20. The decision of a local board following an exemption hearing is open to challenge by a judicial review process.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors	Karen Marais - Local Board Services
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

12 November 2013

Upper Harbour Local Board meeting schedule for the 2013-2016 Triennium

File No.: CP2013/25187

Purpose

1. To adopt the meeting schedule for the triennium covering the period November 2013 to October 2016.

Executive Summary

2. A draft meeting schedule has been developed for the Upper Harbour Local Board for the triennium covering the period November 2013 to October 2016, and is appended to this report as Attachment A.

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 will therefore need to be updated and provision made for these hearings, once the details are confirmed.

4. It is prudent for the Local Board to adopt a meeting schedule as it ensures local board members have clarity about their commitments, gives an indication to the public of when meetings are to be held and meets the requirement of clause 19(5)(b), Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002. It also allows for a planned approach to workloads and ensures clarity about diary commitments.

5. Local Board meetings are open to the public and will be notified through public notices in appropriate media. The statutory requirement pursuant to clause 46A(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 states that agendas and reports must be available at least two working days before a meeting.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) adopts the meeting schedule for the triennium covering the period November 2013 to October 2016.

b) notes that dates and times for the hearings process are still to be finalised and as such have not yet been provisioned for in the meeting schedule.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Upper Harbour Local Board meeting schedule for the 2013-2016 Triennium	97

Signatories

Authors	Lesley Sharp - Local Board Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager