Agenda of Kaipatiki Local Board

Kaipātiki Local Board area

Kaipātiki Local Board Members

	Kay McIntyre Chairperson Ph 09 484 8383 DDI 09 484 8987 Mobile 021 287 8844 kay.mcintyre@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Portfolios: · Finance – lead · Planning, policy and governance – lead · Built environment, streetscapes and urban design – alternate		Ann Hartley JP Deputy Chairperson Mob 027 490 6909 Office 09 484 8383 Home 09 483 7572 ann.hartley@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Portfolios: · Community Development and Facilities – lead · Sport, recreation services and parks (active) – lead · Parks, reserves and playgrounds (passive) – alternate · Planning, policy and governance – alternate · Regulatory, bylaws and compliance – alternate
	Danielle Grant Local Board Member Mob 021 835 724 Office 09 484 8383 Home 09 442 1271 danielle.grant@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Portfolios: · Arts, culture and events services – lead · Economic development – lead · Natural environment – alternate		Grant Gillon MPP, PhD Local Board Member Mob 027 476 4679 Office 09 484 8383 grant.gillon@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Portfolios: · Natural environment – lead · Regulatory, bylaws and compliance – lead · Libraries – alternate
	John Gillon Local Board Member Mob 021 286 2288 Office 09 484 8383 Home 09 443 1683 john.gillon@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Portfolios: · Libraries – lead · Parks, reserves and playgrounds (passive) – lead · Civil defence and emergency management – alternate		Lindsay Waugh Local Board Member Mob 021 287 1155 Office 09 484 8383 Home 09 418 1620 lindsay.waugh@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Portfolios: · Built environment, streetscapes and urban design – lead · Arts, culture and events services – alternate · Transport and infrastructure – alternate
	Lorene Pigg Local Board Member Mob 021 839 375 Office 09 484 8383 lorene.pigg@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Portfolios: · Civil defence and emergency management – lead · Finance – alternate · Sport, recreation services and parks (active) – alternate		Richard Hills Local Board Member Mob 021 286 4411 Office 09 484 8383 richard.hills@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Portfolios: · Transport and infrastructure – lead · Community Development and Facilities – alternate · Economic development – alternate

Kaipātiki Local Board

11 December 2013

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 Welcome 7

2 Apologies 7

3 Declaration of Interest 7

4 Confirmation of Minutes 7

5 Leave of Absence 7

6 Acknowledgements 7

7 Petitions 7

8 Deputations 7

9 Public Forum 7

10 Extraordinary Business 8

11 Notices of Motion 9

11.1 Notice of Motion - Eskdale Reserve Bollards 9

12 Infrastructure and Environmental Services Update Report 11

13 Northcote Town Centre - Delivery of Northcote Town Centre Plan 2010 33

14 Local board agreement 2014/2015 57

15 Weetbix TRYathlon Training Session 2013/2014 79

16 Auckland Transport Update on Issues Raised in September/October 2013 for the Kaipātiki Local Board 89

17 Dog Access Review – Scope and Consultation 103

18 Local Event Support Fund - Round 2 2013/2014 115

19 Developing the Local Board Plan 2014 127

20 Quarterly Local Board Services Report - December 2013 133

21 Appointments to Outside Organisations 167

22 Northern Joint Funding Committee 179

23 Governing Body Members' update 187

24 Members' reports 189

25 Urgent Decision Process for the Kaipātiki Local Board 213

26 Applications for Special Exemptions under Section 6 of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 215

27 Workshop Record - Kaipātiki Local Board Workshops, Wednesday, 13 November and Wednesday, 27 November 2013 219

28 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

29 Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public 227

26 Applications for Special Exemptions under Section 6 of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987

a. 49 Seaview Avenue 227

b. 2/252 Rangatira Road 227

c. 7 Gillan Place 227

d. 7 Brigantine Drive 228

e. 22 Onewa Road 228

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 Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 13 November 2013, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

5 Leave of Absence

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

6 Acknowledgements

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

7 Petitions

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

8 Deputations

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 - Eskdale Reserve Bollards

1. In accordance with Standing Order 3.11.1, the following Notice of Motion has been received from Member John Gillon for inclusion on the agenda for the Kaipātiki Local Board meeting being held on day, Wednesday, 11 December 2013:

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) receives the Notice of Motion.

b) revokes resolution KT/2013/258 passed on 28 August 2013, which allocated $40,000 from the Local Parks Furniture and Fixtures Renewals budget (on top of $60,000 from the Local Board Transport Capital Fund) for the installation of bollards at Eskdale Reserve, under standing order 3.10.14 Revocation or alteration of resolutions.

c) allocates up to $40,000 from the Local Parks Furniture and Fixtures Renewals budget to the following projects, determined by the Parks Department to be of the highest priority [project list to be tabled/discussed].

Background

2. The quote for installing bollards at Eskdale Reserve was $55,000, as presented to Kaipātiki Local Board on 28 August 2013. Please refer to notice of motion attachment for resolution and report details.

3. The Kaipātiki Local Board resolved to allocate a total of $100,000 to installing bollards at Eskdale Reserve - $45,000 higher than quoted:

i. $40,000 from its Local parks furniture and fixtures renewals budget to the Eskdale Reserve Bollards project.

ii. $60,000 from the Local Board Transport Capital Fund to the Eskdale Reserve bollards.

4. The bollard project has since been contracted out to a value near the original quote, therefore not requiring the $40,000 from the Local Parks Furniture and Fixtures Renewals budget. However, this money is still tagged for spending on bollards at Eskdale Reserve. Meanwhile we have park furniture and fixtures that require renewing but do not have adequate funding.

5. We supported installing bollards at Eskdale Reserve, but felt that the quote of $55,000 was too high, and the figure of $100,000 assigned to the project was extremely excessive. It is with some relief that $40,000 can now be sensibly allocated to projects in need of funding.

Attachments

a Signed notice of motion....................................................................... 231

Kaipātiki Local Board

11 December 2013

Infrastructure and Environmental Services Update Report

File No.: CP2013/26211

Purpose

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

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

Executive Summary

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

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

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

6. The report also asks the board to delegate one or two members to give feedback and local input on applications to the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund (WMIF). It is suggested that the natural environmental portfolio holder and their alternate would be appropriate members to undertake this responsibility.

Recommendations

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) receives the Infrastructure and Environmental Services update report

b) delegates to the natural environment portfolio holder and their alternate responsibility to give informal feedback and local input on applications to the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund.

Discussion

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

Priority: Enhance and protect our water quality, leafy suburbs and parks

Initiatives:

Develop and implement a Master plan for Chelsea Heritage Park

Green waste recycling education and training

Development and expansion of the Chelsea Heritage Park

Advocate inner harbour beach protection and enhancement

Establish benchmark standards for Kaipātiki reserves signage and walkway standards

Support developing an environmental and education centre in Kaipātiki

Bush protection policy and plan development

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

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

Environmental Services Unit

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

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

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

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

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

Solid Waste Unit

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stormwater Unit

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

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

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

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

Feedback on the Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund (WMIF)

25. The WMIF is a fund which offers grants to community groups, businesses, iwi, and educational institutions (such as schools or kindergartens) for projects that will help minimise waste to landfill. The fund is one of the largest run by council, with two funding rounds a year. The major funding round is held in October of each year and distributes up to $475,000. Projects funded in this round can have a value of over $25,000 and run for up to three years. A smaller funding round in April each year distributes $25,000 of small grants (up to $5,000).

26. When the fund was approved by the Regional Development and Operations Committee of the governing body in February 2013, the process for decision making on small grant applications to the fund was approved as follows:

“For smaller grants (from $250 and up to $5,000), it is proposed that a parallel step be undertaken by the local boards in a collective workshop setting. The Manager can provide a brief on the larger grant applications, to provide an overview of the bigger picture. Local boards would have an opportunity to ask questions, develop an understanding of the process and objectives in greater depth, and provide any local knowledge that the Manager might need to consider. After these discussions, final decisions on the small grants are made by the Manager of Solid Waste.”

27. In line this with process, local board members will be asked to give feedback on applications to the fund from their board area over the next three year term. To achieve the greatest efficiency for board members, it is recommended that the board delegate one or two members to give feedback on these applications. It is suggested that the natural environment portfolio holder and their alternate would be appropriate members to undertake this responsibility.

Consideration

Local Board Views

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

Maori Impact Statement

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

Implementation Issues

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Environmental Services Unit update report	15
b	Solid Waste Update Report	17
c	Auckland Household Waste Prevention Study	23
d	Stormwater Update Report	27

Signatories

Authors

Theresa Pearce - Relationship Advisor

Lucy Hawcroft - Relationship Advisor

Mara Bebich - Senior Relationship & Engagement Advisor

Emma Joyce - Relationship Advisor

Varsha Belwalkar - Stormwater Liaison Advisor

Authorisers

John Dragicevich - Manager Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

11 December 2013

Northcote Town Centre - Delivery of Northcote Town Centre Plan 2010

File No.: CP2013/26511

Purpose

1. To update the Kaipātiki Local Board on the Northcote Town Centre work programme, and to confirm the prioritisation of projects and distribution of available budget for the delivery of the work programme.

2. This report also seeks endorsement of the proposed new town centre ‘brand’, the proposed location of a new two pan public toilet, and a 50-50 cost share of the town centre security camera system repair.

Executive Summary

3. The Northcote Town Centre Plan was adopted by North Shore City Council in July 2010. It sets out a vision for the centre and includes a number of short, medium and long term initiatives. Council has a Long Term Plan budget line for the delivery of the Centre Plan.

4. Officers recommend the below prioritisation and allocation of available budget

FY 2014 - $460,350 for branding, toilets, signage, CCTV and car park design

FY 2015 - $480,184 for Lake Road car park works (including lighting)

FY 2018 - $104,858 to bring forward to 2015 for Lake Road car park works

FY 2019 - $1,801,452 for Ernie Mays extension; bring part forward to 2015 for Lake Road car park

FY 2022 - $2,685,401 for Lake Road; bring part forward to 2015 for Lake Road car park

5. A re-branding exercise has now been concluded for Northcote Town Centre, which is a prerequisite to installing new entry signage and internal way-finding signage throughout the centre. A ‘fan shaped logo’ telling the story of Northcote has been selected by the Business Association. The brand will be owned by the Business Association.

6. Council and the Business Association installed security cameras in Northcote Town Centre approximately 10 years ago. The system is now not working, and an upgrade is required. A 50-50 cost share with the Business Association has been negotiated, with council’s share to be a maximum value of $20,000. The Business Association has agreed to cover all future operational and maintenance costs.

7. A new two pan public toilet near the bus stops on Pearn Crescent is proposed, with final design and location subject to car park design project. An upgrade of the men’s public toilet by the library is also underway.

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) Endorse the Northcote Town Centre Plan 2010 that was adopted by North Shore City Council in July 2010.

b) Confirm the below project prioritisation and allocation of available budget:

FY 2014 - $460,350 for branding, toilets, signage, CCTV and car park design

FY 2015 - $480,184 for Lake Road car park works (including lighting)

FY 2018 - $104,858 to bring forward to 2015 for Lake Road car park works

FY 2019 - $1,801,452 for Ernie Mays extension; bring part forward to 2015 for Lake Road car park

FY 2022 - $2,685,401 Lake Road; bring part forward to 2015 for Lake Road car park

c) Endorse the proposed new ‘fan’ brand for Northcote Town Centre.

d) Endorse the 50-50 cost share with Business Association to upgrade the security camera system, to a maximum cost to council of $20,000.

e) Confirm a new two pan public toilet near the bus stops on Pearn Crescent, with final design and location subject to the Lake Road car park design project.

Discussion

8. The Northcote Town Centre Plan was adopted by North Shore City Council in July 2010. A copy of the Centre Plan is attached to this report (Attachment A). It sets out a vision for the centre and includes a number of short, medium and long term initiatives. Council has a Long Term Plan budget line for the delivery of the Centre Plan.

9. Officers have been working with a number of internal and external stakeholders to prioritise and deliver the initiatives set out in the Centre Plan. Not all initiatives can be delivered with available funds, and certain initiatives involve the use of third party controlled land.

10. Officers suggest the following distribution of the $5.6 million available budget:

FY 2013 $100,000 (playground: already completed)

FY 2014 $460,350 (branding, toilets, signage, CCTV, car park design)

FY 2015 $480,184 (car park works including lighting)

FY 2018 $104,858 (bring forward to 2015)

FY 2019 $1,801,452 (Ernie Mays extension; bring part forward to 2015)

FY 2022 $2,685,401 (Lake Road; bring part forward to 2015).

11. It is likely that the cost of the Lake Road car park upgrade will exceed the above allocated budget, and officers seek to bring funding forward from 2018, 2019 and 2022 financial years to ensure that the Lake Road car park project is completed. Lake Road car park is the ‘front door’ to the centre and its upgrade is key for a number of other development initiatives, including signage, lighting and creation of the base layout to facilitate future property development contemplated by the Centre Plan. Exact cost estimates are not available (final design is still being considered), but it is likely to be between $1.5 to $2 million. The works can be funded if the FY 2022 Lake Road upgrade budget is reduced, and that project scope is reduced or deferred until additional funding is secured at a later date.

12. The Centre Plan identifies the need for new and improved public toilet facilities. Officers have conducted a review of the Town Centre’s public toilet provision and recommend a new two pan toilet be installed near the bus stops on Pearn Crescent. The estimated cost of a new two pan is $200,000. The exact location of this new toilet will depend on the car park review currently underway. The review also identified a number of serious issues with the men’s toilet beside the library, including that the urinal was leaking into the floor. As a result of the review, a $25,000 upgrade of the men’s public toilet by the library occurred in late November. A baby change table for the women’s toilet was added to the scope after discussion at a Kaipātiki Local Board workshop. A copy of the toilet review, and concept plan for the new toilet near the bus shelters on Pearn Crescent, is attached to this report (Attachments B and C).

13. Officers have worked with the Business Association to re-brand the town centre. This was necessary to replace the existing, now outdated and tired, brand before new centre signage and way-finding was installed. A new ‘fan’ shaped logo which tells the story of Northcote has been selected by the Business Association. Its development has involved a number of workshops with stakeholders and has been developed by professional brand designer Belinda Duffy in partnership with Maori artist Graham Tipene. The Business Association will own the brand and its licenses. The new brand and story behind the brand is attached to this report (Attachment D).

14. Officers have recently commissioned a number of reports on the Lake Road car park including condition survey, parking optimisation, bus circulation, street lighting and arboricultural review. These reports are assisting in design options for the Lake Road car park. The Lake Road car park upgrade project will be presented to the Local Board in 2014.

15. North Shore City Council and the Business Association installed security cameras in the Northcote Town Centre approximately 10 years ago. The cameras monitor a number of public places, including the library, bus shelters, main entrances and walkways. The system is now not working, and an upgrade is required. A 50-50 cost share with the Business Association has been negotiated, with council’s share to be a maximum value of $20,000. The upgraded system is digital IP system which is far superior to the previous analogue system in terms of picture quality, security of data and functionality. The upgrade has been designed in liaison with NZ Police, and utilises existing infrastructure where possible to save costs. The Business Association has agreed to cover all future operational and maintenance costs.

16. A number of items included in the Centre Plan will need new budget lines if they are to be pursued. These include further library improvements and a new community hall/theatre. Officers will review these additions and report to the board at a later date if there is a case for promoting the inclusion of these items.

17. In addition to changes to the public realm and community buildings, the Centre Plan promotes development opportunity of council-owned (leased to third parties) land with new retail, offices and apartments. The viability of any such initiative would be considered by council’s property team and reported to the Kaipātiki Local Board with a strategic plan for the centre.

Consideration

Local Board Views

18. This report seeks the Local Board’s views.

Maori Impact Statement

19. Historic Maori occupation of the Northcote area is well documented, and iwi consultation was undertaken during the preparation of the Centre Plan. A hui to discuss delivery of works in accordance with the Northcote Town Centre upgrade, and a number of other Kaipātiki projects, is scheduled for 10 December 2014. It is expected that a number of iwi will request further involvement in various future workstreams within Northcote. Such requests will be accommodated if possible.

20. A Maori artist with understanding of Northcote history and Maori legend was engaged to assist with the branding exercise.

General

21. The Northcote area is identified as an area of ‘some’ and ‘moderate’ change in the Auckland Plan.

Implementation Issues

22. This report seeks Local Board direction to continue to implement the Northcote works programme as set out in the Centre Plan. The recommended first stage involves works on council-owned and controlled land. Later stages include property development of council-owned, but third party controlled land. The Centre Plan has made a number of assumptions including moving the existing supermarket and redevelopment of certain blocks. Council will need to carefully consider the viability of any development option and work with the private sector and Auckland Council Property Limited (ACPL) before committing to any associated capital works.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Northcote Town Centre Plan 2010 (Under Separate Cover)
b	Northcote Centre Public Toilets Condition Report	37
c	Northcote Centre Proposed New Toilets Concept Plans	51
d	Northcote Brand and Story	55

Signatories

Authors

Tim Sinclair - Project Leader: City Transformation Projects

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

11 December 2013

Local board agreement 2014/2015

File No.: CP2013/28005

Purpose

1. This report seeks agreement from the Local Board on content for the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 (including the draft Local Board Agreement 2014/2015) and a draft Fees and Charges Schedule.

2. The report also provides information on the next steps in the process to finalise local board budgets and agreements for 2014/2015.

Executive Summary

3. For each financial year, Auckland Council must have a local board agreement (as agreed between the governing body and the Local Board) for each local board area.

4. The draft local board agreement is largely based on year three of the Long-term Plan 2012-2022^{^[1]} (LTP) and reflects the priorities in the local board plan, shows intended provision of local activities, and the capital and operating expenditure required to fund these activities. A separate consultation section has been developed to identify any proposed budget changes and to highlight any new areas of advocacy for 2014/2015

5. The draft local board agreement must be included in Auckland Council’s draft Annual Plan 2014/2015, which the governing body will meet to adopt on 19 December to be released for public consultation on 23 January 2014.

6. A summary of the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 must also be prepared as part of the consultation. The summary will contain both regional and local board specific information. The local information focuses on the local priorities for 2014/2015 and what might change from year three of the LTP.

7. Following the consultation phase, each local board will reconsider its agreement and budget for 2014/2015 and, if required, reprioritise proposed local activities within its fiscal envelope before adopting a final local board agreement in June 2014. The governing body will adopt Auckland Council’s Annual Plan 2014/2015, including 21 local board agreements, on 26 June 2014.

8. Local fees and charges schedules will be finalised in May 2014. A draft schedule is provided for agreement by the Local Board to support draft financial statements. The Community Development Arts and Culture department (CDAC) are currently reviewing a fees and charges model and will commence engagement with local boards in December 2013.

9. A review of the capital expenditure programme is currently underway by the operations division to improve long term delivery and prioritisation of capital projects. Engagement with local boards on a re-forecasted capital project delivery programme will commence in early 2014. Financial statements included in this draft local board agreement remain based on year three of the LTP, adjusted to reflect approved budget changes since the adoption of the LTP.

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) agrees the local content for the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015, including:

i) draft Local Board Agreement 2014/2015 (including intended level of service provision and financial statements)

ii) introduction to the draft Local Board Agreement (including chairs message and proposed changes for consultation).

b) agrees the draft Fees and Charges Schedule 2014/2015.

c) delegates the Chairperson authority to make any final minor changes to the local board content for the draft Annual Plan before it is released for public consultation, and to the summary of the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015.

Discussion

10. The Governing Body will meet to adopt the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 on 19 December 2013, which must include the draft local board agreement for each local board.

11. This report seeks approval of local board content for the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 and agreement of draft local fees and charges for 2014/2015. It also provides information on the process that will be followed to finalise the local board budgets and agreements for 2014/2015 following public consultation.

12. The resolutions of this meeting will be reported to the Governing Body on 19 December 2013, when it meets to adopt the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 for consultation.

13. Local board financial statements are based on year three of the LTP and adjusted to reflect revised budgets endorsed by the Budget Committee on 21 November 2013 to achieve a reduced rates increase of 2.5% for 2014/2015, as well as other approved budget changes since the adoption of the LTP.

14. Whilst operational savings are reflected in revised budgets, these changes will not impact service levels.

Draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 content

15. The draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 content includes:

a) the draft Local Board Agreement 2014/2015 which outlines:

i. a description of each group of local activities

ii. key initiatives planned for 2014/2015

iii. intended levels of service provision

iv. financial statements

v. capital projects list.

b) an introduction to the draft Local Board Agreement which outlines:

i. a message from the chair

ii. areas for consultation with local communities

iii. proposed budget changes

iv. new advocacy areas for 2014/2015

v. about the local board area

vi. local board plan priorities.

16. Community, development, arts and culture performance measures were reviewed this year to improve clarity. This resulted in the removal of two performance measures and amendment to wording of six other performance measures.

Draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 summary

17. A summary of the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 must be prepared as part of the consultation. Local information focuses on local priorities for 2014/2015 and what might change from year three of the LTP. It includes both content and images and this year will be presented in OurAuckland.

18. Officers will work with local boards using the usual OurAuckland approval process for signoff of the summary content.

Draft Fees and Charges Schedule 2014/2015

19. Local fees and charges schedules will be finalised in May 2014. A draft fees and charges schedule has been provided for your agreement to support draft financial statements. The Community Development Arts and Culture (CDAC) department are currently reviewing a fees and charges model and will commence engagement with local boards in December 2013.

Process

20. Officers will undertake a budget refresh in February 2014, and updated prioritisation models will be developed for each local board that reflect adjustments made as part of the budget refresh.

21. The opportunity for a more in depth examination of budgets across the organisation begins early next year as part of the development of the next 2015-2025 LTP and Local Board Plans.

22. The timeline for finalising the local board agreement for 2014/2015 is set out in the implementation section of this report.

Consideration

Local Board Views

23. This report seeks agreement from the Local Board for its draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 content and draft Fees and Charges Schedule.

Maori Impact Statement

24. Many local board decisions are of importance to Maori and there is a need to continue to build relationships between local boards and relevant iwi. The draft local board agreement is based on the local board plan and the LTP, which have both been developed through engagement with the community, including Maori.

Implementation Issues

25. The timeline and high-level process for finalising the local board agreement for 2014/2015 is set out below.

Timing	Process for finalising local board agreements
9 – 18 Dec	Local boards meet to agree draft local board agreements and content for consultation
19 Dec	Adoption of draft Annual Plan 2014/2015, including 21 local board agreements
23 Jan – 24 Feb	Draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 consultation Released for public consultation on 23 January using the special consultative procedure
Feb	Budget Refresh Officers review budgets to inform adjustments that will feed into the local board prioritisation models
Feb - early April	Engagement on local board advocacy with departments and CCO’s Assess progress and inform development of an updated set of advocacy for 2014/2015
17 Mar – 17 Apr	Local board hearings, workshops and decision meetings Reconsider agreements (including budgets) and advocacy areas and hold a formal meeting to agree a final balanced budget and set of advocacy areas for 2014/2015
Late April	Governing body discussions with local boards
1 May	Governing body discussions with CCOs
5 - 23 May	Local board agreements and financial statements updated
9 - 26 Jun	Adoption of Local Board Agreements and Annual Plan 2014/2015 Local boards meet to adopt their agreements between 9 - 19 June. Governing body meets to adopt draft Annual Plan, including 21 draft LBAs, on 26 June

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Draft Local Board Agreement 2014/2015	61
b	Draft Fees and Charges Schedule 2014/2015	75

Signatories

Authors

Kate Marsh - Financial Planning Manager - Local Boards

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

11 December 2013

Leisure and recreation facilities

Glenfield Pool and Leisure Centre

Description	Current fee	Proposed fee for 14/15	Rationale for change/ officer advice	Estimated impact on revenue budget (outside of inflation)
Casual Admission Pool	$6.50	$6.60	Inflation adjustment	Nil
Casual Full Aquatic Access (Adult)	$9.70	$9.80	Inflation adjustment	Nil
Casual Full Aquatic Access (Senior)	$5.40	$5.50	Inflation adjustment	Nil
Casual Fitness Centre entry	$15.00	$15.20	Inflation adjustment	Nil
Facility Hire - Main Pool per hour	$240.10	$242.50	Inflation adjustment	Nil
Facility Hire - small per hour	$64.40	$65.00	Inflation adjustment	Nil
Facility Hire - main pool per lane per hour	$34.30	$34.60	Inflation adjustment	Nil
Facility Hire - Dive Pool	$82.50	$83.30	Inflation adjustment	Nil
Supervising Adult (Pool)	$1.00	$4.30	align with general discounted rate	Minimal impact – slight increase in revenue
Spectator	$0.00	$1.00	network wide consistency	Minimal impact – slight increase in revenue

Birkenhead Pool and Leisure

Description	Current fee	Proposed fee for 14/15	Rationale for change/ officer advice	Estimated impact on revenue budget (outside of inflation)
Casual Admission (pool)	$6.70	$6.80	Inflation adjustment	Nil
Casual Admission (pool) Senior	$4.30	$4.30	Inflation adjustment	Nil
Supervising Adult (Pool)	$1.00	$4.30	align with general discounted rate	Minimal impact – slight increase in revenue
Spectator	$1.00	$1.00	network wide consistency	Minimal impact – slight increase in revenue
Casual Fitness	$15.40	$15.60	Inflation adjustment	Nil
Facility Hire Osbourne Pool lane per hour	$32.20	$32.50	Inflation adjustment	Nil
Facility Hire Osbourne Pool Tri Squad lane per hour	$7.70	$7.80	Inflation adjustment	Nil
MAIN Pool Hire for Canoe Polo	$75.90	$76.70	Inflation adjustment	Nil
Main Pool Hire per hour	$92.30	$93.20	Inflation adjustment	Nil
Learn to swim Pool Hire per hour	$66.00	$66.70	Inflation adjustment	Nil
Classroom Hire per hour	$31.10	$31.40	Inflation adjustment	Nil
Casual Rock Climbing Adult	$13.80	$13.90	Inflation adjustment	Nil
Casual Rock Climbing child	$10.70	$10.80	Inflation adjustment	Nil
Casual Rock Climbing student	$10.70	$10.80	Inflation adjustment	Nil
Rock Hoppers and harness	$12.80	$12.90	Inflation adjustment	Nil
Birthday party climb - child	$9.80	$9.90	Inflation adjustment	Nil
High Ropes Adult	$27.90	$28.20	Inflation adjustment	Nil
High Ropes Child	$21.50	$21.70	Inflation adjustment	Nil
Casual Archery -	$12.90	$13.00	Inflation adjustment	Nil

Local community and arts facilities

			Current rates		Baseline rates for 14/15 *
Facility/Service	Type	Room/ Service	Community	Private	Community	Private
Marlborough Park Hall	Hourly		$11.10	$16.90	$11.20	$17.10

*Baseline fee of 1% inflation applied. A review of CDAC’s fee structure is currently underway and further officers’ advice will be made available in early 2014.

Kaipātiki Local Board

11 December 2013

Weetbix TRYathlon Training Session 2013/2014

File No.: CP2013/26684

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to seek a decision from the Kaipātiki Local Board about funding the Weetbix TRYathlon Training Session planned for the 2013/2014 year.

Executive Summary

2. The Weetbix TRYathlon Training Session was a free event delivered by the Kaipātiki Local Board in April 2013. The event was popular and generated positive feedback from attendees.

3. Council staff are finalising the 2013/2014 event programme and seek a decision from the Kaipātiki Local Board about funding the Weetbix TRYathlon Training Session.

4. The budget for the 2013 training day was $3,500. Staff have reviewed last year’s event to identify savings or improvement opportunities and envisage that a similar budget would be required to run the event successfully again.

5. A review of the event name can be considered to recognise the significant contribution of the Kaipātiki Local Board.

Recommendations

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) fund the Weetbix TRYathlon Training Session in the 2013/2014 year to a maximum value of $3,500.

b) renames the event ‘Kaipātiki Weetbix TRYathlon Training Session’ to reflect the local board’s contribution.

c) delegates final approval of the event budget and marketing plan to the Arts, Culture and Events Services portfolio holders, Member Grant and Member Waugh.

Discussion

6. The Weetbix TRYathlon Training Session was delivered on behalf of the Kaipātiki Local Board by the Auckland Council Events team in the 2012/2013 financial year. The event was held at the Birkenhead War Memorial Park in April 2013.

7. In the 2013/2014 Community Development Arts and Culture (CDAC) department work programme, it was identified that the Events unit would deliver a proposal to the Kaipātiki Local Board seeking a decision on whether to fund the event again in 2013/2014 (presentation attached as Appendix A).

8. The feedback received from participants after the 2013 event was overwhelmingly positive.

9. The budget allocated for the event was $3,500. The final cost of delivering the event was $3,354.47. It is estimated that a similar budget would be required to deliver the event in 2014.

10. Half of the 2013 budget was used for two advertisements in the North Shore Times ($1,667.80). Consideration could be given to alternative marketing avenues, such as Event Finder, to reduce overall event costs. Sponsorship opportunities for bike racks also exist to achieve further savings.

11. It is considered that the maximum number of participants be maintained at 90 to ensure a high level of instruction is provided to participants.

12. The event is named the ‘Weetbix TRYathlon Training Session’ to align it to the well-known children’s participation series. It also provides an opportunity to secure sponsorship for the event. Consideration could be given to rebranding the event ‘Kaipātiki Weetbix TRYathlon Session’.

Consideration

Local Board Views

13. When the CDAC work programme was presented to local board members in June 2013, the board requested staff present savings options and review the name of the event prior to the board making a decision on the 2014 Weetbix TRYathlon Training Session. This information is presented in this report.

Maori Impact Statement

14. The 2013/2014 Weetbix TRYathlon Training Session is designed to benefit the local community as a whole, including Maori.

General

15. The decisions sought within this report fall within local board delegations.

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

Implementation Issues

17. If the Kaipātiki Local Board resolves to fund the event, staff will commence planning with the aim of delivering the event in March 2014.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Weet-Bix Kids TRYathlon Training Session 2014 – Viability Report	81

Signatories

Authors

Susan Helps - Team Leader Regional Events and Partnerships

Richard Saunders - Manager Event Facilitation

Authorisers

Louise Mason - Manager Community Development, Arts and Culture

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

11 December 2013

Auckland Transport Update on Issues Raised in September/October 2013 for the Kaipātiki Local Board

File No.: CP2013/27931

Purpose

1. This report provides an update on transport-related issues raised by local board members during September-October 2013. It also includes general information about matters of interest to the local board and Attachment ‘A’, the Schedule of Issues raised September-October 2013.

2. If members have any questions relating to the issues covered in Attachment ‘A’ they are respectfully requested to raise these directly with their elected member Relationship Manager outside the formal business meeting. Any questions raised will be reported in the next month’s list of issues raised.

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) receives the Auckland Transport September/October 2013 Issues Update report.

Discussion

AT HOP Card Implementation - Introduced to North Star 13 October 2013

3. After a temporary delay, AT HOP went live on North Star bus services on 13 October 2013.

4. Ambassadors handed out brochures on North Star school buses and at key bus stops on North Star bus routes. This was supported by posters installed on North Star buses and at selected bus stops as well as media and radio advertising.

5. All local board members were advised and updated by email as well as provision of hard copy information in September 2013.

6. Further Information about using and topping up the AT HOP card can be viewed online at www.ATHOP.co.nz

Auckland Transport invests more than a billion dollars in Auckland

7. Auckland Transport has released its annual report for the year to 30 June 2013.

8. The report shows Auckland Transport has invested a further $1.07 billion in Auckland’s infrastructure, including $297.8 million spent on public transport, $123 million on roads and $31 million on parking.

9. Auckland Transport chairman, Dr Lester Levy, says it has been another big year: “Few cities in the world have worked harder or invested more in fundamental change to their transport system, in such a short time.”

10. He says there have been a number of highlights including the government announcing its support for construction of the City Rail Link and for accelerating the AMETI project including the East-West link.

11. The 2013 financial year saw integrated ticketing introduced, the $100 million Wiri depot being built to maintain the electric trains, a new central city parking zone, ferry services beginning to Hobsonville and Beach Haven, construction work continuing on the AMETI project and the first work on a radical re-design of the entire bus network.

12. Auckland Transport’s Chief Executive Officer, David Warburton, says the past year has been challenging for staff: “Auckland Transport has a big job to do. I thank our staff for their commitment to transforming Auckland and its transport system.”

13. Dr Warburton says the changes are happening at great speed: “The first of Auckland’s new trains will be unveiled this week and all 57 trains will be in operation by mid-2015.”

14. But Dr Levy warns that Auckland’s predominantly road-based system still has fragile arteries and lacks realistic alternatives and resilience. “Aucklanders have a right to expect better and change is coming fast.”

15. He says more frequent and more reliable public transport services to more areas of Auckland will be enabled by electric trains, integrated fares and full delivery of the re-designed bus network and new service contracts.

AT HOP roll-out passes halfway point

16. Auckland Transport is just over halfway through the roll-out of its new integrated public transport card, AT HOP.

17. Just under 150,000 AT HOP cards are being used by customers, accounting for approximately 77 per cent of all trips on those parts of the network which are live.

18. In the past month there have been more than 1.2 million AT HOP transactions across bus, ferry and train (an average of 41,348 transactions per day).

19. Auckland Transport’s Chief Operating Officer, Greg Edmonds, says the roll-out is progressing according to plan but acknowledges some customers may have experienced some technical issues, which are inevitable with a project of this scale and complexity.

20. “We are building a world-class system from scratch, and when you are relying on technology unfortunately there may be problems along the way. We would like to thank our customers for their patience and support as we move to full implementation.”

21. Meanwhile, the roll-out continues on the bus network. AT HOP can now be used on LINK (City, Inner and Outer) buses and some Metrolink buses. Remaining Metrolink buses are planned to launch AT HOP on 24 November 2013.

22. To assist our customers, Auckland Transport has ambassadors on buses and at stops.

Consideration

Local Board Views

23. This report is for the Local Board’s information.

Maori Impact Statement

24. No specific issues with regard to the Maori Impact Statement are triggered by this report.

General

25. The activities detailed in this report do not trigger the Significance Policy, all programmes and activities are within budget/in line with the Council’s Annual Plan and LTP documents and there are no legal or legislative implications arising from the activities detailed in this report.

Implementation Issues

26. There are no implementation issues.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Kaipātiki issues raised by local board members during July, August September, October 2013	93

Signatories

Authors

Marilyn Nicholls, Elected Member Relationship Manager, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon, Elected Member Relationship Team Manager, Auckland Transport

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

11 December 2013

Dog Access Review – Scope and Consultation

File No.: CP2013/26268

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to decide on the scope of review of local dog access rules in the Kaipātiki Local Board area.

Executive Summary

2. The Board decided at a meeting on 11 September 2013 to review local dog access rules by summer 2014.

3. To assist the board, the governing body has established a standard process. The governing body will fund aspects of the standard process, including basic research and engagement and public notification. Local boards will fund any additional research and engagement, alternative forms of public notification and signage.

4. The process timeline starts in September of one year and ends in October of the following year. The board will need to adopt a proposal by April 2014, and to hold hearings, deliberations and make decisions on submissions by August 2014.

5. The scope of the review is a matter for the board to decide.

6. The following issues were identified through the governing body review of the policy and bylaw on dogs in 2011/2012. These issues can be used as basis for discussion about the scope of the review.

· A review of all beach and foreshore dog access rules, with specific mention of Chelsea Bay Beach, Manuka Reserve Beach and Tuff Crater.

· A review of the application of the beach time and season rule to the first 20m of any park adjacent to a beach.

· A review of “picnic” and “fitness apparatus” areas where dogs currently must be under control on a leash.

7. The current dog access rules on Lynn Reserve and Onepoto Domain are also provided in the report in response to questions raised by members at a workshop on 13 November.

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) resolves to review local dog access rules in the Kaipātiki Local Board area as follows:

i) to undertake a review of local dog access rules in 2013/14.

ii) to undertake a review of local dog access rules in 2014/15 following the adoption of the Local Board Plan.

b) resolves the scope of the review in a) to be:

i) a review of time and season beach rules, and dog access rules on Chelsea Bay Beach, Manuka Reserve Beach and Tuff Crater.

AND/OR

ii) a review of all coastal dog access rules.

AND/OR

iii) a review of 20m from beach time and season rule.

AND/OR

iv) a review of “picnic” and “fitness apparatus” area dog access rules.

AND/OR

v) any other revisions the board sees fit.

c) resolves to fund any additional research, engagement, or public notification initiatives the board sees fit.

Discussion

8. The Board decided at meeting 11 September 2013 to review local dog access rules by summer 2014.

Objectives of review

9. The primary objective for local boards in making decisions on dog access is to ensure public safety and comfort and the needs of dogs and their owners are met. These requirements are discussed in more detail in Attachment A.

10. Secondary objectives for beach reviews include:

· the identification of possible under control off-leash at all time beaches,

· the identification of where it is appropriate to use the region wide standard summer times (10am and 5pm) and summer season (Labour Weekend to 1 March)

· Making dog access rules easier to understand (less complicated) by clarifying or revoking ambiguous dog access rules, and ensuring any changes are easy to understand “on the ground”.

Current dog access rules are a combination of general and specific, meaning to know where you can take your dog under control off a leash, the dog owner must first find out all the places they cannot go. This approach is difficult to communicate and confusing for dog owners and general public alike.

Process and costs

11. The governing body has established a standard process to assist local boards. The governing body will fund aspects of the standard process, including basic research and engagement and public notification. Local boards will fund any additional research and engagement, alternative forms of public notification, and signage.

12. The process timeline starts in September of one year and ends in October of the following year. The local board will need to adopt a proposal by April 2014, and to hold hearings, deliberations and make decisions on submissions by August 2014.

13. Further details on process and costs are provided in Attachment B.

What local dog access rules to review

14. The standard process established by the governing body enables changes to dog access for specific parks and beaches on an annual basis that is integrated with the dog registration process. This provides a more timely and robust discussion than reviews of the past. This means that local boards can decide what rules it will review.

15. The following issues were identified through the governing body review of the policy and bylaw on dogs in 2011/2012. These issues can be used as basis for discussion about the scope of the review.

· A review of all beach and foreshore dog access rules, with specific mention of:

o Chelsea Bay Beach. Three submitters sought time and season or other rules to restrict dog access

o Kaipātiki Local Board sought under control off-leash at all times on Manuka Reserve Beach

o Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society sought dogs under control on-leash in Tuff Crater (bounded by College Rd, Akoranga Dr, Exmouth Rd, motorway)

· A review of the application of the beach time and season rule to the first 20m of any park adjacent to a beach.

· A review of “picnic” and “fitness apparatus” areas where dogs currently must be under control on a leash.

16. The following tables provide options in relation to the above matters to assist the board to decide what local dog access rules to review.

Table 1: Beach and non-beach coastal area review

Option

Pros and Cons

Option 1: Review time and season beach rules, Chelsea Bay Beach, Manuka Reserve Beach and Tuff Crater only

Why?

Targeted review on known areas of concern.

Improve certainty by listing beaches. Currently only Soldiers Bay beach and Chelsea Bay beach identified. There may be 10-15 in local board area.

Pros

Targeted review on known areas of concern.

Cons

May conflict with focus on Local Board Plan in 2013/14.

Possible outcomes (illustration only)

1. Determine appropriate dog access for Manukau Reserve Beach and Chelsea Bay Beach.

2. Determine appropriate dog access for the Tuff Crater.

3. Determine where the standard summer beach time and season is appropriate, if not what the alternatives are, and type of dog access is between time slots.

4. All beaches identified to improve certainty.

5. Rules for adjoining parks clarified (see Table 2).

Possible costs of review (illustration only)

Local board signage costs. For example, 15 beaches with four signs per beach, equates to about $1500 for stickers and $12,000 for new signs. Likely that some new signs will be required.

Option 2: Review in 2014/2015

Why?

Aligns review with adjoining local boards, and enables focus on local board plan which has a similar time line.

Pros

Prioritises development of local board plan in 2013/2014.

Aligns with dog access review by Devonport-Takapuna and Upper Harbour Local Boards.

Cons

Defers consideration of requests for changes to those matters in Option 1 by one more year.

Option 3: Review all coastal areas

Why?

Comprehensive review of all coastal dog access rules. No comprehensive review undertaken since 2004.

Pros

Comprehensive review of all coastal dog access rules.

Cons

May conflict with need to focus on Local Board Plan

Additional resource (time) required to investigate.

Possible outcomes of review (illustration only)

1. All those listed under Option 1.

2. Determine whether off-leash access on non-coastal areas are appropriate.

Possible costs of review (illustration only)

Local board signage costs. Unable to estimate until investigation completed.

Table 2: Time and season rules applying to parts of a park within 20m of beach

Option

Pros and Cons

Option 1: Review 20m from beach rule

Why review?

Rule means time and season beach rules extend 20m into adjoining park.

This area is undefined on the ground (arbitrary), not signed, and not enforced.

Residents (including dog owners) do not know where this rule applies and are likely unaware of its existence.

Given the rule is not defined, unknown and not enforced, the question becomes is the rule necessary?

Pros

Remove or replace confusing rule that is not enforced and difficult to communicate.

Cons

Resource (time) required to investigate.

Possible outcomes of review and costs (illustration)

1. Rule revoked. Investigation finds rule unnecessary and that underlying rule for the park (typically under control off-leash) is appropriate.

No additional costs as current rule not signed.

2. Rule replaced. Investigation finds that for some adjoining parks the time and season rule should apply to the whole park (where the park is narrow) or to part of the park where this is easily identifiable on the ground, or that an under control on-leash at all times rule should apply.

Local board signage costs included in costs of options in Table 1.

Option 2: Do not review (retain current 20m rule)

Pros

No resource (time) required to investigate, and no costs for signs (if required).

Cons

Retains confusing rule (if known at all) that is not signed, not enforced, and difficult to communicate.

Table 3: Picnic areas and fitness apparatus

Option

Pros and Cons

Option 1: Review “picnic areas” and “fitness apparatus”

Why review?

Neither term defined but many instances of isolated tables and BBQ facilities on parks.

Current rule considered unenforceable by animal management officers as terms not defined. Any actions taken are in response to an uncontrolled dog complaint.

Residents (including dog owners) do not know where this rule applies as terms not defined.

Given the rule is not defined and unenforceable, the question becomes is the rule necessary?

Pros

Will remove a rule that creates confusion, is not enforced, and difficult to communicate.

Cons

Resource (time) required to investigate.

Possible outcomes of review and costs (illustration)

1. Rule revoked. Investigation finds rule unnecessary and that underlying rule for the park (typically under control off-leash) is appropriate.

No additional costs.

2. Rule replaced. Investigation finds a small number of particular areas easily identifiable on the ground as picnic areas or fitness apparatus areas. Note: This would not include isolated tables or BBQ facilities but particular areas.

Cost of signs. If say three areas identified, costs likely less than $600.

Option 2: Do not review (retain current “picnic areas” and “fitness apparatus” rule)

Pros

No resource (time) required to investigate, and no costs for signs (if required).

Cons

Retains a confusing rule that is not enforced, and difficult to communicate.

Research and engagement

17. The following table attempts to clarify the nature and extent of research and engagement. The local board would fund any other initiatives.

Table 5: Nature and extent of governing body research and engagement

Option	Research and Engagement
Beach and non-beach coastal area review
Option 1: Review time and season beach rules, Chelsea Bay Beach, Manuka Reserve Beach and Tuff Crater only	· Workshops (invite only) · People’s panel survey (on-line survey on beach use only) · User survey (existing staff as part of normal duties invite beach users to complete people’s panel survey) · Photo library (beaches only) · Public notification for submissions of any proposal in June 2014
Option 2: Review in 2014/2015	· None in 2013/2014.
Option 3: Review all coastal areas	· Same as Option 1
Time and season rules applying to parts of a park within 20m of beach
Option 1: Review 20m from beach rule	· Internal review with park rangers and animal management officers · Public notification for submissions of any proposal in June 2014
Option 2: Do not review (retain current 20m rule)	· None
Picnic areas and fitness apparatus
Option 1: Review “picnic areas” and “fitness apparatus”	· Internal review with park rangers and animal management officers · Public notification for submissions of any proposal in June 2014
Option 2: Do not review (retain current “picnic areas” and “fitness apparatus” rule)	· None

Current dog access rules in response to questions from members

18. Members at a workshop on 13 November sought clarification on the current dog access rules on Lynn Reserve and Onepoto Domain (which contains a bike park).

19. Lynn Reserve is bisected by Lynn Road, the western part appears to be an open grass area with landscaping leading to a walkway adjacent to the northern reaches of Hellyers Creek. The eastern part appears to be an open grass area with playground and basketball hoop court near Lynn Road and bush area further east, possibly containing bush walks. The current dog access rules are as follows:

· dogs allowed under control on a leash on foreshore and associated mangrove areas of Hellyers Creek due to special wildlife interest.

· dogs are prohibited on the playground and basketball hoop court at all times and must be under control on a leash in the vicinity when in use.

· dogs are allowed under control off-leash on all other areas, including walkway, open grass areas and any bush walks.

20. Onepoto Domain is bounded by Exmouth Road, Sylvan Avenue and Tarahanga Street, contains open grass areas, sportsfields, bush and wetland areas, wetland and bush walks, water features, community building, toilet block, and family area comprising of two playground areas, a bike track, and bbq facility. The current dog access rules are as follows:

· dogs are prohibited on the playgrounds and sportsfields at all times and must be under control on a leash in the vicinity of any playground or sportsfield when in use. The bike track can be considered part of the playground.

· dogs are allowed under control off-leash on all other areas, including open grass areas, wetland and bush areas, wetland and bush walks, and water features.

· it is unclear whether the area around the bbq facility is a “picnic area” in which dogs should be under control on a leash.

Consideration

Local Board Views

21. The views of other local boards have not been sought.

Maori Impact Statement

22. The views of 23 iwi in relation to dog access were sought as part of two hui held on 22 and 23 October 2013. The hui covered five bylaw topics - signs, trading in public places, navigation safety and lifejackets, animal management and dog access, outdoor fires.

23. Feedback related to the ability of iwi to determine dog access on marae, a focus on control, responsible dog ownership, and ensuring the protection of sensitive ecological areas.

Implementation Issues

24. Issues related to implementation relate to the local board costs for additional research, engagement, and public notification initiatives; and the cost of any signage.

25. The costs of implementation are expected to be obtained from existing budgets. The cost of signage will become clearer as the review progresses.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Decision making	109
b	Review process	113

Signatories

Authors

Paul Wilson - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

11 December 2013

Decision-making

Statutory Requirements

1. Local Boards in making decisions –

· Must be consistent with the policy, principles and criteria for making dog access rules contained in the policy on dogs (discussed later in this section).

· Must have regard to the matters in section 10 of the Dog Control Act 1996.

This includes the need to minimise danger, distress, and nuisance; avoid danger of uncontrolled dogs near children; enabling people to use public places without fear of attack or intimidation by dogs; and the exercise and recreational needs of dogs and their owners.

· Meet the general and specific decision making requirements in sections 76 to 83 of the Local Government Act 2002.

This includes to receive the views presented by submitters with an open mind and give them due consideration, to give reasons for decisions to submitters, to identify and assess options, consider views and preferences of affected or interested people, including Maori.

Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012

2. Local board decisions under delegated authority must be consistent with the policy, principles and criteria for making dog access rules contained in the policy on dogs.

3. The primary focus in this regard is achieving Policy 4 of the policy on dogs. This policy provides an Auckland specific context to how Auckland Council intends to meet its statutory considerations under the Dog Control Act 1996 –

4. Dog safe access
Provide dog owners with reasonable access to public places and private ways in a way that is safe to everyone in accordance with the following principles:

(a) Recognise dog owners as legitimate users of public places;

(b) Integrate (not separate) dog owners and their dogs with other users of public places;

(c) Provide opportunities for dog owners to take their dog to public places that are accessible, desirable, and provide diversity of experience (sights, sounds, smells, textures, other dogs and humans) for both the dog and owner;

(d) Consider access on a comprehensive region-wide basis rather than a place-by-place basis;

(e) Manage the safe interaction between dogs and people using public places and private ways, in particular with children and vulnerable adults; and

(f) Manage the conflict between dogs and protected wildlife, stock, poultry, domestic animals, and property and natural habitat.

4. Criteria for making dog access rules in the policy on dogs include (and shown in box below) –

· Policy Method 3A(f) (standard beach summer times and season);

· Policy Method 3B (changes to dog access rules in general);

· Policy Method 3C (changes to provide more dog access);

· Policy Method 3D (changes to provide less dog access); and

· Policy Method 3E (criteria for dog exercise areas).

Box 1: Criteria for making dog access rules in the policy on dogs

3A General criteria for dog access rules in all public places

(a) be consistent with the policy and principles on dog access contained in this Policy;

(b) …;

(c) …;

(d) …;

(e) …;

(f) use the following summer time and season wherever a time and season rule is deemed appropriate to manage the safe interaction between dogs with their owners and people without dogs.

Beaches and adjoining parks

10.00am to 5.00pm for specified beaches and specified adjoining parks between the Saturday of Labour Weekend and 1 March.

The type of dog access (i.e. prohibited, on-leash, off-leash or dog exercise area) and winter times (if any) is determined by the relevant authority in accordance with the criteria in 3B to 3E inclusive.

This criteria (3A(f)) does not apply to any island in the Hauraki Gulf, including Waiheke, Rakino and Great Barrier islands.

For the avoidance of doubt, the standard creates three time slots in summer. Where a time and season rule applies (location), the type of dog access within each time slot (i.e. prohibited, on-leash, off-leash or dog exercise area), and whether there are winter times, is determined by the relevant authority – Local Boards or the Parks, Recreation and Heritage Forum through the Regional Development and Operations Committee. The type of dog access is not required to change between each time slot.

3B Before making any change to a dog access rule on parks and beaches ³

(a) Identify and assess current and future uses of the place and any conflict that may exist or arise ⁴;

(b) Identify dog access rules in the vicinity.

3C Before making any change to a dog access rule on parks and beaches ³ that would provide more dog access (e.g. on-leash to off-leash), ensure the change would not result in any significant risk ⁵ –

(a) To any person (in particular children or the elderly);

(b) To any protected wildlife vulnerable to dogs (in particular ground nesting birds)

(c) To any stock, poultry, or domestic animal;

(d) To property (e.g. natural habitat and public amenities);

This may include implementing design and/or management solutions.

3D Before making any change to a dog access rule on parks and beaches ³ that would provide less dog access (e.g. off-leash to on-leash or prohibited) –

(a) Ensure that alternative design and/or management solutions are not practicable to address the conflict between uses of the place ⁶; and

(b) Ensure, to the extent that is practicable, that displaced dog owners and their dogs have access to other places or that such access is provided as part of the same decision.

3E Before making any change that identifies a park or beach ⁴as a designated dog exercise area, ensure the –

(a) Matters contained in 3C are satisfied;

(b) Area is well-located with vehicular and pedestrian access;

(c) Area has clearly visible boundaries on the ground to dog owners and people without dogs. This may be achieved through transition zones, vegetation, topography and fencing. This criterion is not intended to require fully fenced areas to contain all types of dog. Boundary treatment will vary depending on the risks identified;

(d) Area is of sufficient size to provide dog owners with a satisfactory experience. Size is relative to the type (size) of dogs. This criterion is not intended to require the area to provide for the needs of all types (sizes) of dog;

(e) Area has sufficient sight lines that enable dog owners to be aware of the presence of other dogs and their owners. This requires a balance to provide access to areas that are desirable and provide an experience;

(f) Area has adequate signage; and

(g) Provision of dog owner and dog amenities has been considered (e.g. seats, bins and bag dispensers for dog faeces, water stations).

These criteria (3E) do not apply to existing designated dog exercise areas identified before 01 July 2013.

5. It is important to note that the local board can make a decision that is inconsistent with the above criteria where it would better achieve the policy on dog safe access. This may be appropriate for instance where using the standard beach summer times and season would conflict with public safety and comfort.

6. An illustration of decision-making is provided in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Example of decision-making

Kaipātiki Local Board

11 December 2013

Local Event Support Fund - Round 2 2013/2014

File No.: CP2013/27452

Purpose

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

Executive Summary

2. A local events support fund of $103,737 is available to the Kaipātiki Local Board for distribution over two funding rounds in the 2013/2014 financial year. In round one, the Kaipātiki Local Board distributed $11,800 and transferred $12,650 to their discretionary events budget, leaving a balance of $79,287 for disbursement in round two.

3. For round two, six applications totalling $84,000 have been received (Attachment A).

Recommendations

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

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

Applicant	Event	Venue	Date	Amount Requested	Amount Recommended
Auckland Area of FASNZ Inc	Designer of the Year Competition	North Shore Events Centre	21/23 March 2014	$1,000	$1,000
Bruce Mason Centre	School Holiday Programme 2014	Bruce Mason Centre	April, July, October and December 2014	$30,000	$1,500
The Korean Society of Auckland Inc.	Korean Day	North Shore Events Centre	15 March 2014	$10,000	$4,500
Bruce Mason Centre	Morning Melodies 2014	Bruce Mason Centre	February – December 2014	$22,000	$500
NZ/Filipino STO Devotees Trust	Sinulog Festival	North Shore Events Centre	19 January 2014	$20,000	$3,000
Older Women’s Network	Ideas of March	Positive Ageing Centre, Takapuna	14 March 2014	$1,000	$125
TOTAL				$84,000	$10,625

b) Transfer $18,600 from the local event contestable fund to the local event discretionary fund to cover funding decisions made in round one.

c) Instruct staff to conduct a third and final funding round to allocate the balance of funds held in the contestable event fund, prior to 30 June 2014.

Discussion

4. The local events support fund provides the opportunity for the Kaipātiki 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.

5. 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

6. A local events support fund of $103,737 is available to the Kaipātiki Local Board for distribution over two funding rounds in the 2013/2014 financial year. In round one, the Kaipātiki Local Board distributed $11,800 and transferred $12,650 to their discretionary events budget, leaving a balance of $79,287 for disbursement in round two.

7. In round one, a number of funding decisions were made with respect to the local event discretionary fund, which resulted in a shortfall of $18,600. A transfer of $18,600 of unallocated local event constestable funding to the local event discretionary fund will rectify this.

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

Applicant	Event	Venue	Date	Amount Requested
Auckland Area of FASNZ Inc	Designer of the Year Competition	North Shore Events Centre	21/23 March 2014	$1,000
Bruce Mason Centre	School Holiday Programme 2014	Bruce Mason Centre	April, July, October & December 2014	$30,000
The Korean Society of Auckland Inc.	Korean Day	North Shore Events Centre	15 March 2014	$10,000
Bruce Mason Centre	Morning Melodies 2014	Bruce Mason Centre	February – December 2014	$22,000
NZ/Filipino STO Devotees Trust	Sinulog Festival	North Shore Events Centre	19 January 2014	$20,000
Older Women’s Network	Ideas of March	Positive Aging Centre, Takapuna	14 March 2014	$1,000
TOTAL				$84,000

9. 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.

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

Consideration

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

12. The Kaipātiki Local Board seeks to engage with their diverse communities and provide for their 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

13. A local board workshop was held on 27 November 2013 to consider the applications to the Kaipātiki Local Event Support Fund Round two. This report reflects the views of the local board members expressed at the workshop.

Maori Impact Statement

14. 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

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

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

Implementation Issues

17. Once the Kaipātiki 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	Funding Cover Sheets - R2 2013/2014	119

Signatories

Authors

Barbara Cade - Team Leader Events North/West

Authorisers

Louise Mason - Manager Community Development, Arts and Culture

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

11 December 2013

Developing the Local Board Plan 2014

File No.: CP2013/27855

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to formally commence the process to develop a new local board plan (LBP) by the statutory deadline of 31^st October 2014.

Executive Summary

2. The board reflected on the utility and attributes of the current LBP and provided its initial views on how it wished to develop the 2014 – 2017 LBP, at a workshop held on 27 November 2013.

3. This report briefly:

· overviews the statutory objectives of, and requirements for, the preparation of the LBP

· asks the board to confirm that it:

o will use an amended version of the two stage process used during the first triennium to develop its LBP

o will use the first triennium LBP as the starting point for developing the 2014-2017 LBP

o wishes to undertake initial engagement with its community primarily using a ‘village’ and ‘sector’ based approach.

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) Confirms the use of the vision and priorities set out in the 2011-2014 Local Board Plan as the starting point for the development of the 2014-2017 Local Board Plan.

b) Identifies any additional priorities, key projects or initiatives it wishes to include in the material for the first round of informal engagement.

c) Confirms that the approach set out in the agenda report for the first round of informal engagement is correct.

d) Delegates responsibility for signing off the first round engagement plan to the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson by 17 January 2014, and to be confirmed at the meeting in February 2014.

Discussion

Statutory Requirements

4. Section 20 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 requires each local board to prepare a new LBP for adoption by 31 October 2014. In summary, the LBP’s purpose is to:

· reflect the priorities and preferences of the local community on the level and nature of local activities provided by Auckland Council

· identify community interests and preferences for input into regional strategies, policies, and bylaws

· provide a basis for developing the local board agreement for each of the following three years

· to inform the development of the next Long Term Plan

· provide a basis for accountability of the local board to its communities

· provide an opportunity for people to participate in decision-making processes on the nature and level of local activities to be provided by Council, within the local board area.

5. Local boards must use the special consultative procedure (SCP) to consult on their draft LBPs. The LBP is developed and owned by the board and does not require governing body approval.

6. For the local board and its community, the LBP is a strategic document that guides decision-making and service delivery over the life of the LBP and beyond.

Developing the LBP

7. The process used to develop all 21 LBPs has been reviewed and a number of systemic process improvements identified, which have been incorporated into the planning for the LBP.

8. It is intended that the 2014-2017 LBP will be a document that is:

· used and referred to by multiple audiences

· used to shape and influence forward work-planning (proactive not reactive)

· clearly identifies community and board priorities to key audiences

· sets out clear, robust objectives that support accountability (both for decision-makers and for council).

Timeline

9. Based on the experience and learnings from the first triennium, the timeline set out below is suggested:

Indicative timeline	Detail
November 2013 / February 2014	Information gathering: review current LBP and departmental work programmes, analysis of other plans/projects and written material that may benefit the development of the LBP and research.
December 2013	Initial guidance by the local board on: · The process it wishes to adopt to develop the new LBP · The use of the 2011-14 LBP as starting point · Possible additional issues to be considered for inclusion · The approach it wishes to take for the first stage engagement with its community.
January 2014	All informal consultation material produced.
February 2014	Informal engagement and consultation on LBP.
March 2014	Analysis of informal engagement and consultation.
April/May 2014	Draft LBP produced. Local board approves draft LBP for formal (SCP) consultation.
June 2014	Undertake SCP for LBP (at least one calendar month).
July 2014	Analysis of submissions.
August 2014	Undertake hearings.
September 2014	Produce final LBP based on SCP and hearings.
October 2014	Adoption of LBP.
Post October 2014	LBP used as ‘starting point’ for development of the 2015-2016 local board agreement.

10. This suggested timeline has some flexibility, provided that the statutory adoption deadline of 31 October 2014 is met. This flexibility may be important if there are other issues that the board wishes to consult the community on, as it will enable combined consultation to be considered where feasible. This should both reduce costs and serve to reduce ‘consultation fatigue’ when it is possible.

11. At the board’s workshop the issue of when and how the first round engagement plan would be approved was raised. The suggestion was that this issue be brought to the board at its 12 February 2014 meeting for formal approval. Delaying approval of the engagement plan until that date will adversely impact on the critical path of the project and have flow on consequences for the timing of the remaining aspects of the project. It is suggested that this delay can be avoided by circulating the proposed engagement plan to all members for comment and then delegating sign off to the Chairperson. This will enable planning to take place throughout January to ensure that the engagement plan and activities meet the needs of the community.

Community preferences and priorities

12. The 2011 LBP set out a vision for the board area and identified a series of community priorities. At its workshop on 27 November, the board indicated that it supported the retention of the current vision and community priorities outlined in the 2011 LBP.

13. Over the last triennium there were a number of council-wide and Kaipãtiki-specific consultations. In addition, a number of individuals and groups from the public chose to address the board on a variety of topics as part of public forum and deputation items at formal business meetings. Officers are currently reviewing this material to see what information and comments potentially relevant to the LBP were received.

14. All planned engagement up to the time that the draft LBP is adopted by the board will also be reviewed for its relevance to the new LBP.

Key projects and initiatives

15. There are a number of projects and key initiatives set out in the first triennium LBP that have yet to be completed. Where these projects are expected to be completed after the adoption of the 2014-2017 LBP, they will be ‘carried forward’ into the draft LBP.

16. In the period since amalgamation, issues have largely been considered either regionally or locally at an individual board level. Experience now suggests that there may be some issues that are better considered sub-regionally by boards working together. Sub-regional or ‘multi-board’ consideration may be appropriate where a facility or service organisation serves two or more adjacent boards’ communities. Such sub-regional issues are suggested for consideration as part of the 2014-2017 LBP as a specific discussion point as to how adjacent boards could work collaboratively regarding these activities.

Engagement

17. At its workshop on 27 November, the board also reflected on the effectiveness and ‘reach’ of community engagement exercises undertaken during the first triennium. Based on the board’s informal views, the stage one engagement plan will be developed around:

· Building on the success of the various ‘placemaking’ initiatives by enabling the community to engage at village or neighbourhood level, so that the board is better able to understand the preferences and priorities of the board’s distinct communities

· Reaching a wider audience and those who don’t traditionally engage, including young people and specific areas which the board does not often hear from

· Taking a holistic approach to the issues identified by communities and planning for the long-term, including consideration of resourcing communities to enable them to undertake ‘placemaking’ activities and identifying longer-term projects which present opportunities for collaborative approaches

· Using a range of methods to reach as many people as possible, including online surveys, activities using existing community events and the proposal to begin the informal engagement period with a large ‘expo’ type event

· Stimulating discussions within the community not solely with the local board but also between different groups, organisations and communities

· Ensuring that the community own the local board plan and make having fun part of the engagement process

· Using engagement on the new plan to help raise the profile of the local board and their role within the community and as advocates for Kaipātiki.

18. In order to pool resources and minimise potential consultation fatigue, work is underway to determine if a joint approach to iwi engagement would be effective. Engagement will be designed to take into account the board’s feedback around ensuring that engagement with both iwi and mataawaka takes place, capitalizing on existing relationships and past work.

Consideration

Local Board Views

19. The local board is the sole decision-maker in the preparation and adoption of the LBP.

Maori Impact Statement

20. Mãori as mana whenua and mataawaka in the board’s rohe are key stakeholders in the LBP’s preparation, and it is intended to actively engage with them over the LBP’s preparation. At the local level, the development and implementation of the LBP provides a substantial opportunity to support the attainment of the Auckland Plan’s outcome of “A Mãori identity that is Auckland’s point of difference in the world”. In addition, the possible attainment of the transformational shift of “Significantly lifting Mãori social and economic well-being” will deliver substantial benefits for Mãori.

General

21. The LBP will form the overarching framework within which the local board takes decisions on local activities for which it is responsible, and its advocacy role to the governing body and the CCOs, for the three years subsequent to its adoption.

Implementation Issues

22. Successful implementation of the board’s LBP, on behalf of its community, will be dependent on three interdependent factors namely:

· sufficient funding being appropriated through the Long Term Plan, to successive Annual Plans, as part of the board’s annual agreement with the governing body

· each key initiative and priority being supported by effective and efficient project management to ensure its delivery

· the board undertaking effective advocacy for those aspects of the LBP for which it is not the primary decision-maker.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors	Andy Roche - Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

11 December 2013

Quarterly Local Board Services Report - December 2013

File No.: CP2013/27148

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to update the Board on various council and council-controlled organisation activities impacting Kaipātiki.

Executive Summary

2. This is the quarterly report for the second quarter of financial year 2013/2014, and the first for the newly inaugurated Kaipātiki Local Board.

3. This report provides an update on various council and council-controlled organisation activities impacting Kaipātiki.

4. The strategic updates in this report are:

a) Town Centre transformation projects

b) Community development

c) Kaipātiki Connections

d) Parks and Sportsfield upgrades

e) Economic development

f) Transport

g) Public Art

h) Unitary Plan

i) Strategic planning and finance

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) approves allocation of the remaining $25,000 Small Local Improvement Project (SLIPs) funding allocated to the Bayview Placemaking Project to the Kaipātiki Community Facilities Trust to be expended on the following items:

i) Mural development (walking map of Bayview) - $3,000

ii) Signage (Lynn Reserve) - $8,500

iii) Signage (Spinella Reserve) - $8,500

iv) Project co-ordination and administration - $5,000

b) confirms that the Kaipātiki Youth Advisory Panel representatives continue to be invited to the Kaipātiki Local Board and to contribute to the work of the board as and when appropriate.

c) confirms Wednesday, 29 January at 2:00pm for an extraordinary workshop to discuss the Kaipātiki Local Board’s feedback on the Proposed Unitary Plan, to be included with the Auckland Council submission.

d) receives the Action Item reports attached.

Discussion

Board Activities

Board Workshops

5. The Board workshop in November dealt with the following issues:

a) Trunksewer 8 upgrade

b) Local Board Plan

c) Engagement strategy

d) Local Event Support Fund, round 2 applications

6. The Board workshop in December dealt with the following issues:

a) Chelsea reserve management plan

b) Croftfield lane stormwater pond development - public art at Wairau Valley

c) Northcote community constable office space

d) Proposed unitary plan

7. The following topics are planned for workshops in early 2014:

a) Onewa Westbound T3 lane

b) Watercare update on key Kaipātiki projects to board

c) Kaipātiki Connections Network Plan update

d) Activity Plans – Recreation Planning & Programming

e) Bylaws

f) Wairau Valley Business Network scoping work

g) WWI Centenary Programme

h) Fees and Charges for Bookable Facilities

i) Local Boards Funding Policy

j) Historic Heritage Plan and Heritage Assets Stewardship Policy

k) Property strategy implementation: Whole of life tool and asset benchmarking

Northern Workshops

8. A sub-regional workshop was held on Friday 6 December 2013, hosted by the Community Policy and Planning team, regarding fees and charges for bookable facilities workshops.

Region-wide Workshops

9. A regional workshop was held on Tuesday, 19 November 2013, hosted by the Unitary Plan team on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

10. A regional workshop was held on Wednesday, 20 November 2013, hosted by the Governance Division, entitled Advancing Auckland’s Governance.

Formal Submissions of the Board

11. There have been no formal submissions since the last monthly report.

Strategic Updates

12. In previous quarterly reports, a strategic schedule was attached outlining progress against the previous board’s nine strategic issues.

13. It is proposed that the board reviews these strategic items for inclusion in future quarterly reports.

14. The board should also note that work is underway to look at aligning departmental quarterly reports with the quarterly reports produced by the Finance department. This work may duplicate the work of Local Board Services in summarising strategic issues to the board – in which case this report will also need to be reviewed.

15. The proposed strategic items for reporting going forward are:

· Town Centre transformation projects (Birkenhead, Northcote, Glenfield, Beach Haven)

· Community development

· Kaipātiki Connections

· Parks and Sportsfield upgrades

· Economic Development

· Transport

· Public Art

· Unitary Plan

· Strategic planning and finance

Summary updates from local board services are provided below on current/pertinent items:

16. ██ Town Centre transformation projects

17. The City Transformation team continues to lead the work on town centre transformation projects:

18. Birkenhead – work continues on the mainstreet upgrade and viewing platform. An update will be provided to the board on this project in the new year

19. Northcote – the board was updated on this project at its workshop in November and there is a report on this agenda seeking approval of next steps on a number of items.

20. Beach Haven – the board was updated on the community space project at its meeting on 13 November, at which approval for the developed design was given. Subsequent to that meeting the working party of Members Hills, G Gillon and Hartley gave approval for the resource consent application. The processing of this application may exceed the original timeframes provided at 13 November meeting as it is likely that this will be now go through the limited notification process.

21. ██ Community development

22. The board continues to work in partnership with the Kaipātiki Community Facilities Trust on a number of placemaking initiatives.

23. The Bayview placemaking group have requested through the trust that the remaining funds held ($25,000) by the local board (from the $38,500 SLIPs budget allocated) are allocated to the following projects:

· Mural development (walking map of Bayview) - $3,000

· Signage (Lynn Reserve) - $8,500

· Signage (Spinella Reserve) - $8,500

· Project co-ordination and administration - $5,000

It is recommended that the board releases this funding to the trust as outlined above.

24. ██ Kaipātiki Connections

25. Members have requested a workshop session on the Kaipātiki Connections Network to consider progress to date and future plans for 2013/2014 and beyond. This workshop session will be held in the new year.

26. ██ Parks and Sportsfield upgrades

27. Local Board Services are awaiting feedback from the Finance department as to whether the budget allocated by the board for ‘sports playing surfaces and facility upgrades’ can be expended through grants to third party organisations (given the status of the budget as capital).

28. The first parks portfolio meeting for the new triennium is scheduled for 12 December at which a number of topics will be discussed including:

· Parks capital programme reporting

· Monarch Park placemaking

· Manuka Dog Park

· Tracks maintenance.

29. ██ Economic development

30. BusinessLab has been commissioned by Auckland Council (on behalf of the local board) to work with businesses in the Wairau Valley to explore the development of a business association. A first networking event was held on 21 November at the North Shore Events Centre which was very well attended by a range of businesses. A follow up event will be taking place in February next year.

31. ██ Transport

32. A report on this agenda provides a further update on transport. Following the Community Forum meeting on 27 November at which a deputation on the Birkenhead cycle and scooter and facilities was given, Local Board Services are organising for the Chair to meet with Auckland Transport to discuss the facilities and the wharf more widely. An update will be provided on the outcome of this meeting once available.

33. ██ Public Art

34. A presentation on the Croftfield Lane Stormwater pond development and integrated public art project was given to the local board on 4 December. This work is a major public art integration for Kaipātiki.

35. The public art team continue to work closely with the Kaipātiki Public Art Trust as well as with the City Transformation team to identify public art opportunities throughout Kaipātiki.

36. ██ Unitary Plan

37. The board discussed the proposed Unitary Plan at its workshop on 4 December, including its intention to append feedback to the Auckland Council submission on the plan. It was suggested that a letter be sent to the Kaipātiki Local Board stakeholder list, business and residents associations, and the like, encouraging them to submit on the Proposed Unitary Plan and with links and contacts to receive further information.

38. An additional workshop has been proposed for Wednesday, 29 January at 2:00pm for the board to discuss errors in the mapping that need to be included in the board’s feedback. It is recommended that members review the Proposed Unitary Plan to identify any errors in advance of the workshop.

39. ██ Strategic planning and finance

40. A report on this agenda presents the draft local board agreement for 2014/2015 to the board. Once approved, the draft agreement will go out to consultation at the end of January – providing an opportunity for the community to submit on the board’s budget and priorities for 2014/2015.

41. The board is also preparing for the development of the local board plan, the three year plan which will provide the board’s strategic direction and priorities for following three years. A report on this agenda outlines the process for the development of this strategic document, including how it relates to the council’s refresh of the long term plan – 2015-2018.

Action Item reports

42. Attached to this report are action items from previous meetings of the local board, reported on in the following categories:

· Pending (yet to be completed)

· Completed (actions completed)

· Watching brief (actions requiring oversight but not yet due for completion)

· Future (actions not yet requiring oversight/action).

43. Any actions marked as completed will be moved from the current schedule on receipt of this report by the board.

44. It is proposed that for the next quarterly report a detailed review is undertaken of these schedules to ensure any duplicate items are removed.

Local Board Issues

45. ██ Kaipātiki Local Board staffing

46. Rebecca Turner has been appointed to a Policy Analyst role within Regional and Local Planning so will no longer be providing support to the board from 13 December. A new Democracy Advisor will be appointed in the new year.

47. ██ Community Forum meeting

48. The first community forum meeting was held on 27 November. The meeting was well attended with a range of groups, organisations and individuals presenting to the board. Prior to the first community forum meeting of 2014, to be held on 26 February, the new meeting format will be widely communicated to the public in various publications and using the board’s existing channels.

49. Youth representative

50. In reviewing previous resolutions of the board it has come to light that there is a need to clarify the nomination of the youth representative to the local board.

51. The Youth Advisory Panel representative for Kaipātiki has been invited to sit at the table at the Kaipātiki Local Board towards the end of the previous term. The role of members of the towards the end of the Youth Advisory Panel is described in the panel’s terms of reference:

The purposes of the Youth Advisory Panel will be as follows:

· Identify and communicate to the Council the interests and preferences of the youth of Auckland in relation to:

o the content of the strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws of the Council, especially the economic development strategy; and

o any matter that the Panel considers to be of particular interest or concern to the youth of Auckland.

· Advise the Mayor and the Council’s governing body and local boards, of the Council processes and mechanisms for engagement with the youth in Auckland; and

· Engage with Local Boards on youth issues.

52. As the current Youth Advisory Panel representative for Kaipātiki is also a member of the Kaipātiki Youth Board and so is able to work with the board from a regional and local perspective, it is proposed that this representative continues to be invited to the Kaipātiki Local Board business meetings and to contribute to the work of the board as and when appropriate.

Consideration

Local Board Views

53. Local board views are considered in the writing of this report.

Maori Impact Statement

54. Māori are and will be engaged on an ongoing basis on a number of the board’s strategic issues including (but not limited) to the town centre transformation projects, parks projects and the Local Board Plan.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Action Item report - Completed	139
b	Action Item report - Pending	151
c	Action Item report - Watching brief	159
d	Action Item report - Future	165

Signatories

Authors	Sarah Broad - Senior Advisor
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

11 December 2013

Appointments to Outside Organisations

File No.: CP2013/27688

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 (LGNZ).

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 networks relevant to the local board. It includes the appointment delegated to the local board by the governing body (Resolution GB/2013/126).

3. This report provides details of the appointments and outlines the relevant appointments for the board’s consideration.

Recommendation/s

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

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

Organisation	Lead	Alternate
*Associations*
Local Government New Zealand Zone One
Mainstreet Organisations and Business Improvement Districts
Birkenhead Town Centre Association	Appointment made 13/11/2013
Northcote Mainstreet Association	Appointment made 13/11/2013
*Liaison Groups*
Bayview Community Centre
Glenfield Community Centre Governance Group
Kauri Point Centennial Park Committee
Northart
Friends of Shepherd’s Park
*Stakeholder groups*
Beach Haven Residents Association
Onepoto Awhina
*Trusts*
Kaipãtiki Community Facilities Trust
Northcote Citizens Centre Management Trust
North Shore Centre for Maritime Education Trust
North Shore Heritage Trust – joint appointment Devonport-Takapuna, Kaipãtiki, Upper Harbour and Hibiscus and Bays)

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 or 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. During the interregnum, all outside organisations that the board historically made appointments to were contacted in order to:

· better understand the purpose of the organisation

· clarify and define its relationship with council

· understand the role of the elected member with the organisation and

· clarify the time commitment expected of appointed members.

8. A brief summary of the responses from the outside organisations who responded is set out in Attachment A.

9. In the event that further requests for board representation are received from other organisations, these will be brought to the board at a future business meeting.

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

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

· historical relationships

· relevance and interest

· time commitment

· potential for a conflict of interest

· relevance to and inter-relationship with the portfolio within which the organisation falls.

12. In addition, the governing body has delegated joint appointment to the North Shore Heritage Trust to the Devonport-Takapuna, Kaipãtiki, Upper Harbour and Hibiscus and Bays local boards (Resolution GB/2013/126). Once each board has considered the issue, the boards will need to resolve the issue if there is more than one nomination. In the last triennium, the boards’ representative on this Trust was Dianne Hale.

Local Government New Zealand

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

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

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

BID Partnership Programmes

16. There are 46 Business Improvement District (BID) Partnership Programmes operating within the Auckland region. 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 C.

17. There are two local Mainstreet or Business Improvement Districts in the Kaipātiki Local Board area.

18. 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.

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

20. 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.

21. At its meeting on 13 November 2013, the board appointed Member Grant as liaison for Birkenhead Town Centre Association and Member Pigg as liaison for Northcote Mainstreet Association. It has been past practice for the board to appoint both a representative and an alternate when considering outside appointments.

Consideration

Local Board Views

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

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

Maori Impact Statement

24. 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

25. 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.

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

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

Implementation Issues

28. The venues for Local Government New Zealand Zone One meetings are shared across the entire Zone One area, and members may incur some travel costs as a result of appointment.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	Kaipātiki Appointments to Outside Organisations	171
b	Local Government New Zealand	173
c	Business Improvement Districts	175

Signatories

Authors	Andy Roche - Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

11 December 2013

Kaipãtiki – Appointments to Outside Organisations

Name of Org	Purpose of Organisation	Relationship with Council	Role of the Elected Member	Meeting Frequency	Any other Information
Bayview Community Centre	Community services	* Lease of Council property. * Funded (full or partially) by Council: contract/grant/business improvement district.	Member Executive Committee (voting)	Monthly	Last term representative Chris Marshall “We would prefer a rep to attend meetings rather than be part of a portfolio.”
Beach Haven Residents Association	Representing the local Birkdale/ Beach Haven ratepayers	Communication line and voice for local area.	General liaison	2nd Monday of month at 7:30	Last term representative Richard Hills / John Gillon
Glenfield Community Centre Governance Group	Community Centre	Funded (full or partially) by Council contract	Governance group member	2 hours every 2 months	Last term representative John Gillon / Richard Hills
Kaipātiki Community Facilities Trust	Community development, Serving and supporting sustainable neighbourhoods http://www.bngcommunitytrust.org.nz/index.php	Community development partner, license to occupy council premises grant funding for events.	Trustee, with voting rights. Appointed at the pleasure of the of the Kaipātiki Local Board	Unknown	Last term representative Viv Keohane
Kauri Point Centennial Park Committee	To care for and protect the park	Volunteer help	Member Executive Committee (non-voting)	Monthly 1-2 hours	Last term representative Grant Gillon See management plans and draft MoU.
Northart	To provide community focused art programmes in Kaipātiki area	* Lease of Council property. * Funded (full or partially) by Council: contract/grant/business improvement district.	Member Executive Committee (non-voting)	Monthly 45-90 minutes	Last term representative Lindsay Waugh Attend occasional exhibition openings or other functions.
Northcote Citizens Centre Management Trust	Community hall, leased out to many organisations	Lease of council property.	Trustee	4 -6 per year, approx 1 hour.	Last term representative Nick Kearney
North Shore Centre for Maritime Education Trust	1. Promotion of marine education in our community. 2. To manage community group access to NBYC building.	Lease of land (parks)	Member Executive Committee (voting)	3 monthly	Last term representative Grant Gillon Provide liaison between Council and NSCME
North Shore Events Centre Trust Board Advisor	Charitable trust to operate the North Shore Events Centre (the Centre is owned by Regional Facilities Auckland)	Lease / occupy CCO property. Recipient of grants from Northern Funding Committee	Informal liaison	Once or twice a year.	Last term representative Kay McIntyre
Onepoto Awhina	Provide support for low socio-economic community, a place to meet for problem solving, provide an affordable early childhood education venue.	Lease of Council property – intends to re-apply for contract grant 2014.	Member Executive Committee (voting)	11 monthly meetings, February to December, plus AGM. Approx 2 hours per meeting.	Last term representative Grant Gillon
Friends of Shepherd's Park	Ecological reservation	Park management	General liaison	Monthly	Last term representative John Gillon

Kaipātiki Local Board

11 December 2013

Northern Joint Funding Committee

File No.: CP2013/26465

Purpose

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

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

· the Terms of Reference for the Northern Joint Funding Committee

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

Executive Summary

2. The Northern Joint Funding Committee was a joint committee established by the five Northern local boards and has 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 has been automatically dissolved following the 2013 Local Government elections.

4. The Northern 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 Northern Joint Funding Committee for the rest of the 2013/2014 financial year, approval of the Terms of Reference and appointment of a member and an alternate 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 Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) Agrees to re-instate the Northern 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 Northern Joint Funding Committee

c) Appoints a member to the Northern 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.

Discussion

6. The Northern Joint Funding Committee was a joint committee established by the five northern local boards – Devonport-Takapuna, Kaipātiki, Upper Harbour, Hibiscus and Bays and Rodney Local Boards. It had decision-making responsibility to allocate grants through the legacy community funding schemes.

7. Local boards continue to have full decision-making authority over local board discretionary grants. 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 a 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 Northern Joint Funding Committee needs to be operational for the 2013/2014 financial year.

10. The previous local board agreed to continue the Northern Joint Funding Committee for 2013/2014, approved amended terms of reference and appointed a member and an alternate to the Committee.

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 Northern Joint Funding Committee for the rest of the 2013/2014 financial year, approves the Terms of Reference and appoints a member and an alternate to the Committee.

13. Each of the legacy councils favoured 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 (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. Any change 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 Northern Joint Funding Committee would administer the following funds:

· The following legacy North Shore City Council funds:

o Events Sponsorship Fund

o Strengthening Communities Fund – Discretionary Grants

o Strengthening Communities Fund – Facility development

o Heritage Fund

o Community board local events fund

· The following legacy Rodney District Council funds:

o Heritage Item Assistance Fund

o Large Grants Fund – Community

o Large Grants Fund – Youth

o Large Grants Fund – Recreation

o Small Grants Fund – Youth

o Community Grants Scheme

o Short Term Response Fund

o Environmental Education Fund

o Natural Heritage Fund

20. The Northern Joint Funding Committee will hold a meeting in early 2014 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	Draft terms of reference	183

Signatories

Authors

Carole Canler – Local Board Advisor

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

11 December 2013

Member’s Report: Danielle Grant

Period covered by report: Oct – Nov 30^th 2013

Portfolio Activities

Meetings and other activities undertaken as portfolio lead and alternate.

Portfolio One: Economic Development - Lead

Date

Topic discussed

Attendees

Actions

21^st Nov

Wairau Valley Business Network Event

Consultant Colin Bass has been engaged by the Council’s Economic Development Unit to work with businesses in the Wairau Valley on behalf of the Kaipātiki Local Board.

This networking event raised various local issues. Of significance were concerns over the traffic in the Wairau Valley, and the difficulty for commercial vehicles to reach the motorway and surrounding areas. Also raised were concerns about the Unitary Plan.

Overall, attendees were engaged, and many keen to attend a follow up meeting in February 2014, where the concepts of a Business Association will be discussed in more detail.

Actions:

- Roading assessment between Tristram Ave and Target Rd

- Investigate a Unitary Plan open meeting from Council, specifically prepared for Wairau Valley

- A meeting with Colin Bass to receive a project update is to be schedule ideally before Christmas.

Portfolio two: Events, Arts and Culture - Lead

Date

Topic discussed

Attendees

Actions

21^th Nov

Overview of the Kaipātiki Community Facilities Trust

Event planning for the opening of Glendhu Bridge

Concerns about the Summer Fun brochure

Feedback on the Glenfield Santa Parade and Gala

Review the rebranding of the Summer Fun brochure that no longer reflects the established and well recognised imagery

Danielle Grant

Lindsay Waugh

Jill Nerheny

- Personal delivery of Glendhu bridge flyers to Bayview education facilities and community centre

- Liaison with Bayview families to arrange children to attend the opening

- Review both versions of the Summer Fun brochures

28^th Nov

Review the rebranding of the Summer Fun brochure

Danielle Grant

Lindsay Waugh

Ann Hartley

Dil Upal

Joanna Glasswell

- Danielle Grant will work with the Communications team to develop a design brief to capture the elements of the established branding for next summer’s programme of events.

Portfolio Three: Natural Environment


November	Portfolio briefing has been requested, and date tbc.

Outside organisation appointments

Meetings of outside organisations the member has been appointed to, representing the Kaipātiki Local Board.

· Appointments yet to be confirmed.

Other Board Activities/Projects

16^th November

Bayview Placemaking Project – successful weed whacking of Lynn Reserve with 20 bags of weeds being removed from the reserve by the group on the day.

The Gecko Trust escorted a group of about 30 local residents, many of which were children and young people. As well as weeding, we also leant about the trees, weeds, birds and insect life within the reserve.

SnipImage

Events and functions attended representing the Kaipātiki Local Board.

Date			Event
22^nd October			Glenfield Community Response Plan (CRP)
Currently working to finalise the CRP for Glenfield.
16^th November			Bayview Placemaking Project
Bayview is well supported by eager residents who are keen to get involved with the enhancement of the local community. Many ideas were shared within this positive group and commitment for 2014 looks promising.
11^th and 18^th November			Beach Haven Birkdale Residents Assn, Beach Haven Placemaking Group
Following on from the previous week’s meeting, the committee were also joined by from Bruce Stone from Lifewise and the John McCarthy Airdale Property Trust. Talks are continuing regarding the old Methodist Church building. Plans are well underway for the transformation of the Post Office site. Music in the Garden is scheduled for 14 December 2013. Additional Note: As of late November, the redevelopment of Post Office site will now go through a limited notification process, which allows at least 25 days for submissions and will be reviewed by an independent commissioner.
17^th November			Glenfield Santa Parade
This event was well received by the residents of Glenfield. With many cheerful waives as the parade passed. The gala provided a wonderful opportunity for local community groups to fundraise through such activities as sausage sizzles and cake stalls. This is greatly appreciated by these non-profit/community groups. Many thanks to the Kaipātiki Community Facilities Trust and Glenfield Lions for all of the planning and organisation.
19^th November			Draft Auckland Unitary Plan - Local Board and Elected Member iefingBriefing
This briefing gave us an update on how the amendments to the Unitary Plan have been incorporated into the notified version, following on from the initial feedback period. Having direct access to the Council planners who have been working on the Unitary Plan was of great benefit. I gained a much clearer insight into the proposed plans for Kaipātiki.
19^th November			Birkenhead Town Centre Association AGM with Lindsay Waugh
The AGM was well attended and flowed well with an informative report from Kae Condon about the achievements of the year and plans for 2014. She presented the concept of ‘High Tech’ and ‘High Touch’, depending on the time of year, and would provide the BTCA a strong return on their marketing investment. Action: I look forward to taking over the role as Birkenhead BID liaison and as part of the hand over from Lindsay who was the previous liaison; I have suggested a meeting with Lindsay, Ian McHardy and Kae Condon to be bought up to date with current projects and initiatives for 2014. Meeting tbc.
20^th November			FW: Advancing Auckland's Governance.
As part of the Elected Member induction process, a series of workshops have been made available for all members who wish to attend. I have found the induction process of great value. The Mayor, Council Executive, Governing Body, the Māori Statutory Board, other Local Board Members and Council staff have gone to great lengths to make themselves available and have been particularly open and engaged in the various conversations.
21^st November			Wairau Valley Business Networking Event
As an initial meeting for businesses in the Wairau Valley, this event was well received by the 25 businesses who attended. Presentations were given by ATEED and the North Harbour Business Assn. When speaking with various attendees, it was clearly apparent that a key issue concerning the businesses in this area is the need for faster access to the motorway and surround areas. Also raised were concerns about the Unitary Plan and how it will effort and benefit the Valley. A follow up meeting is scheduled for February 2014. Thanks for the support of the North Shore Events Centre for the venue and Liquor King for the beverages. Actions: - Roading assessment between Tristram Ave and Target Rd - Unitary Plan open meeting from Council, specifically prepared for Wairau Valley
27^th November	Transport Portfolio Briefing			Attendees	Actions
				Richard Hills Lindsay Waugh Danielle Grant Marilyn Nicholls Sarah Broad	Danielle Grant, with the support of Richard Hills and Lindsay Waugh, to request a roading assessment between Tristam Ave and Target Road, as a result of feedback from the Wairau Valley Business Meeting.
30^th November		Attended the official opening of the Glendhu Bridge
The children of Bayview were the focus of the opening of the Glendhu Bridge. Groups represented at the opening were Bayview School with Principal and many of the School Board of Trustees attending, Bayveiw Kindergarten, Bayview Placemking Group and residents from Glendhu Road and the surrounding streets all enjoying the occasion. The new connection enables Glendhu residents easy access to the local bus service and allows for the creation of a new walking school bus route to Bayview School. The Glendhu Bridge project had been in the planning stages for many years. The opening was a celebration of the partnership between the Kaipātiki Local Board and Auckland Transport. Early conversations by the Bayview Placemaking Group and neighbours of the bridge are underway for some native planning around the bridge entrances. Photos to follow:

Signatories

Author

Danielle Grant

Kaipātiki Local Board

11 December 2013

Member’s Report: Member Grant Gillon

Period covered by report: To week end 22^nd November 2013

Portfolio Activities

Portfolio – Regulatory

There are a few Bylaws being developed that might be of interest to the Board.

I understand these have already been circulated.

1. Cemeteries and Crematoria Bylaw. There are two cemeteries in Kaipātiki: Pompalier Reserve, and Birkenhead-Glenfield both of which are restricted. But the Board’s interest would spring from the fact that many residents are interred at North Shore Memorial Park in Upper Harbour Local Board area and so might have a view.

The Board has been asked for its views to be considered by the Governing Body in March 2014.

A bylaw will be then developed and go out for public consultation.

The general thrust is to develop a region-wide bylaw on most aspects of interment activities (eg. Urupa, eco burials, burial, cremation, disinterment, vaults, mausoleums, headstones and plaques, maintenance, records etc). However, misconduct, animals, vehicles, soliciting, photography (commercial), and planting and removal will be managed through existing legislation.

Recommendation: The proposals appear to be ones the Board can support. More clarity should be sought regarding the work of volunteers in local (particularly heritage) cemeteries to ensure that the volunteer groups are not unduly restricted and continue to be supported.

2. Boarding Houses and Hostels.

The Board has been asked for its views, on a Boarding Houses and Hostels bylaw review, to be considered by the Governing Body in March 2014. A proposal will then be developed and go out for public consultation.

The Council has no obligation to enforce how people live in their own homes but can respond to issues of nuisance.

Option C is that Council sets out guidelines using existing legislation in a policy document to set standards of best practice for boarding houses. This means that Council can respond to complaints. The proposal also rejects the registration and inspection of boarding houses. This reduces costs that would otherwise be passed onto vulnerable tenants. A con is that unsatisfactory conditions are not pre-emptively picked up before they trigger a complaint.

Recommendation: The proposal to endorse Option Cs appears to be one the Board can support. More clarity should be sought regarding inclusion or otherwise of Bed and Breakfast establishments which appear to be outside the proposals and perhaps should remain that way.

3. Psychoactive Substances Act 2013

The Psychoactive Substances Bill was introduced and enacted in July 2013. It allows for approval of Psychoactive Substances for sale if they meet certain conditions. Councils can develop a local policy to control the locations where these products (approved) are sold. Policy development is expected to start in 2014. Manurewa Local Board and six others are supportive of some controls. A special consultative procedure will have to be used to adopt a local approved products policy.

The Manurewa and Papakura Local Boards are drafting statements setting out their positions. This local board may wish to do so as well.

Informal or formal feedback as to whether this Board wishes to develop a preferred approach is required (if we wish to do so) before December 2013.

Recommendation: That this Board engages in the process but liaises with the Manurewa and Papakura Boards to assess their preferred approach and endorse or modify as desired.

Resource Consent Applications

The below resource consent applications were received from 31 October to 08 November 2013 and were queried. These were followed up by Member Waugh during the election period. I am happy to follow up on others that Members would like further information on.

1. 213 Eskdale Road, the actual land use consent application was lodged back in April 2013 and was referred to the Local Board on 18 April for comment. Following this, the decision to notify the application on a limited basis only was made on 12 August 2013. The submission period has closed and the planner is currently in the process of preparing the hearing report. Followed up by Member Waugh

2. 8, 10, 12, and 14 Saffron Street, Birkdale, 7 residential dwelling proposed. Some proposed infringements required consent. Followed up by Member Waugh

3. 1/12 Church St and 41 Richmond Rd, Northcote Point), both have been referred to the Heritage Advisor for comment. As both applications are currently on hold for further information, reports from the Heritage Advisors have not been completed as yet. Followed up by Member Waugh

Kaipātiki Local Board

11 December 2013

Member’s Report: Lindsay Waugh

Period covered by report: Oct – Nov 27^th 2013

Portfolio Activities

Meetings and other activities undertaken as portfolio lead and alternate.

Portfolio one: Transport and Infrastructure

Date	Topic discussed	Attendees	Actions
27^th Nov	Portfolio briefing	Richard Hills Lindsay Waugh Danielle Grant Marilyn Nicholls Sarah Broad	See Transport portfolio report.
Other portfolio matters
November 2013	Provided feedback on;	· School speed zone sign installation for St Marys school and · School speed zone sign installation for Birkenhead Primary School and · NSAAT lines at the Chivalry Chartwell Road intersections.

Portfolio two: Built environment - Lead

	Topic discussed	Attendees	Actions
November	Chelsea Heritage houses	Have contacted ACPL to request that a report come to the Board on the current maintenance plans and future use of the Chelsea Heritage cottages and Mangers House.

Portfolio three: Events Arts and Culture

Meeting date	Meeting		Matters arising
25^th November	NorthArt committee meeting		The new kitchen in gallery 3&4 is now completed much to the delight of the committee. The recent vandalism of the gallery glass doors highlighted some gaps in the communication between Council staff and Managers of Council owned facilities which led to a significant delay in replacing the glass door. I requested that officers review their protocols with the building managers to ensure this sort of problem is not repeated. This matter has now been addressed and clear protocols established.
Date	Topic discussed	Attendees		Actions
28^th Nov	Review the rebranding of the Summer Fun brochure that no longer reflects the established and well recognised imagery	Danielle Grant Ann Hartley Joanna Glasswell Dil Uppal Lindsay Waugh		Danielle Grant will work with the Communications team to develop a design brief to capture the elements of the established branding for next summer’s programme of events. Dill’s offer to print the second half of the seasons programme with the established branding has been dropped as the pamphlets have already been printed.

Outside organisation appointments

Meetings of outside organisations the member has been appointed to, representing the Kaipātiki Local Board.

· Appointments yet to be confirmed.

Other Board Activities/Projects

14^th November

Heart of Beach Haven reference Group to agree final detailed design for resource consent application.

Events and functions

Date

Function/ event

Topic

6^th November

Auckland Conversations in association with RIMU

"Kids in the city”: Accommodating children in intensifying Auckland

Karen Witten and Robin Kearns presented the findings from their research on;

Kids in the City – children’s independent mobility and physical activity in suburban neighbourhoods.

“This three year research project funded in 2010 by the Health Research Council investigates how urban neighbourhood environments can facilitate children’s independent mobility (IM – outdoor play and travelling to destinations unsupervised), thereby influencing their levels of physical activity (PA) and participation in daily life. PA and IM are essential for children’s optimal physical and psychological health and development but both have declined substantially in Aotearoa/New Zealand as elsewhere. Safety-conscious parenting practices, car reliance and auto-centric urban design have converged to produce children living increasingly sedentary lives, with a concomitant rise in childhood obesity.

The study has been conducted with 160 9-11-year-old children and their parents/caregivers across six Auckland neighbourhoods (diverse in terms of urban design attributes that have the potential to influence children’s IM and PA) by SHORE and Whāriki researchers in collaboration with researchers from Auckland University of Technology and the University of Auckland.

Objective measures (global positioning systems, accelerometers and trip diaries) were used to assess children’s IM and PA over a seven-day period; while neighbourhood perceptions and experiences were accessed in ‘go-along’ neighbourhood walking interviews with children and in computer-assisted telephone interviews and focus groups with their parents. Multilevel statistical analyses are investigating associations between objective measures of neighbourhood built environments and the objectively measured IM and PA of child participants.

Funding from the Massey University Research Fund allowed for follow-up investigation with 30 children from two schools who had previously participated in Kids in the City. They worked together in small ‘affinity groups’ (friends) to produce neighbourhood ‘maps’ which have provided a deeper understanding of their perceptions of neighbourhood and play

This study is contributing children’s experience and voice to urban planning to ensure children’s health and wellbeing are to the fore in the transition to higher density neighbourhoods in Auckland and elsewhere in Aotearoa/New Zealand.

The project is expected to be completed in October 2014.” Professor Karen Witten

Some of the key points that I found of particular interest and relevance were;

· Adults are more active in higher density neighbourhoods with better access to amenities because they walk more.

· Every generation has progressively reduced the independent freedom of their children and therefore the daily walking children do on a regular basis

· 50% of NZ children are driven to and from school which is double the rate of ten years ago

Questions addressed during the research;

· How do children experience their neighbourhoods

· Does Independent Mobility and Physical Activity vary across the city

Parents were also interviewed to gather their perceptions of the neighbourhood and local safety.

Children’s data was the basis of the research but it was noted that parents have profound impact on their children’s attitudes and therefore their mobility and freedom. Some children have very little knowledge of their neighbourhood because of parental limitations while others have detailed knowledge.

What children said they liked about their neighbourhood

· Friends close by

· Places to play

· Amenities

· Quiet and peaceful places

· School

What children said they disliked about their neighbourhood

· Dangerous traffic

· Freaky drunk people

· Being mocked or bullied

· Scary dogs

· Rubbish/ graffiti

· Noise - traffic - drunks

· Having to be quiet

Most common places children experienced were their schools and local shops

The study revealed there were significantly lower levels of independent trips in mid-level decile suburban schools than lower level decile areas. Inner city children recorded double number of trips to sports but these were mostly car trips and therefore not independent. Most common trips were to schools, shops and where the motivation was for social and informal play the trips were more likely to be Independent.

At home was the most popular place to play but for inner city residents this was more likely to be inside play rather than outside.

Threshold spaces; many apartment blocks have no common play space so stair wells and car parks become colonised but frequently not encouraged, allowed or even safe.

Medium density areas provide more threshold space and therefore opportunities for outside play and social connections.

Third most used places for play (not home or school) were skate parks, subway, churches and Youthtown. However getting to these places presented barriers to independent movement

K’road study shows a diverse inclusive eclectic bohemian culture

Recent intensification has impacted this area and children from local apartments are now navigating this space from their own perspective. They report that it is not comfortable for children. It is challenging and they don’t want to have to see or deal with some of the sex industry images and some of the people and smells associated with a drinking culture. Children try to become invisible in this space.

It was noted that the age group of the study was relatively young and attitudes do become more tolerant as children mature.

The Auckland Plan contains an aspiration for more people living in the inner city, but can a city be totally inclusive and meet all the needs of children? To date inner city apartments have not been designed with children in mind but housing shortage has driven some families into this type of accommodation. Through intensification outdoor private space will shrink so outdoor public space becomes increasingly important.

There are opportunities for creative repurposing of spaces ie car parks after peak hours which can be used for play but there is merit in formalising this change of use so the different users are confident in their right of access.

Primarily children want to have friends close by and places to play and less of the things they identified that they disliked..

Questions and issues raised from the floor

· Children have adopted their parent’s sense of fear which needs to be challenged and reversed.

· MoE closure of some school grounds to protect property denies the local children a valuable local and familiar open space resource.

· Children who attending out of zones schools reduces their independent mobility trips

· Vital to address sense of safety on highly used and convenient walking routes for children travelling to and from school. This was particularly interesting as it reflect the findings from the Children’s panel.

· Public transport uptake is limited by parent’s lack of experience and familiarity with PT which therefore limits the children’s use of existing and convenient PT.

· Perceived risks to safety are largely unrealistic and statistically children are more likely to be injured in closely supervised environments designed specifically for their use. Perceptions versus reality;

· Parents become gatekeepers of their children’s access to independent activity and how does urban design contribute to this perception or dispel those fears. The research indicates that Community cohesion and connectedness has more of an influence on children’s freedom of movement than urban design.

Events and functions attended representing the Kaipātiki Local Board.

Date

Event

4^th November

Glenfield Business network meeting.

There was a relatively small turn out but there is still firm commitment from key stakeholders to maintain this network to provide a regular forum for the Glenfield Business community. To address local issues and promote opportunities

7^th November

Attended the Northcote College prize giving to present the Auckland Council scholarship to Cheyenne Cable

As previously acknowledged Bruce Hay was also awarded The Board of Trustees medal to acknowledge his long term contribution to the local community since being head boy of the college in 1951 .

15^th November	Consultation and Engagement Awards
The Kaipātiki consulting campervan nicknamed Casper, was nominated in the Innovative Engagement category. It was a privilege for Kay McIntyre and I to represent the Board at the awards event when there were only three other local board projects nominated. The overall winner of the engagement awards went to the Unitary plan team which involved a wide range of strategies and platforms to engage community resulting in 20,000 individual pieces of feedback. This represented an unprecedented and trail blazing approach to the development of any local government district plan.
19^th November	Draft Auckland Unitary Plan - Local Board and Elected Member Briefing
This session bought us up to date with the Unitary Plan and how the amendments have been made to respond to the feedback received from Kaipātiki residents.
19^th November	Birkenhead Town Centre Association AGM with Danielle Grant
The meeting was well attended by the membership and a full committee was elected for the coming year. Kae Condon’s report highlighted their economic growth against regional trend which is testament to the effective work done by the Town Centre association to promote and market Birkenhead with an effective and strategic programme of events and promotions. The BTCA have also been successful in attracting external sponsorship to support specific events which has added value to the work of the association. The relationship with Latin America has come a long way since Birkenhead adopted the Puma’s during Rugby World cup. The recent Latin American film festival was a new event that builds on this foundation and once again attracted the support of the Argentinian Embassy with the Ambassador personally supporting the event. The draft business plan and budget for July 2014 – June 2015 was presented which identified actions for the next 12 months against the organisations visions and goals
20^th November	FW: Advancing Auckland's Governance.
Richard Hills and I were asked to present on community engagement as the KLB has developed a positive reputation for innovative and effective community engagement. Our presentation was well received and generated interest in the north shore model of outsourcing community development and how this enables to the board to be more responsive and innovative in our range of engagement activities. We were also able to highlight that the outsourced model delivers added value as rate payer funds are leveraged to provide increased value for our community.

21^st November

Wairau Valley Business Networking Event

This was a very useful start to establishment of a business network in Wairau Valley and was well attended with sponsorship support from the North Shore Events Centre and Liquor King. Unfortunately there was scant acknowledgment of the Board’s involvement as a partner in this initiative which I hope will be addressed at the next meeting early next year. The Board has

invested considerable funds to understand and develop the strategic value that the Wairau Valley represents for Kaipātiki and this meeting represented a significant milestone in that programme of work.

22 November

Travel Wise Award ceremony

Attended the Beach Haven primary safe school travel wise award assembly with Richard Hills who gave a congratulatory speech to the school.

26^th November

Northcote Town Centre Association AGM

The Chairperson’s report raised a number of issues that were critical of the Board’s performance in relation to progress of the Northcote Town Centre development plans. Once I have received a written copy of the Chairperson and Managers reports I will respond to the matters raised as the KLB Chair responsible during the period being reported on. At the meeting it was acknowledged that the end of year accounts presented for approval, were not the correct version and these will be distributed to the membership.

The Northcote Main street Business Plan for 2012-2013 was tabled. I have requested a copy of the 13/14 Business plan which was minuted as being presented at the AGM held in April 2103.

The agenda for the AGM of the Northcote Community Events Society was tabled although a separate meeting was not convened nor the Trust committee members elected.

30^th November	Glendhu Road Footbridge opening
	This celebration was well attended by the local community who have been delighted with the improved connections offered by this local board project delivered in partnership with Auckland Transport. Chairperson Kay McIntyre made special reference to Nick Kearney who advocated strongly for this project during his term as deputy Chair of the Kaipātiki Local Board.

Constituent issues

· At the end of the last term Marilyn Nicholls and I visited 602 -604 Glenfield Road to discuss local resident’s concerns regarding the loss of parking in the realigned slip road as part of the redesign of Glenfield Road. The slip road had to be realigned. to ensure the route was on AT road corridor and did not cross private land. The consultation documents did not clearly describe the tarmacked berm would be replaced with a grassed area to assist in storm water management and reduce storm water flow over the local properties.

In addition it appears that the soil retention for the berm relies on the residential fence and from a lay perspective does not appear to have been appropriately engineered. I am waiting for AT to come back with their official response to address this matter and what solutions can be considered to improve the stability of the berm and how this may be able support informal visitor parking.

· Reported two areas of foot path in lower Maritime Terrace that are in need of repair as the surface has been extensively damaged and is now unsafe.

I have been delighted with the speed from Auckland Transport to make this repair which was delivered within a week of notification.

· I am pleased to see that work has started on the refurbishment of the toilet in Stafford Park. Please can the Board receive an update on any identified users groups interested in the community space above the toilets been identified?

· Followed up on a constituent enquiry regarding the use of CCTV cameras in a residential area on a site that is now fully commercial. The resident raised concerns that CCTV in a residential area impacts on neighbour’s privacy. I liaised with local community constable as this matter is outside Council planning controls. This has now been followed up by Constable Livesey with the property owner where the cameras are situated however the neighbour requires further confirmation that the cameras cannot pick up images beyond the owners boundary.

Signatories

Author

Lindsay Waugh

Kaipātiki Local Board

11 December 2013

Urgent Decision Process for the Kaipātiki Local Board

File No.: CP2013/27019

Purpose

1. This report seeks the board’s agreement for a process for urgent decisions of the Kaipātiki 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 Kaipātiki 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

Authors

Emma Cordery - Local Board Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Kaipātiki Local Board

11 December 2013

Applications for Special Exemptions under Section 6 of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987

File No.: CP2013/28190

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to present the Local Board with applications for special exemption from some of the requirements of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 (the Act).

Executive Summary

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

Recommendation/s

A. That the Kaipātiki Local Board grant the following applications for special exemption, subject to ongoing compliance with NZS8500-2006 at all times:

i) Robert & Leanne Bycroft & Robert Parker, 49 Seaview Ave, Northcote.

ii) Ajmol Ali, 2/252 Rangatira Road, Beach Haven.

iii) Warren Jones, 7 Gillan Place, Bayview.

iv) Sundip Patel, 22 Onewa Road, Northcote point.

B. That the Kaipātiki Local Board grant the following application for special exemption on the condition it is granted to the current owner. The board members may include extra conditions after taking into account the particular characteristics of the property and any other relevant circumstances. The board members should be satisfied there is no significant increase in the danger to young children:

i) Diane Moody, 7 Brigantine Drive, Beach Haven.

Discussion

3. Auckland Council pool inspectors have inspected the properties, which are the subject of an application before the Local Board. In each case, the swimming pool fencing does not comply with that Act. The details of non-compliance are specified in the attachments to this report. The applicants have chosen to seek a special exemption from the requirements of the Act.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12. The Act enables an exemption to be granted from clauses 8 to 10 of the Act (doors in walls of buildings) if the Local Board is satisfied that compliance with the Act is impossible, unreasonable or in breach of any other Act, regulation or bylaw and the door is fitted with a locking device that when properly operated prevents the door from being readily opened by children under the age of 6 years.

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

14. The Local Board may resolve to grant, grant subject to conditions, or decline an application for special exemption. If an application is declined the applicant will be required to fence their pool in accordance with the Act.

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

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

Consideration

Local Board Views

17. The Local Board is the decision maker in relation to exemption applications under the Act.

Maori Impact Statement

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

General

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

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

Implementation Issues

21. The decision must be made by resolution.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a	49 Seaview Avenue (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential
b	2/252 Rangatira Road (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential
c	7 Gillan Place (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential
d	7 Brigantine Drive (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential
e	22 Onewa Road (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential

Signatories

Authors

Mark Satherley - Team Leader Compliance and Enforcement

Authorisers

Ian McCormick - Manager Building Control

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Record of Workshop

What: Kaipātiki Local Board Workshop

Where: Kaipātiki Local Board Office, 90 Bentley Ave, Glenfield

When: 12:00pm, Wednesday, 13 November 2013

Who: Kaipātiki Local Board Members:

Chairperson: Kay McIntyre QSM

Deputy Chairperson: Ann Hartley

Grant Gillon

John Gillon

Danielle Grant

Richard Hills

Lorene Pigg

Lindsay Waugh

Presenters:

Auckland Council:

Tim Sinclair – Project Leader City Transformation Projects

Paul Wilson – Team Leader Policies & Bylaws

Local Board Services:

Eric Perry – Relationship Manager

Sarah Broad – Senior Local Board Advisor

Item	Presenters
1. Northcote Central Transformation 12:15 – 1:15 pm This session updated the Kaipātiki Local Board on the Northcote Central Transformation project. Issues discussed and questions raised include: · Bus stop locations – the possibility of an “intersection station alternative” · Importance of car park development as a BID priority. · Lighting – key safety concern. · Public toilet – best location identified, what is the cost of the proposed design compared to the Exeloo?	Tim Sinclair
2. Review of Kaipātiki Local Board Dog Access Rules 1:15 – 2:00 pm This session informed the Kaipātiki Local Board on the potential scope of the dog access review before coming as a formal report. Issues discussed and questions raised include: · More clarification of rules for adjacent board areas is needed. · Areas are off leash unless stated otherwise? · Concerns from locals around making Chelsea Bay off-leash · Will need budget for signage – would like a quote. · Lynn Reserve and Onepoto Reserve bike tracks not counted as a playground for this set of rules – should look into this. · 20 metres from beach rule – is a buffer zone required? How is this defined? · Lack of public awareness of dog rules. Need to remove ambiguities. · How will dog owners be made aware of changes? · What about picnic/fitness areas?	Paul Wilson
3. Draft local board agreement 2014/2015 2:00 – 3:30 pm This session provided the board with updates on various questions raised in relation to the draft local board agreement for 2014/2015 in preparation for presenting the draft agreement to the board. The board discussed additional advocacy items, raised queries on a number of the measures and targets and requested more information on the proposed fees and charges. The updated draft agreement will be presented to the local board at its meeting on 11 December.	Sarah Broad

Next Workshop: Wednesday, 27 November 2013.

Record of Workshop

What: Kaipātiki Local Board Workshop

Where: Kaipātiki Local Board Office, 90 Bentley Ave, Glenfield

When: 9:00am, Wednesday, 27 November 2013

Who: Kaipātiki Local Board Members:

Chairperson: Kay McIntyre QSM

Deputy Chairperson: Ann Hartley JP

Danielle Grant

Dr Grant Gillon

Lindsay Waugh

Richard Hills – from 9:07am

Presenters:

Auckland Council:

Matthew Ward – Team Leader Parks & Open Space (North/West)

Andy Roche – Local Board Advisor, Local Board Services

Hannah Bailey – Local Board Engagement Advisor, Local Board Services

Barbara Cade – Team Leader Event Facilitation (North/West)

Council Controlled Organisations:

Máire Lenihan – Senior Engineer, Watercare Services Limited

Jess Urquhart – Resource Management Planner, Watercare Services Limited

Advisory staff:

Eric Perry – Relationship Manager, Local Board Services

Sarah Broad – Senior Local Board Advisor, Local Board Services

Apologies:

John Gillon

Lorene Pigg

Item

Presenters

1. Northcote Trunk Sewer 8 Upgrade

9:00 – 9:45am

This session updated the Kaipātiki Local Board on the Northcote Trunk Sewer 8 upgrade project. Officers gave members an overview of the project to date and timeframes for project completion.

The existing Trunk Sewer 8 was built in 1962 and is in poor condition with a high risk of failure and inadequate capacity. The sewer is being upgraded before the implementation of the Northcote Greenway, which has a similar footprint. The project will require works in some Auckland Council Parks:

· Greenslade Reserve – temporary construction set-up (4 weeks)

· Cadness Reserve – installation of 37m upgraded pipeline and 1 manhole, temporary working area and storage (6 months)

· 5 Akoranga Drive – connection into existing sewer behind YMCA building, installation of 2 manholes and 13m of pipeline, access to construct pipebridge (6 months)

Officers have now received landowner approval from the Department of Conservation and have completed iwi consultation so the project can move into the consenting phase. All landowners directly over the route/impacted by construction have been consulted with in the design development and will be kept updated as the project moves into construction. The timeline is as follows:

· Detailed design complete – November 2013

· Lodge Consent Application – February 2014

· Construction Start – April 2014

· Construction Complete – October 2015

The board discussed the previous decision, made at the Kaipātiki Local Board meeting of 12 September 2012, not to construct a walking and cycling route over the pipebridge at Northcote. This was due to the very significant cost increase, the CPTED implications of such a bridge with an obscured entrance, and the proximity to another bridge with walking access.

Máire Lenihan

Jess Urquhart

Matthew Ward

2. Local Board Plan

9:45 – 11:15am

This session sought guidance from the Kaipātiki Local Board on content and engagement strategies for the Local Board Plan, prior to a report coming to the board. The board raised the following points:

· The possibility of allocating governance budget to assist communities without strong resident groups to participate in community planning exercises was raised. The community should be encouraged to coordinate itself – principles around this could be included in the Local Board Plan itself.

· Further use of online surveys, the consulting campervan, different types of engagement, for example, a video competition is encouraged.

· The structure of the Plan document could be looked at, with sections outlining ideas from groups, as these groups may not have only one view on subjects.

· As well as gathering ideas, discussion needs to be stimulated among the community on the ideas received from other groups. An open day or expo was suggested, which could bring different groups together to discuss ideas with each other.

· Use of feedback gathered from previous consultation rounds and see if it’s still relevant, for example from the last Local Board Agreement, which will also give an opportunity to show what’s happened in response to feedback received.

· Tone of engagement should be celebratory.

· Utilise the Independent Māori Statutory Board, improve relationship with local Māori groups and organisations. Need to be aware of any Treaty settlements going on in the area.

· Sub-regional groupings may need to include Waitematā. Allocating funding for larger assets used sub-regionally will be very difficult if trying to recoup costs from the board areas that the users come from, though it is important that boards think about other facilities in their wider area more generally.

Andy Roche

Sarah Broad

3. Engagement strategy

11:15 – 11:45am

This session gave the Kaipātiki Local Board an opportunity to give feedback and direction on engagement over the next three years. Information was gathered which will be used to formulate a draft Engagement Strategy and Action Plan.

Much of this discussion was concurrent with the Local Board Plan engagement discussion, but further points made were as follows:

· The feedback “loop” is important and expectations need to be set around outcomes.

· The corporate branding can be a barrier, ads are sometimes disregarded – advertorials and the like are useful.

· Need to make sure language is respectful of the Treaty and ideas around Kaitiaki

· There needs to be more clarity to the public around what the local board does in general.

Hannah Bailey

4. Local Event Support Fund, round 2 applications

11:50am – 12:15pm

This session informed the Kaipātiki Local Board about the applications received for Round 2 of the Local Event Contestable fund and to discuss any requirements for further information so that the board was equipped to resolve on this round at the December business meeting when it came to the board in a report.

The board also asked officers to explore the possibility of a third funding round.

Barbara Cade

Next Workshop: Wednesday, 4 December 2013.

Kaipātiki Local Board

11 December 2013

Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

That the Kaipātiki Local Board:

a) exclude the public from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting.

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution follows.

26 Applications for Special Exemptions under Section 6 of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 - Attachment a - 49 Seaview Avenue

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(a) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.

In particular, to protect owners details.

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

26 Applications for Special Exemptions under Section 6 of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 - Attachment b - 2/252 Rangatira Road

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(a) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.

In particular, to protect owners details.

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

26 Applications for Special Exemptions under Section 6 of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 - Attachment c - 7 Gillan Place

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(a) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.

In particular, to protect owners details.

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

26 Applications for Special Exemptions under Section 6 of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 - Attachment d - 7 Brigantine Drive

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(a) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.

In particular, to protect owners details.

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

26 Applications for Special Exemptions under Section 6 of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 - Attachment e - 22 Onewa Road

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(a) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.

In particular, to protect applicants details.

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

[1] 2014/2015 financial statements reflect reprioritisations made during the 2013/2014 annual planning process and revised budgets endorsed by the Budget Committee on 21 November 2013 to achieve a 2.5% rates increase for 2014/2015.

No.	Title	Page
a	Member Ann Hartley's report	191
b	Member Danielle Grant's report	193
c	Member Grant Gillon's report	199
d	Member John Gillon's report	201
e	Member Lindsay Waugh's report	203

No.	Title	Page
a	Kaipātiki Local Board Workshop Record for Wednesday, 13 November 2013	221
b	Kaipātiki Local Board Workshop Record for Wednesday, 27 November 2013	223

Chairperson	Kay McIntyre, QSM
Deputy Chairperson	Ann Hartley, JP
Members	Dr Grant Gillon
	John Gillon
	Danielle Grant
	Richard Hills
	Lorene Pigg
	Lindsay Waugh

Authors	Rebecca Turner - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager