|
Long-term and
Annual Plan Hearings Committee
08 April 2014
|
|
Summary
of public submissions on the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 – Regional overview
File No.:
CP2014/06174
Purpose
1. This report
provides a high-level analysis of the regional submissions and key themes
contained in all submissions on the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015.
Executive
Summary
2. 1,967 submissions were received on the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015,
87 of which were received after the submission deadline. At the time of
writing this report a further 23 late submissions had been received but not
counted in analysis of submissions.
3. The consultation period for the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 was from
23 January to 4pm, 24 February 2014.
4. Legislation requires that submitters to the draft Annual Plan be
given reasonable opportunity to be heard.
5. Submissions that cover both regional and local content have been
heard at local hearings, with at least the ward councillor(s) present to hear regional content. Local board hearings began on
17 March and finished on 28 March 2014.
6. Regional hearings are being held on 8 April and 9 April
2014. The Long-term and Annual Plan Hearings Committee, including ward councillors and members from the Independent
Māori Statutory Board, are hearing submissions from key submitters and
those which relate to significant regional issues.
7. The most significant regional issues arising from submissions
related to the consultation questions, i.e. the stadium strategy and Arts
Festival proposals.
8. A total of 1,069 submitters
(54.4% of all submitters) provided
an opinion on the proposed stadium strategy. Of these, 230 (21.5%) supported the proposal, while 501 (46.9%) did not support it and 338
(31.6%) were unsure. The most notable opposition
related to moving the speedway, with 362 submitters expressing a desire to keep
the speedway at Western Springs.
9. 985 submitters (50.1% of all submitters) provided
an opinion on the Arts Festival proposal. Of these, 503 (51.1%)
supported the proposal, while 226 (22.9%) did not support it, and 256 (26.0%) were unsure.
10. The most notable other topic was opposition to fluoridation of the
water supply. 237 submitters raised this point, with 217 of them coming on a
pro forma outlining a believed
violation of human rights in that ratepayers have no choice as to whether their
water is treated to include fluoride. The form also outlines a perceived
health risk and states that fluoride should be obtained through toothpaste
only.
11. Regional submissions are attached to this report.
12. The Long-term and Annual Plan Hearings
Committee will consider all submissions on the draft
Annual Plan 2014/2015 in agreeing the final budgets and policies at its meeting
on 8 May 2014.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Long-term and Annual Plan Hearings Committee:
a) receive
submissions on the Auckland Council draft Annual Plan 2014/2015
b) hear
submissions on the Auckland Council draft Annual Plan 2014/2015
c) note that late
submissions will be tabled at the meeting if required
d) thank
submitters for their submissions to the Auckland Council draft Annual Plan
2014/2015.
|
Discussion
Context
13. The Local
Government Act 2002 and Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 require
Council to use the special consultative procedure in adopting an Annual Plan.
This includes ensuring any person submitting on the draft Annual Plan is given
reasonable opportunity to be heard.
14. At its 19
December 2013 meeting, the governing body agreed that submissions containing
both regional and local content would be heard at local hearings.
15. This report
provides statistics on submissions received regionally and locally, and a brief
high-level analysis of key themes and topics.
16. A more detailed
analysis of submissions will be provided to the Budget Committee workshop on 6
May 2014.
17. The consultation
period for the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 was from 23 January to 4pm 24
February 2014.
Submissions
18. 1,967
submissions were received on the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015. All submissions
received after the deadline were processed and formed part of the normal
submission documents and included in the overall statistics. At the time of
submitting this report, 23 submissions had been received too late for comments
to be included in the overall statistics. 283 submitters (14.4%) wished to be
heard, of which, 44 requested to be heard at a regional hearing.
19. There were
around 10,230 total submission points extracted from the 1,967 submissions.
20. Copies of
regional submissions are provided in Attachment A to this report.
Overview
of feedback from consultation questions
21. Consultation Question 1: Stadium Strategy – under the current operating model, stadium
owners cannot afford the future costs of operating, maintaining and developing
the stadiums to the required standards. Regional Facilities Auckland has
proposed a strategy that will re-allocate current funding to improve stadium
facilities and their long-term financial security. The proposed changes
consider the current and future use of each stadium to ensure each venue is
more productive, cost efficient and creates a better experience for users. The
strategy also proposes managing all four stadiums under a new structure, to
help the stadium network operate more effectively and consistently.
22. Submitters were asked whether they supported the proposed strategy
regarding Auckland’s four major stadiums. In addition, submitters were also
asked if they had any comments on the proposed uses for each of the four major
stadiums.
23. A total of 1,069 submitters
(54.4% of all submitters) provided
an opinion on the proposed stadium strategy. Of these, 230 (21.5%) supported the proposal, while 501 (46.9%) did not support it, and 338
(31.6%) were unsure. The most notable opposition was
attributed to moving the speedway, with 362 submitters expressing a desire to
keep the speedway at Western Springs. This is
represented in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1 – Stadium Strategy proposal
24. Sub-regional
analysis: Stadium Strategy – The levels of support differed across the
region. Figure 2 below provides an indication of how the sub-regional clusters
viewed the stadium proposal. Submitters included in each of the groups are
listed below.
Figure 2 –
Stadium Strategy sub-regional analysis
|
North
(210
submissions)
|
Central
(452
submissions)
|
West
(158
submissions)
|
|
South
(182
submissions)
|
Regional
(34 submissions)
|
Outside
Auckland
(33 submissions)
|
North: includes
submitters from Rodney, Hibiscus and Bays, Upper
Harbour, Kaipātiki, and Devonport-Takapuna Local Boards.
Central: includes
submitters from Waitematā, Albert-Eden, Puketāpapa, Ōrākei,
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Waiheke, and Great Barrier Local Boards.
West: includes
submitters from Waitākere Ranges, Henderson-Massey, and Whau Local Boards.
South: includes
submitters from Howick, Ōtara-Papatoetoe,
Māngere-Otāhuhu, Manurewa, Papakura, and Franklin Local Boards.
Regional: includes
submissions from organisations that are not local board
specific, and individuals who have not provided an address.
Outside Auckland: includes submitters from outside the Auckland area, received from
all over New Zealand, Australia and one from the United States of America.
25. The local boards
with the most supportive submitters of the stadium strategy were Waitematā (42%
support from the 53 submitters) and Upper Harbour (38% support from the 24
submitters).
26. In contrast, the
local boards with the least supportive submitters of the stadium strategy were
Papakura (8% support from the 27 submitters), Rodney (12% support from the 61
submitters) and Waiheke (13% support from the 158 submitters). Similarly, the
local boards with the submitters most opposed to the stadium strategy were Puketāpapa (73% opposition from the 15
submitters) and Manurewa (70% opposition from the 23 submitters).
27. It is worth
noting that the results from the central local board cluster were skewed by the
Waiheke Local Board figures. As a large number of submissions were received
from Waiheke Local Board submitters, most of which focussed specifically on
their local issues, 77% of their 158 submitters said they were unsure about the
stadium strategy. As such, with the Waiheke figures removed, the central
cluster would show 27% support, 51% do not support and 22% unsure of the strategy.
28. Were the Waiheke
figures also removed from the overall analysis of the stadium strategy, it
would show 23% support, 53% do not support and 24% unsure of the strategy.
29. Stadium
Strategy analysis by stadium and activity – Submitters’ comments about the
proposed uses for each of the four major stadiums were captured in addition to
their overall support for the stadium strategy. Figure 3 below illustrates the
level support for each of the current or proposed activities at each stadium.
Figure 3 – Stadium/activity
analysis
|
Eden Park
(353 total comments)
|
Mount Smart
(320 total comments)
|
|
Western
Springs
(490 total comments)
|
North Harbour
(232 total comments)
|
30. Key themes to
emerge at this level of analysis are outlined below.
31. Western Springs
- The most notable theme from these responses was a desire for speedway to
remain at Western Springs. While 362 submitters supported the retention of
speedway at Western Springs, a further 76 were also opposed to Mount Smart
becoming a home for speedway. There was also notable support for keeping
Western Springs as a concert venue, while mixed support for the venue to become
a cricket venue.
32. Eden Park -
Submitters expressed a desire for rugby and cricket to remain at Eden Park,
with 121 supportive of rugby and 120 supportive of cricket remaining at the
ground. However, there was mixed support for league to move to Eden Park.
33. Mount Smart -
There was notable support for league at Mount Smart Stadium, with 133
submitters expressing their wish for league (in particular, the NZ Warriors) to
remain at Mount Smart. In addition, as mentioned above, 76 submitters were
opposed to the speedway moving to Mount Smart.
34. North Harbour
- A low level of support for rugby, football, and league at North Harbour
Stadium was received, with little to no opposition.
35. Consultation
Question 2: Arts Festival – the Auckland Arts
Festival is a biennial event operated by the Auckland Festival Trust (AFT).
The AFT has approached the funding board and Auckland Council to seek financial
support which would enable the festival to become an annual event from 2016.
36. Submitters were
asked whether they supported making the Auckland Arts Festival an annual event.
37. 985 submitters (50.1% of all submitters) provided
an opinion on the Arts Festival proposal. Of these, 503 (51.1%)
supported the proposal, while 226 (22.9%) did not support it, and 256 (26.0%) were unsure. This is
represented in Figure 4 below.
Figure 4 – Arts Festival proposal
38. Sub-regional
analysis: Arts Festival – The levels of support differed across the
region. Figure 5 below provides an indication of how the sub-regional clusters
viewed the Arts Festival proposal. Submitters included in each of the groups
are as listed above.
Figure 5 – Arts
Festival sub-regional analysis
|
Northern
submitters
(185
submissions)
|
Central
submitters
(434
submissions)
|
West
submitters
(136
submissions)
|
|
South
submitters
(170
submissions)
|
Regional
submitters
(34 submissions)
|
Outside
Auckland submitters
(26 submissions)
|
39. The local boards
with the most supportive submitters of an annual Arts Festival were Ōrākei (67% support from the 42
submitters) and Waiheke (65% support from the 173 submitters) from the central
cluster, while Waitākere Ranges (62% support from the 42 submitters) and Henderson-Massey
(60% support from the 50 submitters) from the western cluster also showed
strong support.
40. In contrast, the
local boards with the submitters most opposed to an annual Arts Festival were
Franklin (55% opposition from the 22 submitters), Howick (50% opposition from
the 54 submitters) and Ōtara-Papatoetoe (48% opposition from the 21
submitters), all from the Southern cluster. Similarly, Puketāpapa (50%
opposition from the 14 submitters) also showed strong opposition in an
otherwise supportive central cluster.
Overview
of other significant regional issues
41. There were 165
regional submissions, with 44 requesting to be heard. High-level information
on the regional submissions is provided below. Of those requesting to be heard
at a regional hearing, 8 were from individual submitters, 22 from special
interest groups, 11 from businesses or business associations, and a further 3
from Māori organisations.
42. The most common regional topics are outlined below in table 1.
Table 1 -
Regional topics
|
Topic Description
|
Number of submissions commenting on topic
|
% of total submissions
|
|
Watercare – Water Supply
|
247
|
12.6%
|
|
Regional arts & culture initiatives
|
54
|
2.7%
|
|
Social housing proposal – Do not support
|
51
|
2.6%
|
|
Expenditure – too high
|
38
|
1.9%
|
|
Transport strategy
|
35
|
1.8%
|
|
Request for funding
|
31
|
1.6%
|
|
Auckland Transport – Public transport
|
29
|
1.5%
|
|
General comments about the plan
|
29
|
1.5%
|
|
Auckland Transport – Roads
|
27
|
1.4%
|
|
Rates – too high
|
24
|
1.2%
|
|
Environmental strategy, policies & programmes
|
23
|
1.2%
|
43. Watercare Services – Water supply – 226 of the 247 submissions regarding water
supply were opposing fluoridation of the water supply. Of those submissions,
217 came via a pro forma. The points raised outline a believed violation of
human rights in that ratepayers have no choice as to whether their water is
treated to include fluoride. The form also outlines a perceived health risk
and states that fluoride should be obtained through toothpaste only.
44. Regional arts & culture initiatives – of the 54 submissions that commented on this
topic, 48 were requests for Council to consider Massive Theatre Company for
annual investment and assistance to find a home. While most of the submissions
were from members/supporters, the Theatre itself also made an official
submission requesting funding.
45. Social Housing proposal – 51 submitters outlined their reasons
for not supporting the proposal to increase social housing rental charges by
5%. Just over half of these submitters thought that the increase was not
affordable.
Overview
of significant local issues
46. There were two
significant issues raised in locally focussed
submissions.
47. Michaels Avenue Reserve (Ōrākei Local
Board pro forma) – 326
submissions were received on an Ōrākei Local Board headed pro forma
supporting Local Board advocacy to the Governing Body “to assist financially
with the building of new clubrooms at Michaels Avenue Reserve, and for the
Local Board to assist the Ellerslie Sport Club Inc. in identifying/securing
further sources of financial support to facilitate the establishment of both a
new amenities block and clubrooms, as a further stage in the overall
redevelopment of that Reserve”. A number of these pro forma submissions were
received from submitters outside the Orakei Local Board area.
48. Community swimming pool (Waiheke Local Board) – 241 submitters expressed an opinion on the
proposed Waiheke community swimming pool, with 74% of them supporting the
project. There was, however, mixed support for reallocating funding from
current projects to achieve this, yet with more support than opposition for
reallocation of funding on all projects proposed.
Next
steps
49. Decisions on the
final Annual Plan 2014/2015 will be made at the decision-making meeting on 8
May 2014. Councillors may require additional information to support their
decision-making. Officers’ responses to requests for information will be
tabled at the Budget Committee workshop on 6 May 2014.
Consideration
Local
Board Views
50. Local boards have access to all submissions and have the opportunity
to formally advocate on any regional issues with the Governing Body between 24
and 30 April 2014. The Budget Committee will consider the views of local
boards in agreeing the final budgets and policies at its meeting on 8 May 2014.
Māori
Impact Statement
51. The
implementation of the Annual Plan 2014/2015 has the potential for positive
outcomes for Māori. Notwithstanding the projects already identified in
the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 that contribute to Māori the impact will
be clearer when consideration and decisions are made by the Governing Body at
their decision-making meetings on the draft Annual Plan.
52. Mana Whenua
authorities were sent a letter about the consultation process. Maatawaka
received information via standard communications processes that Auckland
Council use to disseminate Annual Plan information.
53. Te Reo
Māori regional summaries and submission forms were available, as well as
translators for submissions received in and/or submitters wishing to address
the hearing in Te Reo Māori.
Implementation
Issues
54. Implementation issues on the various matters raised in submissions
will be considered at the decision-making meeting on
the draft Annual Plan 2014/2015 on 8 May 2014.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
aView
|
Draft Annual Plan 2014-2015 -
Regional Submissions Volume 1 (Under Separate Cover)
|
|
|
b
|
Draft Annual Plan 2014-2015 -
Regional Submissions Volume 2 (Under Separate Cover)
|
|
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Dean McIntosh - Governance Analyst - Governance
Project Team
|
|
Authorisers
|
Marguerite Delbet - Manager Democracy Services
Matthew Walker - Manager Financial Plan Policy and
Budgeting
|
