Agenda of Orākei Local Board

Orākei Local Board

13 February 2014

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 Welcome 5

2 Apologies 5

3 Declaration of Interest 5

4 Confirmation of Minutes 5

5 Leave of Absence 5

6 Acknowledgements 5

7 Petitions 5

8 Deputations 5

9 Public Forum 5

9.1 Mission Bay Business Association - Mission Bay on Ice 2015 funding application 6

9.2 Ellerslie Residents Association - representation of the Ellerslie residents civic interests funding application 6

10 Extraordinary Business 7

11 Notices of Motion 8

11.1 Notice of Motion - 14 Rangitoto Avenue 8

12 Business Association Support Fund Allocation - Mission Bay Business Association 9

13 Residents Association Support Fund Allocation - Ellerslie Residents Association 17

14 'Making Good Decisions' Resource Management Act Training 47

15 Shore Road Reserve and Thomas Bloodworth Park draft Master Plan 49

16 Lapsing of Auckland City Council Hazardous Substances Bylaw 61

17 Greater Tamaki Stormwater Network Discharge Consent - Stormwater Priorities Consultation 73

18 Update Report on the Procurement of the Facility Management of Ellerslie Recreation Centre 107

19 Urgent decision on the Glen Innes Walkway 191

20 Auckland Transport Update – Orakei Local Board: January 2014 195

21 The Auckland Development Committee Report on offshore petroleum exploration 203

22 Board Member Reports 231

23 Chairperson's Report 251

24 Resolutions Pending Action 263

25 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

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 Orākei Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 12 December 2013, as a true and correct record.

5 Leave of Absence

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

6 Acknowledgements

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

7 Petitions

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

8 Deputations

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

9 Public Forum

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

9.1 Mission Bay Business Association - Mission Bay on Ice 2015 funding application

Purpose

1. Megan Burgess and Lea Worth, Mission Bay Business Association, will be in attendance to present to the Board on the Mission Bay Business Association funding application for the Mission Bay on Ice 2015 project.

Executive Summary

2. The Mission Bay Business Association is applying to the Board for funding for the Mission Bay on Ice 2015 project, this application can be found on the agenda for the 13 February 2014 Orakei Local Board business meeting.

3. The Mission Bay on Ice event has unfortunately been postponed to 2015 due to the original promoter pushing back the event to the Business Association to organise. The Business Association is unfortunately not resourced to take over the event management at this late stage, so the event has been deferred. The current application is for costs that will be incurred for Lea Worth to initiate the additional project planning and to engage with sponsors for next year’s event.

4. Megan Burgess and Lea Worth, Mission Bay Business Association will be in attendance to provide the Board with any further details on the project and answer any questions the Board may have.

Recommendation/s

That the Orākei Local Board:

a) Thanks Megan Burgess and Lea Worth, Mission Bay Business Association for their presentation on the Association’s Business Association Support Fund applications for the Mission Bay on Ice 2015 project.

9.2 Ellerslie Residents Association - representation of the Ellerslie residents civic interests funding application

Purpose

1. Bryan Johnson and Peter Hynes, Ellerslie Residents Association, will be in attendance to present to the Board on the Ellerslie Residents Association funding application for the representation of the Ellerslie residents civic interests project.

Executive Summary

2. The Ellerslie Residents Association is applying to the Board for funding for the representation of the Ellerslie residents civic interests project, this application can be found on the agenda for the 13 February 2014 Orakei Local Board business meeting.

3. Bryan Johnson and Peter Hynes, Ellerslie Residents Association will be in attendance to provide the Board with any further details on the project and answer any questions the Board may have.

Recommendation/s

That the Orākei Local Board:

a) Thanks Bryan Johnson and Peter Hynes, Ellerslie Residents Association for their presentation on the Association’s Residents Association Support Fund application for the representation of the Ellerslie residents civic interests project.

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 - 14 Rangitoto Avenue

In accordance with Standing Order 3.11.1, the following Notice of Motion has been received from Board Member Churton for inclusion on the agenda for the Orākei Local Board meeting being held on Thursday, 13 February 2014:

Recommendation/s

That the Orākei Local Board:

a) Requests officers to investigate options for the acquisition of the Rawhiti Bowling Club, 14 Rangitoto Avenue, Remuera and ensuring the criteria is modified to exact the training ground potential of the area and the pocket park potential of the area.

Background

The local community has been vocal to support the preservation of the Rawhiti Bowling Club, 14 Rangitoto Avenue, Remuera as some form of open space and ongoing general recreational use.

An earlier assessment suggested, inter-alia, that the land was not large enough for sports fields and that is a view that I do not agree with. The land is an ideal size for training types of activities for a wide range of sports and for a wide range of informal recreational activity - and it has been pleasing to see random community use of the area for touch rugby, children playing etc while the land sits un-used by bowlers.

An earlier assessment also suggested the area was well served by open space at Waiata and Little Rangitoto. This is not correct as the nature of use of the large area at Waiata is very limited due to the hills.

Rawhiti presents an acquisition or partnership opportunity for one of the very last open space flat land areas in this part of Auckland.

Orākei Local Board

13 February 2014

'Making Good Decisions' Resource Management Act Training

File No.: CP2014/01409

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to seek approval for Making Good Decisions RMA training.

Executive Summary

2. From 12 September 2014, any member of a resource consent or plan change hearing panel must be ‘Making Good Decisions’ (MGD) certified.

Any hearings held under the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act must include a member of the Territorial Authority on the panel and as above, from 12 September 2014, that elected member will need to be certified.

3. A two-day 'Foundation’ course is being held in May 2014 and one-day ‘Recertification’ courses are being held in March and May 2014.

4. The central Professional Development budget funds one member per board to attend the Making Good Decisions (2 day) Foundation Course, along with funding for recertification courses required to keep certification up to date.

5. Where local boards wish to have more than one member of the board certified, this is funded by the local board budget. Orakei Local Board members Churton and Baguley are currently certified. Member Baguley will need to be recertified by June 2014 while Member Churton’s certification is valid to June 2017.

Recommendation/s

That the Orākei Local Board:

a) Approves ‘Making Good Decisions’ – recertification course training for Member Baguley on Thursday, 13 March 2014 or Wednesday, 21 May 2014 at a cost of $1,113.91 (plus GST).

Discussion

6. From 12 September 2014, any member of a resource consent or plan change hearing panel must be ‘Making Good Decisions’ (MGD) certified. At present, the chairperson and 50 per cent of a resource consent panel and no members of a plan change panel need to be certified. If local board members wish to be part of a resource consent or plan change hearing panel from 12 September 2014 onwards, they will need to be certified.

7. Any hearings held under the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act must include a member of the Territorial Authority on the panel and as above, from 12 September 2014, that elected member will need to be certified.

8. A two-day 'Foundation’ course is being held in Auckland on 7 and 8 May 2014.

9. One-day chair recertification courses are being held in Auckland on Wednesday 12 March and Thursday 22 May. One-day panel member courses are being held on in Auckland on Thursday 13 March and Wednesday 21 May.

10. The central Professional Development budget funds one member per board to attend the Making Good Decisions (2 day) Foundation Course, along with funding for recertification courses required to keep certification up to date.

11. Where local boards wish to have more than one member of the board certified, this is funded by the local board budget.

12. The cost of Making Good Decisions RMA training is:

· Foundation course: $1,906.09 plus GST

· Chair Recertification: $1,371.30 plus GST

· Panel member recertification: $1,113.91 plus GST.

13. The Making Good Decisions (MGD) Programme helps councillors, community board members, and independent commissioners make better decisions under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). It provides RMA decision-makers with the skills they need to run fair and effective hearings, and to make informed decisions.

14. The programme is delivered by Opus’ Environmental Training Centre.

15. Changes to legislation, case law and practice can have a significant impact on the way decisions are made and the role of decision makers.

16. Recertification ensures decision-makers have their knowledge and skills re-evaluated regularly (three years from initial certification and every five years after that).

Consideration

Local Board Views

17. This report seeks approval from the local board for Making Good Decisions RMA training.

Maori Impact Statement

18. The issue in this report does not directly impact Maori.

General

19. A local board resolution is required for this training to be approved. The training must also be endorsed by the Local Board Chair and the Manager Local Board Services.

Implementation Issues

20. There are no implementation issues.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

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

Orākei Local Board

13 February 2014

Shore Road Reserve and Thomas Bloodworth Park draft Master Plan

File No.: CP2014/00875

Purpose

1. For the Orakei Local Board to formally approve the Shore Rd Reserve and Thomas Bloodworth Park draft Master Plan.

Executive Summary

2. The purpose of the Shore Rd Reserve / Thomas Bloodworth Park draft Master Plan is to allow for a planned and strategic approach to the future development at these two sites. The development, as set out in the draft plan, aims to improve sportsfield quality and capacity while at the same time also improving informal recreation opportunities in and around these two sites.

3. The draft Master Plan has been compiled by applying the objectives set out in the Hobson Bay Action Plan (HBAP) and the feedback that informed the HBAP. The HBAP is the overarching document that ‘will provide the clear vision to guide future decision-making and investment in and around Hobson Bay’ and has been developed to support improved planning and investment in Hobson Bay and the surrounding area.

4. Consultation with all the major stakeholders and partners (sports clubs, park users, residents, iwi) has been undertaken on the Shore Rd Reserve / Thomas Bloodworth Park draft Master Plan. Consultation with iwi, in particular, is an ongoing process. Strong support has been shown for the majority of elements set out in the plan and a summary of the feedback is provided in this report. The attached final draft plan incorporates post consultation changes requested by board members and in response to stakeholder and public feedback.

Recommendation/s

That the Orakei Local Board:

a) Formally approves the Shore Rd Reserve / Thomas Bloodworth Park draft Master Plan.

b) Requests officers prepare an investment proposal for consideration through the Local Board Plan and Long Term Plan to provide funding for the elements of the Master Plan that are currently unfunded including the car park expansion, landscaping, footpath works, new toilet etc.

c) Adopts a staged approach to the delivery of the Master Plan at Shore Rd Reserve and Thomas Bloodworth Park that will ensure that sportsfield developments, as set out in the Sports Field Capacity Development programme, are complemented by the development of supporting infrastructure (car parks, toilets) and landscape improvements.

d) Advocate to Auckland Transport for the installation of one new pedestrian crossing island, as marked on the draft Master Plan, and the relocation of the existing pedestrian crossing island by the Portland Road intersection further west along Shore Rd in order to improve pedestrian movement and safety.

Discussion

5. Wide consultation to inform the draft Master Plan and to gather feedback on the plan has been undertaken. Full public consultation on the Hobson Bay Action Plan (HBAP) was undertaken in March, April and May 2013. Feedback on the draft master plan itself was sought through the distribution of 1000 flyers to local residents and the holding of a public meeting on 14 November 2013. All users and stakeholders, as part of this consultation process, were encouraged to give feedback via a questionnaire that posed the questions set out in the table below. 56 responses were obtained. Positive and negative responses have been provided as percentages and the park names abbreviated (Shore Rd Reserve - SRR / Thomas Bloodworth Park -TBB) in the table below.

Consultation feedback on Shore Rd Reserve / Thomas Bloodworth Park

draft Master Plan

Questions	Yes	No	Don’t know
Do you support the reserves being developed to better provide for the active recreation needs of Aucklanders	95%	2%	3%
SRR East is not currently used for sport and is zoned for passive recreation. Do you support the proposed use of SRR East for cricket in summer and rugby/soccer in the winter	80%	12%	8%
Do you support the use of controlled floodlights to enable evening training on weeknights for winter sports	88%	4%	8%
Do you support native planting along streams and the coastal edge	88%	9%	3%
Do you support specimen street tree planting along Shore Rd	75%	18%	7%
Do you support access for paddle boards and canoes	84%	4%	12%
Do you support the installation of fitness stations in the reserve	66%	16%	18%
Do you support the installation of a concrete table tennis table in the reserve	48%	30%	22%
Do you support a pedestrian island being installed on Shore Rd to allow for safer pedestrian access between SRR and Wharua / Waitaramoa Reserve	93%	7%	0%
Do you support the inclusion of a no parking zone along the northern side of Shore Rd with the loss of approximately 40 car park spaces but with the inclusion of an additional 95 spaces within Shore Rd Reserve	77%	12%	11%
The master plan seeks to balance active sport use with informal recreation improvements. Do you consider that a balance has been achieved	64%	16%	20%

6. The feedback figures indicate strong support for the majority of the elements presented in the draft plan. 95% of respondents supported the overall objective of ‘better provision for the recreational needs of Aucklanders’. 80% supported the development of playing fields on Shore Rd Reserve East and 88% supported the provision of lighting on the sportsfields at the two reserves. However, a number of respondents raised the issue of dog rules and requested that dogs continue to be given off leash access to the reserves.

7. The installation of adult fitness equipment (66%) and a table tennis table (48%) were the most poorly supported elements in the draft plan, with respondents commenting that they wouldn’t be well used and susceptible to vandalism. The table tennis table has been removed from the final draft (as attached).

8. Native tree planting was well supported at 75% but a number of comments related to the need to maintain high levels of passive surveillance and concerns that view lines into and through the park would be negatively impacted by specimen tree planting. Similar sentiments were expressed about planting along the coastal edge. Appropriate species selection and placement of specimen trees will ensure that passive surveillance and coastal views are maintained.

9. Improved access to the water (84%) was well supported but with some criticism regarding the distance between the car parks and jetties and the difficulty people would have carrying boats. Because of the impracticality of getting cars closer to the water the jetties would only be useable by people with paddle boards and canoes. It should however be noted that the jetties will also be features that enhance the general landscape and provide a better connection to the water for passive users of the park.

10. The inclusion of a ‘no parking’ zone on the northern side of Shore Rd was supported by 77% of respondents and feedback comments indicated that most stakeholders had an understanding of the need for increased car parking provision within the boundaries of the park. Parking bays 2.7m wide and 4.9m deep, with a 6.7m corridor between the two rows of parking spaces, will provide adequate space for manouvering.

11. There was a very high level of support (93%) for the installation of a pedestrian crossing island on Shore Rd and a number of feedback comments relating to pedestrians and their safety. It is recommended that the Orakei Local Board advocate to Auckland Transport for both a new pedestrian crossing island, as marked on the draft Master Plan, and relocation of the existing pedestrian crossing island, by the intersection with Portland Rd, further west along Shore Rd. If this relocation was actioned the park footpaths connecting with the existing pedestrian crossing island would have to be realigned.

12. Feedback obtained from the HBAP consultation process clearly identified means by which the informal recreation qualities of the two reserves could be protected and enhanced and access to the coastal environment improved. In the draft master plan this has been achieved by providing new footpath links, jetties, park furniture, a BBQ, a toilet, adult fitness equipment and general landscape works. While almost two thirds (64%) of respondents felt the master plan successfully balanced active sport use with informal recreation improvements this was a relatively low score when compared with responses to the other questions. However, 20% of respondents provided a ‘don’t know’ answer to this question, with only 16% giving a negative response.

13. The draft Master Plan provides the following developments / improvements:

· Three new SFCD funded sandcarpet fields (two of which have been split into half size fields)

· New lighting for fields 2,3,4 and 5 (jointly funded by renewals and the SFCD programme) and re-locatable where required in order to accommodate summer sport (cricket)

· Additional practice lane for nets on Thomas Bloodworth Park

· Relocated cricket nets on Shore Rd and with two additional lanes (funded by SFCD)

· New footpath links for pedestrians

· Jetty to allow for access to Hobson Bay for water sports (canoes, paddle boards)

· Adult fitness equipment

· BBQ

· Bike racks

· New signage

· Drinking fountains

· Ball stop fence along north-eastern edge of Thomas Blooodworth Park

· Additional car parking

· Improved linkages between coastal footpaths and sportfields through improved landscape design

· Footpath lighting along section of footpath that runs beside the Shore Rd car park

· Landscaping that will enhance biodiversity and quality of both parks.

14. While falling outside of the scope of the master plan, significant feedback was given on mangroves in Hobson Bay (both for and against removal) and a desire to see the further development of pedestrian linkages, plus additional jetties and beaches, created around the whole of Hobson Bay.

Consideration

Local Board Views

15. The Orakei Local Board in September 2013 gave approval to consult fully on the draft Master Plan. Officers have also had a post consultation work-shop with the board (30^th January 2014) and the changes requested as a result of stakeholder feedback have been incorporated into the latest version of the draft master plan (as attached).

Maori Impact Statement

16. The contribution of parks outcomes is of signficant importance to tangata whenua, their well being, values, culture and traditions. Sites of significance to tangata whenua are an important part of their heritage, established through whakapapa. The following iwi expressed an interest in the site and have all provided verbal feedback on the draft master plan:

· Ngati Whatua

· Ngai Tai ki Tamaki

· Te Akitai Waiohua

· Ngati Paoa

17. Verbal feedback from iwi representatives endorsed the main objectives of the plan. Iwi also expressed a desire to provide Cultural Impact Assessments in order to clarify cultural values and recommendations. The main points of feedback have included:

· the importance of recognising place and iwi cultural / historic associations with the area

· support for improving and protecting water quality and the environment

· a desire for native plant species although Ngati Paoa suggest selective use of fruit trees

· support for passive-use / community areas

· concern about contaminated land disturbance

· support for improved water access, although Te Akitai Waiohua raised concerns about possible environmental effects relating to use

· a desire to be involved in the design and consenting stages.

18. Feedback from Te Akitai regarding the jetties is noted. It is recommended that the jetties remain on the approved plan, particularly as jetties will not be constructed during the first phase of sports field development and other iwi groups supported the idea of water access. The development of the park, including the possible jetties, will be subject to environmental assessment and mitigation. The impact of the jetties, along with the overall development, can be worked-through with iwi during the design and consent stages.

General

19. Auckland Council allocated $85M in the long term plan for capital works to increase the playing capacity of the region’s sports fields and in order to meet 80% of 2022 projected demand. These improvements are being delivered through the Sports Field Capacity Development Programme over a ten year period (2012 to 2022) and will provide the following developments at Shore Rd Reserve and Thomas Bloodworth Park:

Shore Rd Reserve – New sandcarpet field with lights for build in FY 2017

Thomas Bloodworth Park – New sandcarpet field with lights for building in FY 2018

Shore Rd Reserve – New sandcarpet field with lights for build in FY 2021.

20. It is intended that the current lights on the existing number two field are renewed through the renewals budget at the same time as the two existing sandcarpets are renewed in 2014/15. The sandcarpet renewals at the site have already been approved by the Orakei Local Board and officers will seek approval to renew the eleven existing field lights as part of the 2014/15 parks renewal work programme. However, no budgets outside of the SFCD and renewals funding streams have been identified to deliver other components of the draft Master Plan. Consent approval to develop additional fields at the site will almost certainly be linked to delivering extra car park capacity and could also be tied in with conditions to deliver other parts of the draft master plan such as footpath links, landscaping, provision of toilets etc. The Orakei Local Board will therefore need to secure funds through the long term plan if sportsfield improvements planned for 2017, 2018 and 2021 are to be successfully delivered. It is recommended that officers develop a detailed investment programme for unfunded works and present this to the board as part of the Local Board Plan and LTP process.

Implementation Issues

21. Consents to allow for the renewal of the two existing sandcarpets (fields one and two at Shore Rd Reserve) and associated lights will be applied for in March 2014, with physical works relating to these renewals being undertaken over the summer of 2014/15. These works will include the relocation of the cricket nets situated in the south eastern corner of Shore Rd Reserve. Parnell Cricket Club will be displaced from Shore Rd Reserve during physical works and as a result will play competition games at Orakei Domain and train at Thomas Bloodworth Park and Martyn Wilson Fields during the summer of 2014/15. The site is constructed on contaminated fill and extensive testing has already been undertaken to ensure appropriate designs and methodologies are applied to all works.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Shore Rd Res and Thomas Bloodworth Park draft Master Plan - Sheet 1	55
b View	Shore Rd Res and Thomas Bloodworth Park draft Master Plan - Sheet 2	57
c View	Shore Rd Res and Thomas Bloodworth Park draft Master Plan - Sheet 3	59

Signatories

Author	David Barker - Team Leader Parks Specialists and Programmes
Authoriser	Ian Maxwell - Manager Parks, Sports & Recreation

Orākei Local Board

13 February 2014

Lapsing of Auckland City Council Hazardous Substances Bylaw

File No.: CP2014/00298

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to recommend that the Auckland City Council Hazardous Substances Bylaw 2008, which is now an Auckland Council bylaw, be allowed to lapse, because the provisions of this bylaw are adequately dealt with by a number of pieces of national legislation.

Executive Summary

2. In 2008 Auckland City Council made a Hazardous Substances Bylaw. This bylaw:

a) Requires an application to be made to the council whenever it is intended to install, alter, remove, examine or relocate any tank or pipeline used for storing or transferring of various classes of hazardous substances;

b) Requires underground storage tanks to be installed in accordance with a 1992 Department of Labour code of practice or in a manner that prevents the contamination of underground water sources;

c) Requires the storage, use and disposal of any chemical or contaminant to be in such a way that this does not result in a nuisance or risk to public health and safety. The word contaminant is defined by the bylaw and covers any type of substance that, when discharged to water or land can damage the physical, biological or chemical condition of that water or land.

3. Since the bylaw was made there have been a number of legislative changes that have reduced the need for the bylaw. The council retains its role under section 15 of the Resource Management Act 1991 to manage discharges of contaminants into the environment and it will continue to exercise this function through the proposed Unitary Plan. However under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 the council’s role is only to enforce this act in public places and in places other than work places.

4. If the council does not revoke the bylaw prior to 31 October 2015 (i.e. it allows the bylaw to lapse) it will not have to go through the time and expense of revoking the bylaw through the special consultative process of the Local Government Act 2002.

Recommendation/s

That the Orakei Local Board:

a) Recommends to the Regulatory and Bylaw Committee that the Auckland City Council Hazardous Substances Bylaw 2008 not be confirmed, amended or revoked so that on 31 October 2015 the bylaw is revoked by section 63 of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010.

Discussion

5. The current bylaw regulates three general areas:

· The bylaw requires an application to and approval from council to install, alter, remove, examine or relocate any tank or pipeline used for the storage or transferring of hazardous substances. This enables the council to monitor sites where hazardous substances are stored and check the contamination of those sites especially when underground tanks or pipes are removed.

· The installation, construction and operation of underground storage tanks holding hazardous substances.

· Standards for the storage of chemicals or contaminants so that any use, disposal or spillage of those chemicals or contaminants does not create a nuisance and there is no risk to public health and safety. These provisions also allow council officers to take water or soil samples to determine whether or not a site is polluted.

6. Staff considers that the bylaw topics are now adequately covered by national legislation which are discussed in detail below.

A. Approval to install, alter, remove, examine or relocate any tank or pipeline used for storing or transferring of hazardous substances

7. This part of the bylaw is dealt with in part by the Resource Management (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health) Regulations 2011 (the NES). The NES applies to land that has or had an activity or industry on the site that is listed on the Hazardous Activities and Industries List (HAIL) published by the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) and is therefore considered potentially contaminated. If however a detailed site investigation demonstrates that any contaminants in or on the site are below background (naturally occurring) concentrations then the site is not considered contaminated.

8. The NES sets permitted activity standards for the removal or replacement of a fuel storage system (storage tanks and ancillary equipment), including the removal or replacement of an underground part of the system and putting back or taking away soil from the site, subject to a number of conditions. The conditions include that the activity is done in accordance with MfE guidelines, the council is notified on where, when and for how long the activity will be taking place and where any removed soil will be disposed of. Limits are also set on the amount of soil that can be taken away and a requirement that council will receive results of the investigation done on the site.

9. The NES also has permitted activity standards for sampling soil, disturbing soil (such as might occur if an underground tank was removed and the hole filled in) and for the subdividing or changing the use of HAIL land. None of these permitted activities have conditions which require the council to be notified when the activity takes place, but the conditions applied to these activities prevent any danger to the public. Appendix B of the NES includes soil contaminant standards (SCSs) for human health for inorganic and organic compounds for five types of land use scenarios: rural/lifestyle blocks, residential, high-density residential, parks/recreational land and commercial/industrial land. SCSs represent a human health risk threshold above which the effects on human health may be unacceptable over time.

10. If the owner of a piece of contaminated land or potentially contaminated land (e.g. land on the HAIL list) wishes to subdivide or change the use of a piece of land, it is usually in the best interests of that land owner to decontaminate that land or prove that the land meets the standards of the NES so that the land can be sold. If however, an owner of a contaminated site or potentially contaminated site does not wish to subdivide or change the use of that site they are still required to meet the proposed Unitary Plan rules for the discharge of contaminates to land and water from that site.

B. Requiring underground storage tanks containing hazardous substances to be installed in accordance with a 1992 Department of Labour code of practice or in a manner that prevents the contamination of underground water sources;

11. These provisions have been superseded by a number of pieces of legislation:

a) The Hazardous Substances (Emergency Management) Regulations 2001 which came into force in July 2001 require the secondary containment of any liquid hazardous substance that is kept in quantities that exceeds the thresholds outlined in schedule 4 of these regulations. The regulations apply to both surface containers and below ground containers holding liquids or substances likely to liquefy in a fire.

b) Schedule 8 of the Hazardous Substances (Dangerous Goods and Scheduled Toxic Substances)Transfer Notice (2004 and amendments) places obligations and restriction on stationary container systems (tanks and associated fittings and pipe work) that contain or are intended to contain a hazardous substance that is described in schedules 1 (dangerous goods) and 2 (toxic substances) of the notice. Part 2 of schedule 8 requires all parts of a stationary container system to be designed, constructed, installed, operated, maintained, tested and repaired so that the system contains any hazardous substance that is put into it without any leakage of that substance when subjected to expected operating temperatures, pressures and stresses, loadings and environmental conditions.

Parts 5 and 6 of schedule 8 specifies standards for both above ground stationary tanks and below ground stationary tanks for hazardous liquids. Various standards are specified for their design and construction and for the installation and operation of tanks to prevent their damage. Part 8 has standards for disused below ground tanks. Part 14 has requirements for pipe work conveying hazardous substances. Part 17 has standards for the marking of stationary tanks and requirements to have a plan available for inspection which describes the physical position of stationary container systems. Part 18 includes requirements for the repair, alteration, maintenance and inspection of above ground and below ground tanks to ensure that they continue to meet the standards and codes to which the tank was designed and constructed. The maintenance requirements for below ground tanks include requirements to undertake inventory control checks and leak-testing.

c) The Code of Practice for the Management of Existing Stationary Container Systems up to 60,000 litres Capacity. This was approved in April 2008 by the Environmental Risk Management Authority as an approved code of practice under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996. This code of practice applies to stationary tanks used to contain hazardous liquids that were in use at the commencement date of the Transfer Notice and:

• do not fully meet the requirements of schedule 8 of the Transfer Notice, and/or

• do not meet the requirements for secondary containment of the Hazardous Substances (Emergency Management) Regulations 2001.

C. Requiring the storage, use and disposal of any chemical or contaminant to be in such a way that this does not result in a nuisance or risk to public health and safety.

The word contaminant is defined in the bylaw and covers any type of substance that, when discharged to water or land can damage the physical, biological or chemical condition of that water or land.

a. Storage

12. As noted above the Hazardous Substances (Emergency Management) Regulations 2001 which came into force in July 2001 requires the secondary containment of any liquid hazardous substance that is kept in quantities that exceeds the thresholds outlined in schedule 4 of these regulations. The regulations apply to both surface containers and below ground containers for liquids or substances likely to liquefy in a fire. Schedule 9 of the Hazardous Substances (Dangerous Goods and Scheduled Toxic Substances) Transfer Notice which regulates the storage of dangerous goods and toxic substances, also has requirements for secondary containment systems for the storage of class 3.1 (flammable liquids) as does the Code of Practice for the Management of Existing Stationary Container Systems up to 60,000 litres capacity.

b. Use

13. The use of chemicals or contaminants in a way that does not result in a nuisance or risk to public health and safety is controlled by a number or instruments:

• The Resource Management Act e.g. section 15: discharges of contaminants into the environment.

• The proposed Auckland Unitary Plan e.g. Chapter H section 4.6: Managing hazardous substances and section 4.8: Industrial and Trade Activities.

14. The chief executive of a local authority is only required to ensure that the provisions of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 are enforced in public places and in places other than work places. He/she can however enforce the provisions of the Act in other places for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the Resource Management Act.

c. Disposal

15. The disposal of chemicals and contaminants is controlled by instruments such as:

The Hazardous Substance (Disposal) Regulations 2001.

16. These regulations which came into force in July 2001 have disposal requirements for hazardous substances, packages and containers for class 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 substances. For each class of substance the regulations describe what are suitable means of treatment for disposal, and what is not. Note that class 7 is an unallocated class. These regulations also require any one who manufactures, imports or supplies a hazardous substance to another person in a quantity that exceeds that of schedule 1 of the regulations to provide that person with information on the appropriate method of disposal of that substance in accordance with the regulations.

The Resource Management (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health) Regulations 2011.

17. The provisions/requirements of this standard are discussed above.

National Environmental Standard for Air Quality

18. This standard bans the burning of tyres, copper wire and oil in the open air, the burning of bitumen used in road maintenance, the deliberate use of landfill fires and controls the use of school and healthcare incinerators. The standard also bans the construction of new high temperature hazardous waste incinerators.

The Auckland Council Trade Waste Bylaw 2013

19. The Trade Waste bylaw seeks to protect people and the environment from the adverse effects of harmful substances discharged to the wastewater system.

The Auckland Council Solid Waste Bylaw 2012

20. The provisions of this bylaw prevent the disposal of prohibited waste in a public place for collection. Prohibited waste in this bylaw includes any hazardous waste that contains hazardous substances at sufficient concentrations to exceed the minimum degrees of hazard specified by the Hazardous Substances (Minimum Degree of Hazard) Regulations 2000 or meets the definition for infectious substances included in the Land Transport Rule: Dangerous Goods 1999 and NZ Standard 5433:1999 – Transport of Dangerous Goods on Land.

Consideration

Local Board Views

21. The views of all local boards that are within the legacy Auckland City Council area, where the Auckland City Council Hazardous Substances Bylaw 2008 applies, will be sought before a recommendation is made to the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee to let this bylaw lapse.

Maori Impact Statement

22. Consultation with Maori occurred during the development of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan and resulted in a new set of standards for the management of hazardous substances in Auckland. Analysis of the current bylaw, national environmental standards and other legislation, relevant iwi management plans and consultation indicates that the revoking of this bylaw will not have any impact on the way that hazardous substances are managed by Auckland Council.

General

23. The chief executive of a local authority is only required to ensure that the provisions of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 are enforced in public places and in places other than work places. Despite the lapsing of this bylaw the council can however enforce the provisions of the Act for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the Resource Management Act. Section 15 of the Resource Management Act allows the council to manage discharges of contaminants into the environment and the council will continue to exercise this function through the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

Implementation Issues

24. There are no implementation issues if this bylaw is allowed to lapse.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Auckland City Council Hazardous Substances Bylaw 2008	67

Signatories

Author	Colin Craig - Principal Policy Analyst – Planning Policies and Bylaws
Authoriser	Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Orākei Local Board

13 February 2014

Greater Tamaki Stormwater Network Discharge Consent - Stormwater Priorities Consultation

File No.: CP2014/00811

Purpose

1. To inform the local board about the Greater Tāmaki stormwater network discharge consent (NDC) process, to provide an update on the consultation process, and to obtain feedback on priorities and criteria for stormwater management.

Executive Summary

2. Auckland Council’s stormwater unit is seeking feedback on priorities for stormwater management in the Greater Tāmaki consolidated receiving environment (CREs) (i.e. the area of land draining to a coastal receiving environment, such as the Greater Tāmaki).

3. A number of stormwater issues have been identified around the Greater Tāmaki. These include managing infrastructure and assets, managing growth, managing flooding (or the risk of flooding), urban stream management, contamination of the Tāmaki Estuaries and coastal inlets, managing stormwater discharges to groundwater, and stormwater effects on the wastewater network.

4. Given that there has already been extensive consultation for high-level strategic planning documents, such as the Auckland Plan, the Greater Tāmaki stormwater CRE NDC focusses on two specific questions for consultation:

a) From the stormwater issues identified, what do you think are the priorities for the Greater Tāmaki CRE and what must be most urgently addressed?

b) From the stormwater unit’s responsibilities, what do you think are the criteria that council should use for selecting stormwater management priorities?

5. Since September council has been undertaking consultation on these questions. Stakeholders that were consulted include: Council departments, advisory panels, iwi, business, community and environmental groups, national government and council controlled organisations. A brief summary of feedback received to date is provided in Attachment A of this report.

6. Council’s stormwater unit would also like to ensure that feedback is received from the local boards in relation to the two consultation questions raised in point four. A cluster workshop with local board representatives is scheduled for 13 February 2014 to discuss these questions in detail. Feedback received from the consultation process will be summarised and will help to inform the setting of priorities for the network consent application. Based on priority issues and the selected criteria for prioritisation, a “best practicable option” approach to managing stormwater discharges from the public network will be developed.

Recommendation/s

That the Orakei Local Board:

a) receive the Greater Tamaki Stormwater Network Discharge Consent - Stormwater Priorities Consultation report.

b) endorse the consultation process.

c) consider providing feedback by the end of March 2014 through the attached feedback form

d) indicate whether they would like to receive further updates on the outcomes of the Greater Tāmaki stormwater NDC consultation process.

Discussion

Background

7. Stormwater drainage is a natural process where rainwater flows by gravity across or through the ground to drains, streams, lakes, groundwater or wetlands and ultimately to the coast, or underground aquifers in some areas of Auckland. Urbanisation modifies this natural process. As a city develops the area covered by impervious surfaces also grows. This increases the quantity of water that runs off as surface flows, and the potential for flooding and erosion. Removal of streamside vegetation has also reduced the quality of urban streams. Many urban streams have previously been piped or lined with concrete during development to efficiently convey stormwater runoff and minimise erosion. As a result the extent of urban streams has been severely reduced and many areas lack a connected network of natural open stream channels, particularly in the central Auckland isthmus.

8. Contaminants are picked up by stormwater as it travels across the land, and passes through natural and man-made drainage systems. The primary contaminants of concern in the Auckland region are sediment (soil particles), copper, zinc, lead and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. These contaminants can be toxic to aquatic life, and cause harm as they are dispersed in the aquatic environment.

9. Many of these adverse effects are already occurring. The stormwater network discharge consents (NDCs) provide an opportunity to create a framework for managing and mitigating these identified effects to Auckland’s stream and coastal environment, and its public stormwater network.

10. It is neither practically possible nor affordable to address all the negative effects of stormwater discharges, including existing effects, within the next 35 years (the duration of a stormwater network consent). Effort and resources therefore need to be directed to where we can make the most difference, in accordance with identified priorities.

The Greater Tāmaki Stormwater Network Discharge Consent

11. Council is required under the Resource Management Act (1991) to obtain resource consents to discharge stormwater from the region’s stormwater network into the natural environment. Under the Auckland Regional Plan: Air Land and Water and the Auckland Regional Plan: Coastal, stormwater discharge consents from the public stormwater network are called stormwater NDCs.

12. A high level, broad-scale assessment approach to stormwater NDCs is being proposed, which focuses on outcomes for Consolidated Receiving Environments (CREs) (i.e. the area of land draining to a distinct marine receiving environment or coastal catchment). Ten CREs have been identified for the Auckland region, and the first CRE to be considered was the Waitematā Harbour CRE and consultation on this area has been undertaken. This agenda report considers consultation on the Greater Tāmaki CRE (see Figure 1 below).

13. The Greater Tāmaki CRE covers around 19,300 ha and contains some of the earliest, and most intensely urbanised areas in New Zealand. Today, around 26% of the entire Tamaki catchment and 43% of urban land is covered by impervious, built structures. There are 14 sub-catchments, and approximately 1,730 km of stormwater drains (including pipes, ditches and open drains), 29,204 manholes and 19,929 catchpits. The Greater Tāmaki CRE stormwater NDC application focuses on priorities within the urban areas of the Greater Tāmaki CRE Harbour consolidated receiving environment.

Figure 1: Location of the Greater Tāmaki consolidated receiving environment

14. Council has published three documents explaining consultation surrounding the Greater Tāmaki NDC stormwater priorities, issues and criteria:

a) Greater Tāmaki Stormwater Network Discharge Consent - Information Brochure and Request for Feedback (Attachments B and C)

b) Frequently Asked Questions – including a list of detailed responses to the frequently asked questions about this project.

c) The Greater Tāmaki Stormwater Network Discharge Consent Consultation Summary Report – a detailed technical report regarding the challenges of managing the stormwater draining into the Greater Tāmaki CRE. This report contains details regarding key issues within the Greater Tāmaki CRE, along with an explanation of the potential criteria for prioritisation.

15. The feedback form and information brochure have been attached to this report (Attachments B and C).

How will the stormwater NDCs affect you?

16. Consolidation of the numerous authorisations will assist council and developers by simplifying management of the consent process. The stormwater network consents will set parameters around priorities for stormwater management, and guide sub-catchment (i.e. individual stream catchments within the greater CRE) planning initiatives. In addition, it will assist with directing council as to where physical works will be undertaken to improve stormwater management. The type and scale of various development activities, which can take place around the Greater Tāmaki, will still be governed by the limitations already set in the existing (e.g. the district plans) and proposed planning documents (e.g. the Unitary Plan).

The consultation process

17. In order to support the implementation of a well-designed and focussed consultation process which facilitates quality engagement with stakeholders, a “Greater Tāmaki Stormwater NDC Consultation Plan” has been designed. This consultation plan outlined the core issue under consideration: In managing stormwater discharges for the Greater Tāmaki CRE, what should the high-level management priorities of the council be?

18. From this core issue, two specific questions for consultation were developed (as described in paragraph four of this report). The consultation plan explained that high level regional issues, visions and objectives would not be subject to further consultation. In addition, there will be no consultation on the NDC objectives as they are derived directly from the issues and priorities identified through this consultation process.

19. The consultation plan also identified key stakeholders, as well as the proposed methodology for consulting with stakeholders. Key stakeholders included:

(a) Local boards (6 local boards were identified as being interested in the project)

(b) Ward councillors

(d) Internal council departments

(e) Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs - Auckland Transport, Watercare, Auckland Council Property, Regional Facilities, Ports of Auckland)

(f) Iwi (14 iwi groups were identified as being interested in the project)

(g) Central government departments (a number of departments were identified, such as the Ministries for the Environment, Primary Industries, Housing New Zealand, etc.)

(g) Environmental and recreational interest groups (such as Forest and Bird, the Environmental Defence Society, Harbour Clean-up Trust, Sustainable Coastlines, The Tāmaki Estuary Environmental Forum, Chinese Conservation Education Trust, etc.)

(h) Community and business interest groups (such as the Employers and Manufacturers Association, community networks, Greater East Tāmaki Business Association, marinas, Auckland Community Development Alliance); and

(i) The general public (including identified residents and ratepayers associations, and other environmental groups).

20. The stakeholders identified above were all sent a copy of the consultation information either via email or post. In addition, the material was placed on http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/haveyoursay. Stakeholders were also invited to attend consultation workshops and requested to read the consultation material and complete the feedback form. To date, 12 consultation workshops have been held.

21. A request was also made to place an item on the agenda for each of the council Advisory Panels mentioned above.

22. Preliminary consultation outcomes to date from consultation with internal council departments, council controlled organisations, iwi, and the general public are summarised in Attachment A to this report.

23. Overall, a wide range of stakeholders have been contacted, and diverse feedback provided. This is indicative of their respective priorities and concerns regarding the effects of stormwater discharges on the Greater Tāmaki CRE. Following feedback from local boards, all feedback will be reviewed, consolidated and considered in the application documents. Outcomes from this consultation process will inform the development of the best practicable option for managing stormwater discharges.

24. A comprehensive background report and a summary of the consultation programme, key findings, and changes made as a result of consultation will be provided to the relevant committee of the governing body in 2014. Any feedback and changes from the committee will then be incorporated into a report to the Regional Strategy and Planning Committee (RSPC).

25. Council will then formally lodge the Greater Tāmaki CRE Stormwater NDC with our regulatory unit

Questions for Consultation

26. Prior to finalising the outcomes from this consultation process, the stormwater unit would like to provide local boards with an additional opportunity to provide feedback on the two consultation questions:

a) From the stormwater issues identified, what do you think are the priorities for the Greater Tāmaki CRE and what must be most urgently addressed?

b) From the stormwater unit’s responsibilities, what do you think are the criteria that council should use for selecting stormwater management priorities?

27. A description of the identified issues and criteria can be found in the Greater Tāmaki Stormwater Network Discharge Consent - Information Brochure and Request for Feedback document (Attachment C).

28. If this project is considered of interest, a feedback form has been attached to this agenda report and can be completed by board members (Attachment B). Alternatively, general feedback and comment through recommendations to this report would be welcomed.

Consideration

Local Board Views

29. This is a report prepared specifically to engage with impacted local boards on this issue.

Maori Impact Statement

30. This activity can contribute to delivery of enabling Maori outcomes from stormwater activity, as identified in Auckland Council’s Long Term Plan. Specifically in relation to working towards ensuring the mauri of the natural environment is in optimum health.

31. As noted earlier in this report consultation with iwi is underway and will be on-going. Iwi have given strong feedback that the mauri of water is a key criteria which should be incorporated into any decision-making processes, and any work which negatively effects the mauri of water would not be supported.

Implementation Issues

32. Three risks with respect to implementation of feedback from local boards have been identified. Firstly, it is noted that a wide range of stakeholders are being consulted. As a result, it is likely that there will be differing opinions with respect to stormwater management priorities. Secondly, there is a risk that there will be a lack of funding to implement all identified priorities. Thirdly, since the Greater Tāmaki Stormwater NDC application will be going through a regulatory process under the Resource Management Act (1991) any outcomes may be open to challenge through this process.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Summary of consultation outcomes	79
b View	Feedback form for Tamaki stormwater network discharge consent	81
c View	Information brochure Tamaki stormwater network discharge consent	85

Signatories

Author	Claudia Hellberg, Team Leader Stormwater Liaison, Stormwater
Authoriser	John Dragicevich - Manager Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Orākei Local Board

13 February 2014

Update Report on the Procurement of the Facility Management of Ellerslie Recreation Centre

File No.: CP2014/00869

Purpose

1. This report is to update the Local Board on the status of the procurement process for the facility Management Agreements for Ellerslie Recreation Centre

Executive Summary

2. In late 2012, approval was sought and gained through the relevant local boards to align 13 management contracts to a common expiry date of 30 June 2014.

3. The procurement process offered the opportunity to:

· Cluster the management contracts by local board area, several local board areas or by type (recreation centres and Aquatic centres) to potentially gain greater efficiencies which could contribute to reduced rates.

· Enhance service delivery to local communities aligned to local board plans.

· Implement key strategies from the Sport and Recreation Strategic Action plan.

· Incorporate delivery of community outcomes into the management contracts.

· Assess the impact of region-wide swimming pool pricing policy which provides universal free access for children 16 years and under and reflect this in the procurement process.

· Review service levels, charges and contract specifications with each local board for integration into the procurement documentation.

4. The procurement approach sought proposals through a publicly advertised, fully competitive procurement process. The Request for Proposal (RFP) closed on the 16^th of October 2013 and the recommendations were presented and approved by the Tenders and Procurement Committee on the 10^th of December 2013.

5. They YMCA of Auckland, who are the current operators of the Ellerslie Recreation Centre, have been confirmed as the preferred supplies and officers are now in negotiations with the YMCA to finalise specific operational details of the Facility Management Agreement (the Agreement).

6. A workshop is organised with the YMCA and the Local Board to agree specific outcomes, business plans, engagement plans and key performance targets in the coming weeks prior to the Agreement being finalised.

Recommendation/s

That the Orakei Local Board:

a) That the report be received

Discussion

7. Auckland Council owns 41 aquatic and leisure facilities across the Auckland region with 20 of these operated via third party facility management contracts, while the remaining 21 operated in house by Auckland Council staff.

8. In September 2013 a procurement process was initiated for the facility management of 12 of these facilities, including the Ellerslie Recreation Centre whose current management agreement expires on the 30^th of June 2014 (see attachment A for the Request for Proposal document).

9. The tender process closed on the 16^th of October 2013 and a panel of five officers from across Council and from the recreation industry evaluated the proposals against a set of specific criteria.

10. A Supplier Recommendation report was presented to, and approved by, the Tenders and Procurement Committee Meeting on the 10^th of December 2013.

11. The YMCA of Auckland has been confirmed as the preferred supplier for the Ellerslie Recreation Centre. The YMCA of Auckland are the existing operators of this facility.

12. Officers are now in negotiations with the YMCA of Auckland on specific details relating to the Agreement (see attachment B for a copy of the Agreement template) and officers have organised a workshop with the YMCA and the Local Board to discuss the business plan, develop the community engagement plan and confirm the key performance indicators, prior to the Agreement being finalised.

13. The new Agreement will take effect from 1 July 2014.

Consideration

Local Board Views

14. Council officers held workshops with the Orakei Local Board on the procurement of these facilities and the Local Board views were included and considered as part of the evaluation phase.

Maori Impact Statement

15. Effective engagement and support of Maori organisations in increasing participation levels of Maori in sport and recreation is one of the six key objectives outlined the new management agreement relating this to procurement process.

General

16. N/A

Implementation Issues

17. N/A

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Request for Proposal for the provision of Aquatic and Recreation Facilities Management	109
b View	Facility Management Agreement	151

Signatories

Author	Rob McGee - Manager Leisure – Parks, Sports and Recreation
Authoriser	Ian Maxwell - Manager Parks, Sports & Recreation

Orākei Local Board

13 February 2014

Auckland Transport Update – Orakei Local Board: January 2014

File No.: CP2014/01263

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to update the Board on a range of transport related issues in Orakei area during December 2013/January 2014.

Recommendation/s

a) That the Auckland Transport Update – Orakei Local Board: January 2014 report be received.

b) That the Orakei Local Board approves the amount of $15,000 from the Transport Capital Improvement Fund, to implement a Electronic Speed Indication Sign that will be rotated between, Omahu Road, Ohinirau Street and Atkin Ave (this is to address speed concerns of residents).

c) That the Orakei Local Board notes that an urgent decision was approved in January to allocate $35,000 from the Transport Capital Improvement Fund, in the matter of the Felton Matthew Underpass improvements, to allow Auckland Transport to proceed with the arrangements for fencing of the walkway to the Glen Innes Train Station (the additional $120,000 is being funded by the Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board).

d) That the Orakei Local Board approves a Rough Order Of Cost investigation in to providing a new footpath on Summerhill Place St Heliers, to provide improved access to St Heliers Bay Road for residents of Summerhill Place.

e) That the Orakei Local Board approves a Rough Order Of Costinvestigation in to providing pedestrian bridges over planting beds in lower Stonefields Road.

f) That the Orakei Local Board approves a Rough Order Of Costinvestigation in to provding a turning circle at the end of Waitara Road, Glendowie, this would improve the movement of vehicles using Glover Park.

Previous Resolutions

Resolution number OR/2013/275

Requests Auckland Transport to prepare a Rough Order of Cost for the first phase of the Remuera Village Upgrade Project (ReVup) project: the Remuera Road entrance to the Village Green and walkway, and the service lane upgrade.

Auckland Transport are in the process of preparing a Rough Order of Cost for the service lane from Clonbern Road, the wall beside the carpark on Clonbern Road and the footpath upgrade at the entrance from Remuera Road to the green space behind the Remuera Shops. The entrance is unable to be considered as it has its footings in private property, rather than road space.

Tamaki Drive/Ngapipi Intersection

Feedback closed on 20 January, there are a number of considerations that have come from the feedback and Auckland Transport will be in a position to share these with the Orakei Local Board in the next report.

Remuera Village Upgrade Project

A rough order of cost is expected to be available to present to the working group by mid-February, this is for the service lane upgrade and the wall and footpath upgrade.

Benson Road Tree Removal

Removal of the tree on the corner of Upland Road and Benson Road was begun during January, it was initially expected to be completed by January 13, however, there were complications with the root bulb being larger than expected and very close to a gas main. The tree removal was completed on 31 January.

Grand Drive/Abbotts Way Intersection

Auckland Transport has been asked to investigate the possibility of a roundabout at the intersection of Grand Drive and Abbotts Way. The request follows some near misses and minor crashes at the intersection from cars turning right from Grand Drive on to Abbotts Way.

As a result of Auckland Transport’s investigation, a round about does not appear to be a good solution for this intersection. The first reason is there is a major water main at that intersection that would require Auckland Transport to relocate it, at significant cost. The second reason, is concerns about the impact on traffic build up in morning peak traffic, if Grand Drive were to receive the right of way. Traffic lights have also been investigated, theseare a significantly lower cost than a roundabout butthere is still concern about the impact these would have on the wider network, including flow on effects to Remuera Road. Auckland Transport is continuing investigation into the possible impact. In the interim Auckland Transport will make some road marking changes, theseare expected to have a postitive impact on this intersection.

Urban Design Project at Kepa Road and Kupe Street

Auckland Transport has a teammember from the Urban Design team on this project team to ensure urban design considerations are incorporated in this project.

During the recently completed safety upgrade, there was wide consultation with the community, however it was 10 months before the work began and a further 6 months before the urban design project began. There was not enough visibility of this project across Auckland Transport to ensure that urban design was considered before the key safety project began,as part of the school travel plan.

Orakei Local Board Transport Discretionary Capital Fund

Proposal	Status	Rough Order Of Cost	Actual Cost	Board Contribution
Omahu Road Traffic Calming – Speed reduction	Investigation	$300K revised to $15K	TBC	TBC
Okahu Bay Bus Stop Re-organisation	In Progress	$12K	$40k	$40K
Mission Bay Local Centre Reinstatement	Investigation	$173K	TBC	TBC
Area A
Mission Bay Local Centre Reinstatement	Investigation	$250K	TBC	TBC
Area B
Mission Bay Local Centre Reinstatement	Investigation	$147K	TBC	TBC
Area C
Mission Bay Local Centre Reinstatement	Investigation	$270K -$370K	TBC	TBC
Area D
Mission Bay Local Centre Reinstatement	Investigation	$200K	TBC	TBC
Parklets
Felton Matthew walkway fence replacement	Construction	$155K		$35k
Orakei Point to Shore Road Walk/Cycle way	In Progress	$472K	$472,500	$328,500

The process for discretionary fund projects:

Either a Rough Order Of Costwill be provided to the Orakei Local Board for projects, or if a project does not meet the listed criteria it will be declined.

When the Rough Order Of Costis provided the Orakei Local Board must formally authorise the next step in the delivery of these projects, whichis detailed investigation, design,and a firm estimate. TheBoard then approves or not, the project for construction.The costs incurred for detailed investigation, design, consultation and construction of these projects will be deducted from Orakei Local Board’s Transport Capital Fund.

Discretionary Fund Status update:

Omahu Road:

It has been identified that a key issue of the crashes in Omahu Road is speed. It is proposed that a Electronic Speed Indication Signbe placed in Omahu Road and rotated to two additional sites that have speed issues in the Orakei Ward, these roads are Ohinirau Street and Atkin Ave. The rotation will be random. This will also be supported by increased enforcement in these roads as well.

Okahu Bay:

The bus stop has been implemented, however there is still funding available for an art work decal to be placed on the bus shelter, as requested by the board. This decal is still to be provided to Auckland Transport.

Mission Bay Local Centre Reinstatement:

Work is underway to progress the installation of parklets in Mission Bay, designs will soon be available for approval. This work was put on hold while a Business Improvement District (BID) initiative was progressed by Auckland Council. This was to allowthe possibility of levying a targeted rate. Should this BID not progress for any reason, the board will need to decide if they want to procede with some, or all, of the proposed improvements.

Orakei Point to Shore Road walk/cycleway:

This project is currently in progress and the traffic management is now being controlled by Auckland Transport. Following the completion of this pathway project, there will be road reconstruction work on Orakei Road. This work will include some night works.

Summerhill Place Footpath:

A resident of Grace Joel has requested that Auckland Transport put in a footpath to continue from an existing foothpath on Summerhill Place to meet St Heliers Bay Road. This request is on the new footpath programme, however due to demand and priority across the Auckland Region, Auckland Transport is unlikely toundertake this work in next years programme. There is an opportunity for the Board to undertake this work and a resolution requesting Auckland Transport to develop a Rough Order of Cost is requested.

Waitara Road Turning Circle:

Board member Baguley has suggested that a turning circle at the end of Waitara Road be investigated. There are a number of issues on this road for vehicles needing to turn around when visiting Glover Park. This will be especially helpful for the Schools in the area who use the park for events.

Stonefields Pedestrain Bridges over Medain Planting:

There are a number of places in lower Stonefield Roads that limit the ability of residents to cross roads and easily join in community events. Auckland Transport is unable to fund this project at this time and recommends that the Board consider this project for funding from the Transport Capital Fund.

Implementation Issues

AT Ref #	TPL Ref #	Issue	Discussion	Action
AT2012/007954	9.8	Suggestions for new Pedestrian Crossing layouts inEllerslie Town Centre	Auckland Council Urban Design staff have suggested options for improving pedestrian crossings in this town centre.	This project currently sits under the Corridor Management Plan package of works. It will progress when these packages have been signed off.
	9.99	Shore Road Median Strip	A number of safety concerns have been raised about Shore Road, particularly in the area near Bloodworth Park and the Shore Road Reserve.	This median strip cannot be progressed until the Auckland Council resource consent for the upgrade of the Shore Road Reserve has been granted.
N/A	N/A	Stonefields Parking	It has been reported that the high density housing units that are currently being built,only have one car park for each three bedroom unit and there are no parking bays on the streets. Many of the new units areused asrental properties and have multiple vehicles ateach residence. This is resulting in thestreets having cars parked down both sides, some partly on the berms and reducing the road width (at times) to one lane only.	This issue was discussed at the May, Orakei Local Board Meeting. Auckland Transport was asked to comment on a memo from Auckland Council. Auckland Transport has provided comment and has asked for this matter to be removed from the ‘Issues Register’. At theJuly Orakei Local Board meeting members requested that this item remain on the register. This issue of inadequate parking provision has been raised by a number of other boards and conversations are being progressed with Auckland Council.
N/A	9.98	‘The Landing’ Entrance	The Orakei Local Board has raised the issue of safety around the entrance to ‘The Landing’.	Auckland Transport’s Community Transport Team have committed to completing an investigation of this area and developing proposals to separate the footpath and cycleway and to modify the entrance to the Landing. The landing is a project covered by the Harbour Edge Development team alongside the Tamaki Drive Master plan. Currently this project has not progressed.
CAS-53331-Q7N6T6		Broken Yellow Lines St Johns Road and Gowing Drive	Broken yellow lines have been installed around the St Johns Road and Gowing Drive intersection. A Board member has requested that they be extended further, because cars are still allowed to park on St Johns Road at the top of the T-intersection with Gowing Drive, creating very tight turn, with little room between traffic turning right from St Johns Road onto Gowing Drive and traffic continuing on St Johns Road towards College Road.	This is currently in investigation design and will be implemented by March 2014.
CAS-53331-Q7N6T6		Broken Yellow Lines in Rutherford Street	Rutherford Terrace is a narrow street, especially in the area between Ipswich Street and Dorchester Street. Residents report that cars often park on both sides of the street, which means there is only one lane available for traffic. When travelling along Rutherford Terrace from Ipswich to Dorchester there is a hill and when a car is parked on the left hand side of the road near or at the top of the hill, drivers have to move to the wrong side of the road and risk being hit by someone coming the other direction. It has been suggested that either parking should be removed on one side for the full length of the street or at a minimum broken yellow lines are be placed on both sides of the hill to improve safety.	Auckland Transport has investigated this situation and does not consider any changes are justified.
N/A		Support Orakei Local Board urban design initiatives	Auckland Transport will work with Auckland Council’s Urban Design Team on the following issues: 1. Creating a boulevard effect by planting further oak trees on the north side of Remuera Rd around the Victoria Ave shops; and 2. Issues relating to the Village Green project in respect of aspects where Auckland Transport has a role.	Auckland Transport continues to work with Auckland Council to support development of the Village Green plan on an as required basis.

Notes:

N/A – A Customer Service Reference Number is not applicable to this item because either it was handled directly by the EMLU or it is a legacy issue or the request was for information that was outside the boundaries of a service request.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author	Melanie Dale, Elected Member Relationship Manager, Auckland Transport
Authoriser	Jonathan Anyon, Elected Member Relationship Team Manager, Auckland Transport

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

No.	Title	Page
a View	Auckland Development Committee report 28 November 2013	205
b View	Auckland Council submission on Petroleum Exploration Block Offer 2014	211
c View	Block Offer 2014 offshore Northland	223
d View	Offshore prospecting application letter December 2013	225
e View	Petroleum permit application letter	229

No.	Title	Page
a View	Member Churton - Board Report February 2014	233
b View	Member Cooke - Board Report February 2014	239
c View	Member Davis - Board Report February 2014	241
d View	Member Parkinson - Board Report February 2014	247
e View	Member Thomas - Board Report February 2014	249

Author	Anthony Lewis - Local Board Advisor
Authoriser	Adam Milina - Acting Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards