Agenda of Puketāpapa Local Board

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 Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) confirm the Local Board Plan Hearings minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 27 August 2014, the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 28 August 2014 and the extraordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 11 September 2014, as a true and correct record.

5 Leave of Absence

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

6 Acknowledgements

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

7 Petitions

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

8 Deputations

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

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

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

9 Public Forum

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

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

10 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 Notices of Motion

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

Puketāpapa Local Board

25 September 2014

Local Board Plan Deliberations

File No.: CP2014/21401

Purpose

1. To facilitate a discussion on the changes to be made to the draft Puketāpapa Local Board Plan 2014 as a result of the community feedback obtained during public consultations.

Executive summary

2. Public consultation on the draft Puketāpapa Local Board Plan took place between 7 July and 6 August 2014. A total of 124 submissions on the Puketāpapa Draft Local Board Plan were received. Of these, 23 submitters were heard at a Hearings meeting on 28 August 2014.

3. Following the Hearings, a list of questions and requests for further information was sent to officers. The list of responses and clarifications is listed in Appendix 1 attached for information only.

4. The submissions and the submitters who presented at the Hearings reinforced the importance of a variety of issues many of which have been covered in the draft plan. We have interpreted this as a strong support for the priorities that have already been included in the draft plan.

5. This report focuses on the task at hand at this stage in the process – identifying issues raised in the submissions which are missing from the draft plan, identifying parts of the draft plan which require strengthening and reviewing the plan in its entirety to ensure the prioritisation of issues reflect the level of support indicated through the submissions.

6. To facilitate these discussions, the Board is requested to deliberate on the list of issues in Appendix 2 (to be tabled at the meeting) which lists a range of issues that have arisen from the submissions that lend themselves to drafting changes in the plan.

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) confirm the list of issues and proposed changes to be made to the draft Puketāpapa Local Board as listed in Appendix 2 (as tabled), subject to additions and amendments made at this meeting.

b) confirms that it will work with officers to prepare a final plan which will incorporate all the changes that have come about as a result of the community submissions and any other issues discussed at this meeting (25^th September). The final plan will be endorsed at the public meeting scheduled for Thursday 9^th October 2014, 6pm at the Fickling Convention Centre, Three Kings.

c) thanks officers for responses to requests for further information.

Comments

Consideration

7. The consultation period for the draft Puketāpapa Local Board Plan started on 7 July and ended on 6 August 2014. In total 124 submissions on the Puketāpapa Draft Local Board Plan were received. Of these, 23 submitters were heard at the Hearings meetings on 28 August 2014.

8. Following the Hearings, the Board identified a list of questions and requests for further information from officers. The responses from officers to these questions have been presented to the Board and attached to this report in Appendix 1 for information only.

9. From the submissions, there is an overall sense of strong support for the proposed areas of priority as outlined in the draft plan and for many of the proposed activities and initiatives. This lends itself to making minor changes of the plan and not major changes.

10. To facilitate the discussion on changes, officers have started working with the Board to identify issues that are missing from the draft plan for inclusion in the preparation of the final plan as well as issues or areas that require strengthening. This list of issues is included in Appendix 2.

Local board views and implications

11. The Puketāpapa Local Board will consider all submissions received and will agree the changes to be made to the draft Plan at this deliberations meeting.

Māori impact statement

12. The views of the Maori groups as expressed in the submissions will be considered as part of the deliberations.

Implementation

13. There is no implementation issue arising from this report.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Schedule of request for further information	13

Signatories

Authors	Shirley Atatagi-Coutts - Senior Local Board Advisor
Authorisers	Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Puketāpapa Local Board

25 September 2014

Sommerset Road, Poplar trees

File No.: CP2014/20324

Purpose

1. This report responds to the Puketapapa Local Board request of 29 May 2014:

“…a report from officers or Council Arborist regarding the health of the trees in Somerset Road, the impact of the tree roots on the Mt Roskill Hockey turf and possible solutions.”

Executive summary

2. The Poplar trees on Somerset Rd provide a significant streetscape feature and are protected under the Auckland City Council District Plan. However, the trees have for a number of years been of concern to the Mt Roskill Grammar School and the Auckland Hockey Association because of leaf litter, debris drop and the perception that the roots are causing significant heave over the turf. This report responds to these concerns.

3. Following on from numerous discussions with members of Mt Roskill Grammar School and the Auckland Hockey Association, staff believe a workable solution has been agreed which involves root barrier being installed at the time of the new pitch construction works.

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board :

a) support the installation of root barriers in order to allow for the structural integrity of the trees and of a new hockey turf to be protected and maintained without effect from the Somerset Road poplar trees.

b) request that the exact in-ground alignment of the root barrier be agreed between Howell Davies (Arboriculture and Landscape Advisor – Streets) and Dion Gosling (Mt Roskill Grammar School Artificial Playing Surface Trust project team representative).

c) request that the hockey trust undertakes to work collaboratively with the council to find design solutions to treat the sub grade and base course materials to remediate the underlying ground conditions and to produce a sub grade that is undesirable and inhospitable for any potential future tree root development.

d) support Auckland Council, Parks Sports department funding the installation of the root barrier.

Comments

Leaf litter

4. Street trees are a public asset and leaf fall is a natural occurrence resulting from the amenity that trees provide in our communities. While recognising that leaf litter can be a nuisance the council does not provide a service to remove leaf litter from private properties. The council has however in this instance taken all practical pruning measures available to trim and prune the trees as much as possible on the side closest to the hockey pitch.

Branch drop

5. There is the potential for branch drop from any tree during storm periods and the Poplars along Somerset Rd are no exception to this rule. However the trees are maintained on a biannual basis and dead wood or susceptible looking branches are removed at this time. Additional maintenance work is undertaken as and when required.

6. The level of maintenance the poplar trees receive is in addition to the normal cyclical maintenance program that the council delivers for its tree asset. This is in recognition of the size of the trees, their locality and to address concerns that have been raised over their safety and size. The level of maintenance currently provided, is considered to be in accordance with international best practice for large mature trees.

Damage to hockey turf

7. As undulations have developed across the hockey field over several years the quality of the playing surface has declined to the point where the Auckland Hockey Association have made the decision not to hold senior competitive games at the site. The cause of the fields decline has remained a matter of debate. While damage close to Somerset Rd and the poplar trees was wrongly or rightly attributed to the tree roots, damage (heave) in other areas of the field has been more difficult to explain. It is understood that movement/subsidence has been exacerbated by the State Highway 20 works and the blasting that took place as part of this project. The pitch is also built over a swamp area (that has been filled) and it has a culvert running directly through the middle of the pitch. It’s quite possible that the original design may not have been engineered to an appropriate standard at time of construction, and overtime the sites ground conditions have become contributing factors to the turf’s demise.

8. The trust has recently engaged a geotechnical expert to survey the area. This has revealed that the subgrade upon which the pitch was built in 1993 may be failing in some areas, which has exacerbated the movement of the pitch surface. The survey has also revealed that the variable strength of underlying strata in places is a contributing factor to the unevenness of the playing surface. The geotechnical report infers that the variable strength of the underlying materials is related to the presence of areas of soft alluvial subgrade, identifying that the existing base course underlying the pitch has in some cases punched and settled into the underlying soft subgrade materials.

9. Local and Sports Parks have undertaken an extensive investigation into the claims of root heave by excavating a trench (Jan 2014) the full width of the pitch at the southern end just inside of the wooden hoardings. This work was undertaken with the support of the Mt Roskill Grammar School Artificial Playing Surface Trust project team involved in the planning of the new pitch and all findings have been provided to them. The arboricultural investigation works have revealed that there were no live roots discovered within the upper surface (0-500mm approx.) of the sub grade of the pitch that would be having a direct impact on the surface of the pitch. There were however small roots discovered, running deeper down under the turf in this southern corner that could potentially have caused some localised heave.

Root barrier

10. The council has, from the outset of the discussions on root investigation and pitch renewal, indicated that it would fund the works required to install a root barrier at the southern end of the pitch to provide mitigation measures to prevent any possible root encroachment into the new playing surface in the future. It should also be noted that this has been offered in the past but turned down.

11. It is understood that the project team are now happy for Auckland Council to install the root barrier at the time the turf is renewed although there is still a need to discuss/agree the exact location of the root barrier. While the project team would like this to occur completely outside the school grounds this would be very detrimental to the trees’ health and stability

12. The council has outlined their concerns over the depth and position of the root barrier placement in relation to the trees to ensure the trust is aware of the potential negative and disruptive effects of placing the root barrier too close to the bases of the trees and the potential implications of tree failure if the works have a negative adverse impact on the future stability of the trees. A compromise has been recommended whereby a shallower barrier is installed in the original exploratory trench at a shallower depth, and a deeper barrier placed further from the trees and well into the site.

13. The placement of the root barrier will significantly reduce the potential for future root growth into the area of the new surface. In addition the treatment of the base material on the pitch side of the barrier will significantly inhibit any potential future root development. Tree roots are not noted for growing upwards (against gravity), should any roots grow deeper than the barrier. In addition the ground treatment (compaction and stabilisation) will not provide an environment that will be conducive to root development upwards or into the subgrade material.

Replacement planting

14. A small number of poplars have been removed from the avenue over the last few years and replaced as a condition of the resource consent approval. However the council has taken to using a different variety of poplar tree to address concerns around the size and form of the current trees. The Mt Roskill Grammar School and the Auckland Hockey Association have historically been informed of the species change, and the difference in the form of new variety of tree that has been planted. This different variety which is more upright in its form and growth habit has been specifically chosen to avoid the present perceived conflict. The aim remains to keep the avenue of poplars but over time when required replant with the new variety.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

15. Ella Kumar has raised concerns about the poplar trees having a negative impact on the quality of the playing surface. The views of the wider Local Board were unknown at the time of completing the report.

Māori impact statement

16. Iwi are engaged throughout Auckland on new street landscape developments. We do not generally consult Iwi on the maintenance and upkeep of existing established trees. Iwi are also notified of all resource consents and would therefore have input into any future removal and replacement consents.

Implementation

17. It is anticipated that the root control barrier be installed at the same time the new turf sub grade is constructed and prepared.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Howell Davies - Arboriculture and Landscape Advisor

Authorisers

Ian Maxwell - Manager Parks, Sports & Recreation

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Puketāpapa Local Board

25 September 2014

Manukau Harbour Stormwater Network Discharge Consent – Stormwater Priorities Consultation

File No.: CP2014/18699

Purpose

1. To inform the local board about the Manukau Harbour stormwater network discharge consent consultation process, and request feedback on priorities and criteria for the management of Auckland Council’s public stormwater network to mitigate its existing and potential future effects on Auckland’s environment.

Executive summary

2. The stormwater unit is seeking feedback on priorities for stormwater management in the Manukau Harbour consolidated receiving environment (CRE); the area of land draining to the Manukau Harbour.

3. A number of stormwater issues have been identified around the Manukau Harbour. These include:

· effects from aging and under-designed infrastructure and assets,

· effects from poorly managed growth, flooding (or the risk of flooding),

· effects to urban streams, contamination of the harbour and coastal inlets,

· effects to groundwater,

· and stormwater effects on the operation of the wastewater network.

4. The Manukau Harbour CRE stormwater priorities consultation process is focusing on two specific questions:

a) from the stormwater issues identified, what does the local board consider are the priorities for the Manukau Harbour CRE and what must be most urgently addressed?

b) From the stormwater unit’s responsibilities, what does the local board consider to be the criteria that Council should use for selecting stormwater management priorities?

5. A workshop with local board representatives was held on 30 July 2014 to discuss these questions in detail. Feedback from this workshop is briefly summarised in this report.

6. Formal feedback received from the consultation process will be summarised and assist with setting priorities for the network discharge consent application.

7. Based on priority issues and the selected criteria for prioritisation, a “best practicable option” to managing stormwater discharges from the public network will be developed for consideration as part of the network discharge consent application.

Recommendations

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) receive the report.

b) provide feedback to the stormwater unit by the 14 October 2014.

c) indicate whether they would like to receive further updates on the outcomes of the Manukau Harbour Stormwater consultation process.

Comments

The Auckland-wide Stormwater Network Discharge Consent

8. Auckland 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 (a stormwater network discharge consent).

9. A high level, broad-scale assessment approach to the stormwater network discharge consents is being proposed through an Auckland-wide network discharge consent.

10. Within this consent, 10 Consolidated Receiving Environments (CREs) have been identified for the Auckland region and are the focus for consultation. Consultation on the Waitematā Harbour CRE and Greater Tāmaki CRE has been completed. This agenda report considers consultation on the Manukau Harbour CRE (See Figure 1).

11. The Manukau Harbour CRE covers an area of about 879 km². Approximately 145 km² or 16.5% of this total area is considered urban. The harbour itself is 4.5 times the area of the Waitematā Harbour, occupying an area of some 340 km², and is the second largest harbour in New Zealand. The catchment also includes a number of different types of significant regional infrastructure, such as the Auckland Airport, Manukau Wastewater Treatment Plant (MWTP), North Island Main Trunk Railway line (NIMT), and state highways.

12. Auckland Council has published three documents explaining consultation surrounding the Manukau Harbour network discharge consent stormwater priorities, issues and criteria:

a) The Manukau Harbour CRE: Stormwater Priorities Consultation - Information Brochure and Request for Feedback (attached to this report)

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

c) The Manukau Harbour CRE: Stormwater Priorities Consultation Summary Report – a detailed technical report regarding the challenges of managing the stormwater draining throughout the Manukau Harbour CRE. This report contains details regarding key issues within the Manukau Harbour CRE consolidated receiving environment, along with an explanation of the potential criteria for prioritisation.

How will the stormwater network discharge consents affect you?

13. The stormwater network consent will set parameters around priorities for stormwater management. It will also provide a framework to authorise where works will be undertaken to improve stormwater management through physical projects and sub-catchment initiatives (i.e. individual stream catchments within the greater consolidated receiving environment).

14. The stormwater network consent will also form one of the tools to control the type of stormwater assets to be vested to Auckland Council from urban development. The type and scale of various development activities, which take place around the Manukau Harbour, will still be governed by the limitations already set in the existing plans and proposed planning documents (e.g. the Unitary Plan).

The Consultation Process

15. In order to implement a consultation process which facilitates quality engagement with stakeholders, a “Manukau Harbour CRE Stormwater Consultation Plan” was developed. This plan outlined the core issue under consideration: In managing stormwater discharges for the Manukau Harbour CRE, what should the high-level management priorities of the Auckland Council be?

16. The plan also identifies key stakeholders, as well as the proposed methodology for consulting with stakeholders. A list of external stakeholders contacted through this consultation process is attached to this report.

17. All feedback will be fully reviewed, consolidated and considered in the application documents. It is envisaged that outcomes from this consultation process will inform the development of the best practicable option for managing stormwater discharges in the Manukau Harbour CRE.

18. 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 council committees towards the end of 2014.

19. The stormwater unit will then formally lodge the Auckland-wide Stormwater Network Discharge consent with Auckland Council’s regulatory department.

Local Board Workshop - Feedback

20. A workshop with local board members, representatives of the Manukau Harbour Forum and ward councillors to introduce the consultation information was held 30 July 2014.

21. Feedback at the workshop indicated a high level of concern for the current state of the health of the streams, harbour and the aquifers within the Manukau Harbour CRE. Some members were also concerned about the effects of stormwater and illegal cross-connections within the wastewater network. The stormwater unit advised that programmes are in place to identify and remedy this issue.

22. Board members expressed concern that lack of detailed information available for the Manukau Harbour CRE constrained their ability to accurately prioritise the issues. A benefit some members expressed was that the consultation process could inform Council’s priorities and assist in gaining funding for identified issues.

23. Members requested information on how many stormwater outlets discharge to the harbour in the different local board areas. The assets within Manukau Harbour CREs 32 subcatchments include approximately 1,277km of stormwater drains (including pipes, ditches and open drains), 26,042 manholes and 19, 954 catchpits, plus additional stormwater fittings. The current asset database also includes 90 stormwater treatment ponds or wetlands and 72 other types of stormwater treatment devices (raingardens, sandfilters, gross pollutant traps; excluding ground soakage devices). This information can be accessed and viewed in detail on Auckland Council’s internet maps. Please follow this procedure in order to access and view the maps:

a) Go to http://maps.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/aucklandcouncilviewer/

b) Click on “Map Content” to right of screen, with the folder icon

c) Click “Underground Services” button. This will take you to a new screen showing a list of items with tick boxes adjacent. To view the stormwater pipes and outfalls, ensure the following items are ticked: “underground services” and “stormwater”.

d) The stormwater infrastructure should be shown as green lines on the map, with outfall located at the end of these lines as they reach the coast. To view this infrastructure well, the map will need to be at large scale.

As noted in the workshop, the accuracy of this data is limited due to the differing asset databases and information held by legacy councils. It is currently being reviewed and updated by the stormwater unit.

24. Some local boards requested information on planned projects and infrastructure improvements for their area to assist with prioritisation of issues.

Questions for Consultation

25. The Manukau Harbour CRE stormwater priorities consultation process is focusing on two specific questions:

1) From the stormwater issues identified, what does the local board consider are the priorities for the Manukau Harbour CRE and what must be most urgently addressed?

2) From the stormwater unit’s responsibilities, what does the local board consider to be the criteria that Council should use for selecting stormwater management priorities?

26. 1) From the identified stormwater issues around the Manukau Harbour which are the highest priorities?

ISSUE*	*Your Priority Ranking* *(please rank 1 – 7, where 1 is the most urgent and 7 the least urgent)*
Managing growth
Managing our infrastructure/ assets
Managing flooding (or the risk of flooding)
Managing urban streams
Contamination of the Manukau Harbour
Managing s/water discharges to groundwater
Reducing s/water effects on the w/water network

27. 2) Local board views on criteria that guide how, through this network discharge consent process, Auckland Council selects its priorities for stormwater management in the Manukau Harbour and its associated sub-catchments (i.e. stream catchment areas) are sought. These criteria are tabulated below and can be ranked according to priority:

BUSINESS AS USUAL CRITERIA^#	Growth	Assets	Flooding	Stream Management	Contamination of the Harbour			Groundwater	S/water Effects on the W/water Network
Cost-benefit analyses
Risk-based analyses
Redevelopment opportunities
Multiple benefits
MANAGING GROWTH
Proposed Criteria for selecting priorities*						Your Ranking (H, M, L)
Prevent/ minimise effects from future development
(a) Council-identified priorities
(b) Partnership led
(c) Developer led
(d) Sensitivity of the receiving environment
Intensification and re-development:
(a) Council-identified priorities
(b) Partnership led
(c) Developer led
(d) Sensitivity of the receiving environment
(e) Easy wins
MANAGING OUR INFRASTRUCTURE / ASSETS
Proposed Criteria for Selecting Priorities*						Your Ranking (H, M, L)
Asset condition, age and criticality (i.e. a potential for asset failure)
(a) Below ground built assets (such as pipes)
(b) Above ground built natural assets (such as treatment devices & overland flow paths)
(c) Stream assets
Impacts on existing communities (not meeting expected levels of service)
MANAGING FLOODING AND THE RISK OF FLOODING
Proposed Criteria for Selecting Priorities*						Your Ranking (H, M, L)
Frequency of flooding (a risk based approach to managing flooding occurrence)
Existing flooding and damage
Public safety and protecting critical infrastructure
MANAGING URBAN STREAMS
Proposed Criteria for Selecting Priorities*						Your Ranking (H, M, L)
Ease of intervention (zoning, ownership and access)
Greatest ecological benefit (potential for enhancement)
Level of active community support
Opportunities to leverage outcomes (linkages with other projects)
Landscape integration and enhancement (create a community focal point)
Holistic stream management
CONTAMINATION OF THE MANUKAU HARBOUR
Proposed Criteria for Selecting Priorities*						Your Ranking (H, M, L)
Existing contaminant levels (to limit further degradation)
Actual trends in contamination (where the highest level of change is predicted)
Contaminant loads
Marine ecology (using benthic/seabed animals as an indicator of priority)
Focus on areas of amenity, aesthetics and use
Holistic contaminant management (within Council as well as other organisations and agencies)
GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT
Proposed Criteria for Selecting Priorities*						Your Ranking (H, M, L)
Improved soakage performance in groundwater take areas
Treatment of stormwater into ground in targeted areas
REDUCING STORMWATER EFFECTS ON THE WASTEWATER NETWORK
Proposed Criteria for Selecting Priorities*							Your Ranking (H, M, L)
Public health risk (needs alignment with Watercare Services)
Environmental risk (needs alignment with Watercare Services)
Watercare opportunities taken as they arise (to work with council’s CCO)

28. A description of the identified issues and criteria can be found in the Manukau Harbour Consolidated Receiving Environment: Stormwater Priorities Consultation - Information Brochure attached to this report.

29. If this project is considered of interest, a feedback form has been attached to this agenda report and can be completed. Alternatively, general feedback and comment through the meeting would be welcomed.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

30. A cluster workshop with local board representatives was held for 30 July 2014 to introduce the consultation process and 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.

31. Consultation with key identified stakeholders within the Manukau Harbour catchment area (including internal Auckland Council staff, advisory panels, council-controlled organisations, government departments, environmental and recreational groups, community and business groups) is currently being undertaken via a series of consultation workshops.

Maori impact statement

32. Feedback is being sought from mana whenua and iwi. Consultation workshops were held in July 2014. Overall, the workshops highlighted the holistic approach that iwi have with the three waters, their interest in enhancing and improving the water quality, their concern with contamination to stormwater; and their frustration with the legacy of degradation of the Manukau Harbour.

Implementation

33. 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 Auckland-wide stormwater network discharge consent 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	Manukau Harbour CRE - Stakeholder List	27
b View	Manukau Harbour CRE - Feedback Form	31
c View	Manukau Harbour CRE - Frequently Asked Questions	35
d	Manukau Harbour CRE - Information Brochure (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Authors

Theresa Pearce - Relationship Advisor

Authorisers

John Dragicevich - Manager Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Puketāpapa Local Board

25 September 2014

Auckland Transport Report, September 2014

File No.: CP2014/21332

Purpose

1. The purpose of the report is to respond to local board requests on transport-related matters and to provide information to Elected Members about Auckland Transport (AT) activities in the local board area since the last report.

Monthly Overview

2. The Transport Portfolio Lead briefing on transport matters in the Puketāpapa area took place on 20 August. Transport matters in the Local Board area was discussed including the corridor management plan for Mt Eden Road.

3. Several workshops were attended by Auckland Transport officers on 23 July with Puketāpapa Local Board. Topics discussed were responsibilities for rubbish and leaf fall in the Local Board area, the draft corridor management plan for Mt Albert Road and Greenlane Road where they pass through the Puketāpapa Local Board area.

4. Auckland Council and Auckland Transport officers also updated the Local Board on various cycling initiatives in the Local Board area and synergies between projects. Opportunities for bike parking in the Local Board areas were also discussed.

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) receive the report.

Reporting back

Consultation Report

5. No road changes have been forwarded to the Local Board for comment in the past month.

Local Board Capital Projects

Updates on the current projects being progressed by Auckland Transport on Puketāpapa Local Board behalf are detailed below.

Mt Albert Road Pedestrian Crossing Facility

6. The contract has been let to Fulton Hogan. They are in the process of producing a Traffic Management Plan and contract controls for approval. It is now anticipated that works will begin in September, subject to the Traffic Control Committee resolution approval

Richardson Road/Oakdale Intersection improvements

7. The contract has been let to Fulton Hogan. They are in the process of producing a Traffic Management Plan and contract controls. It is now anticipated that works will begin in August.

June 2014 Resolutions – Rough Order of Cost requests

8. Auckland Transport received the June resolutions of the Puketāpapa Local Board requesting rough order of costs for various proposals for use of the transport capital fund. Feedback from these requests is noted below.

Dominion Road Park and Ride

9. The Local Board has asked Auckland Transport to consider costing a project that would create a Park N Ride facility at 1097 Dominion Road and surrounding properties. These properties are currently owned by Auckland Council and are to be used during the construction phase of the Dominion Road upgrade.

10. Auckland Transport advises that this project is best left until the Dominion project is complete and the use of the land in question is finally determined. Any construction of a Park N Ride facility would only happen after June 2016 which means any funds allocated by the current Local Board could not be spent in time.

11. In addition, the cost of the project would probably be beyond the Local Board’s transport capital allocation as there are property issues to deal with in terms of demolition/removal of the houses currently on the property, plus the construction of the parking area.

Richardson Road Cycle Crossing between Underwood Park and Hendon Park

12. The purpose of this project is to provide a safe crossing for pedestrians and cyclists across Richardson Road, linking up Underwood Park to Hendon Park cycle facilities.

13. The proposed location for the cycle crossing is approximately 65m from the existing signalised intersection of Richardson Road and Hendon Avenue. This is considered to be a relatively short distance from a signalised intersection and AT doesn’t consider it to be inconvenient for pedestrian/cyclists to use the existing crossing facility.

14. In addition, providing a mid-block crossing so close to a signalised intersection could contribute to delaying traffic operations along Richardson Road. Due to these considerations, Auckland Transport does not support this proposed signalised crossing.

Sandringham Road Cycle Route

15. The aim of this project is to create a safe cycle route from Ernie Pinches Drive, across SH 20 to the Wesley Community Centre and War Memorial Park

16. This project is still awaiting feedback from Auckland Transport.

Mt Albert Road/May Road Safety Barriers

17. Auckland Transport is reviewing the intersection of Mt Albert Road and May Rd to assess its suitability for crash barriers to be installed on the footpath as proposed by the Local Board. An update on the recommendation will be given at the meeting.

Auckland Transport HOP Retailers

18. There are two retailers for HOP cards in the Puketāpapa area. The White Swan Superette, White Swan Road and Era Superette, 1260 Dominion Road. All AT HOP retail locations can be found here: AT.govt.nz/retailers.

19. As advised at the last board meeting, a number of new retailers are being added to the network over the next year. One of these is in the Puketāpapa Local Board area – as of next week there will be the Waikowhai Superette, 421 Hillsborough Road, Hillsborough, as one of the additional AT HOP retailers across Auckland.

20. AT is implementing the AT HOP retail network across Auckland carefully considering a number of factors, particularly from customers’ perspectives, such as accessibility, opening hours and importantly legacy/current retail sales of all public transport ticket sales.

21. AT will continue to review where retailers are located, and how customers are being serviced. Topping up at a retailer is only one of a number of options for AT HOP; customers also have the option of doing a one-off top-up online at AT.govt.nz/athop or setting up an auto top up online or topping up at one of our Customer Service Centres or at Top-up Machines at all train stations.

22. AT have not had a tertiary student cash fare for at least 10 years. As student cash fares are subsidised they are only available through HOP. Student fares are available with HOP cards otherwise the equivalent adult fare is payable. Having the student concession ratified through the HOP card process is more robust and also quicker than cash fares and showing student ID.

23. AT intends to move to an exact fare only being accepted on buses and in the future to a cashless system for buses.

Auckland Transport Parking Strategy Discussion Document

24. This discussion document is the first to comprehensively review issues associated with parking region-wide. Key elements of the discussion document include an analysis of issues associated with the city centre, the city fringe, metropolitan and town centres and residential streets across the region. There is a clear link to the region’s public transport strategy through consideration of the role of park-and-rides, and the needs of the forthcoming (bus) Frequent Transport Network, and the possibility that the AT HOP card may be able to be used for payment for parking, in some situations.

25. A late rush has seen around 4300 groups and individuals make submissions on a discussion document which will help shape the future of parking in the Auckland region.

26. Auckland Transport consulted for two months on issues such as the cost of on and off-street parking, the provision of parking on main arterial roads, residential parking zones and permits, and park and ride facilities.

27. Submissions are now being collated and analysed. The next step will be to draw up a region-wide parking policy which will be based on information from those submissions.

28. A report on key themes and possible policy responses is expected to be reported back to the board of Auckland Transport in September.

East West Connections

29. The public communications and engagement process on the East West Connections programme has largely been completed. The aim of the engagement was to communicate to the wider public the aim of the East West Connections programme and make sure transport issues in the area are fully understood before any work is done on options.

30. A number of community engagement events were held and feedback will be analysed after further events are held in early August. Overall the public have been very interested in the project and forthcoming with feedback on the transport network in the area.

31. An estimated 100 people visited the stand at Onehunga night market, more than 800 at the old Mangere Bridge event and about 200 at Sylvia Park Mall. Two mataawaka hui and a facilitated workshop with business and community groups were also held.

32. Key feedback themes included difficulties experienced at Gloucester Park interchange, congestion and freight along Church/Neilson streets, extension of existing walking and cycling paths, improved public transport connections, rail to the airport, safety (especially for children), keeping healthy (walking and cycling paths, reducing pollution), the Highbrook interchange, South Eastern Highway connections and connections to/from Onehunga-Penrose

33. The feedback will be used to investigate potential solutions to address two priority issues – connections into and out of Onehunga-Penrose and public transport between Mangere and Sylvia Park. It will also be used in continuing work with stakeholders and the community to develop a transport network in the East West area that addresses the issues identified and supports planned growth.

Local Board Engagement Plan

34. Auckland Transport has finalised the main elements of the Local Board Engagement Plan, which documents how AT will engage with local boards on a board-by-board basis. Where local boards have not made specific inputs requesting changes to the “standard” approach in respect of their local board area, the standard approach will remain applicable. The Plan comprises several elements:

35. The substantive document – this sets out the principles which underlie the way in which AT seeks to work with local boards.

36. Annex 1 – Three-year Work Programme: This was produced last year for the first time, and will again be produced this year when the current discussions over budget have been settled.

37. Annex 2 – Advocacy Initiatives: This is a listing of the local board’s advocacy initiatives, and will be produced when the LBs’ have finalised their new advocacy initiatives through the Local Board Plan process.

38. Annex 3 – Engagement Process Guidelines: This document has been individualised for each local board, on the basis of input made over the last few months by local boards. It sets out specific processes applying to engagement on a wide range of AT initiatives. This Annex is a living document and can be easily adapted at local board request to meet their own internal processes (for example, one local board may have delegated the provision of feedback on an initiative to their Transport Portfolio Lead, where another local board may require a workshop to discuss a similar initiative). Alternatively, it may turn out that the particular engagement process specified may not work well for Auckland Transport. This may be because of a specific circumstance which makes it more sensible to engage on an initiative in a different way than documented, or it may be because the process as a whole is flawed in some way. In either case AT will discuss the concerns with the local board and seek to find an agreed way forward.

39. It is likely, given that this represents a new approach to ensuring consistent approach to engagement, that it will take a little while for both local boards and AT departments to work effectively with this approach in practice. AT welcomes feedback as to any difficulties that arise and how this process could be improved.

Auckland Transport News

Panmure Station

40. The new Panmure railway station has seen a 57% increase in passenger numbers since it opened in January and a 73% increase compared with this time last year. Panmure is now ranked the 10^th busiest railway station in Auckland, up from 18^th in 2013. On average some 1116 passengers use the Panmure station every week day, in 2003 it was used by less than 100 a day.

41. The $17.5m interchange allows easy and direct transfers between rail and bus, benefiting those living and working in the area as well as those travelling through Panmure as part of their daily commute. Transfers now account for approximately 8% of all public transport boardings.

42. The interchange is part of the Auckland Manukau Eastern Transport Initiative (AMETI) with future stages seeing the creation of busway lanes along Lagoon Drive and Pakuranga Road to a new bus station at Pakuranga town centre.

New Waterview Shared Path

43. Auckland Transport is about to unveil plans for a new walking and cycling link between Waterview and Mt Albert. Delivered as part of the Waterview Connection project, the shared path will add to Auckland’s growing cycling and walking network, connecting with the north-western (SH16) cycle route and existing shared paths to Onehunga and New Lynn.

44. Auckland Transport has investigated a range of options, talked with property owners and developed a concept design for the path. Two open days were held in July to discuss the project with the community and get public feedback.

45. The Waterview shared path will be around 2.4km long and around 3.5 metres wide, running from Alan Wood Reserve off New North Road, following the route of Oakley Creek and connecting with Great North Road (Attachment B).

46. Two new bridges will be built along the route - one across Oakley Creek and the other over the western rail line - to connect communities to the path. There will also be easy access to the path at various points along the route, such as Phyllis Reserve and the Unitec campus.

47. The project will mean safe traffic-free links for cyclist and pedestrians with improved access to local schools, colleges and other community facilities. The path will be well lit and have a low gradient to make it safe and easy to use.

48. Construction is expected to begin in late 2016 and take around 12 months to complete.

49. For more details: https://at.govt.nz/projects-roadworks/waterview-shared-path/

City Rail Link design change

50. A significant design change to the City Rail Link (CRL), will save over $150 million, improve the reliability and journey time of train services, minimise construction disruption in Symonds Street and reduce property purchase requirements.

51. Auckland Transport (AT) has decided to redevelop the existing Mt Eden Station and connect it to the CRL rather than build a new underground station at Newton.

52. Since the City Rail Link’s concept design was developed two years ago, there has been concerted effort to optimise the design and drive value for money. The change that has resulted from this focus will reduce cost by removing the very deep Newton station, which will also reduce construction disruption in upper Symonds St by 12 to 18 months.

53. The new design will connect passengers at Mt Eden Station to the CRL which previously bypassed them and improve operation reliability through the provision of a separated east-west junction so train lines won’t need to cross over each other.

54. The CRL platform at Mt Eden will now be built in a trench similar to the New Lynn station, and be open to the sky, rather than deep underground as was the case for the proposed Newton station location. This open air location and the separated train junction will also lower operating costs.

55. In addition, fewer surface properties will be required. Owners affected by the new design have been contacted directly by Auckland Transport about the change.

56. As well as these significant community, cost and service benefits, the development potential associated with Mt Eden Station will not be limited by volcanic cone view shafts and heritage buildings which constrained the Newton location. Changes in the rail track alignment will also reduce vibration and noise effects on surrounding properties and improve travel times.

57. Further information on the design changes and upcoming milestones for the CRL will be explained to the community at open days in the project area in late August/early September.

Issues Raised through/ by Board Members

Location or Name of Issue	Description	AT Response
Hillsborough Road and Olson Avenue area	Complaint from that traffic travels very fast past 202 Hillsborough Road which makes crossing the road very difficult. A speed advisory sign for this location was going to be installed – update on when this is to happen.	There is a controlled crossing at approximately 186 Hillsborough Road, which is the safest way to cross the road in this area. A driver feedback sign will be relocated to 229 Hillsborough Road and quotes for this relocation are currently being obtained. Speed camera enforcement is a police matter and the speeding matter will be brought to the attention of the police at the next AT/NZ Police liaison meeting.
Arundel Street	Report of speeding issues in Arundel Street – vehicles accessing Keith Hay Park.	This issue has been logged.
Parking Facilities in the Local Board area	Request to understand which parking facilities in the Local Board area are owned by Auckland Transport.	The following properties are parking facilities owned and managed by AT: 371A Mount Albert Mount Roskill 580 Richardson Mount Roskill 219 Stoddard Mount Roskill
Jasper Avenue carpark	Some long stay parking is occurring in this car park. Is it enforced by Auckland Transport?	This carpark is not an AT facility but AT do carry out enforcement at this location. A request has been made for more frequent enforcement. Recent parking surveys showed that the car park was not parked out during normal trading hours but that parking spikes occur in the evenings and weekends when parking enforcement times do not apply.

CHANGE: Signatories

Authors	Lorna Stewart, Elected Member Relationship Manager, Auckland Transport
Authorisers	Jonathan Anyon, Elected Member Relationship Team Manager, Auckland Transport

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Consultation update on Roading & Parking changes (August 2014)	63
b View	Memo to L Stewart from P Chan & M Peake dated 18 August 2014 regarding ROC request for May Road/Mt Albert Road intersection	65

Signatories

Authors	Lorna Stewart, Elected Member Relationship Manager, Auckland Transport
Authorisers	Jonathan Anyon, Elected Member Relationship Team Manager, Auckland Transport

Puketāpapa Local Board

25 September 2014

Auckland Council Property Limited Local Board Six-Monthly Update 1 January to 30 June 2014

File No.: CP2014/21374

Purpose

1. To give the Puketāpapa Local Board an overview Auckland Council Property Limited’s (ACPL) activities for the six months 1 January to 30 June 2014.

Executive summary

2. ACPL’s vision is to be a ‘centre of excellence’ that provides commercial expertise and value for money to the council in managing its property portfolio, acquisition and disposal activities, and the delivery of projects that implement council development initiatives.

3. This report sets out a summary of ACPL activities for the past six-months that contribute to our seven key outcomes as outlined in our Statement of Intent 2014 to 2017 and noted below. Activity detail is broken down by business unit or work-stream, with a focus on local board specific activities where applicable.

4. ACPL’s seven key outcomes:

§ Properties managed for the council and Auckland Transport (AT) are maintained to be fit for purpose and achieve optimum net returns.

§ Place-shaping projects involving other sector partners are efficiently planned and managed to help achieve a quality compact Auckland.

§ ACPL contributes exemplar housing developments to increase the supply of housing in Auckland, particularly in the more affordable spectrum of the market, working with partners.

§ Council business interests are managed to protect long term value and achieve budgeted net income.

§ Property acquisitions are undertaken in a commercially robust manner and in accordance with the council and AT agreed requirements and relevant legislation.

§ Properties are disposed of for the council in a commercially robust manner once declared surplus.

§ The council is provided with a commercial perspective on planning and development initiatives to support effective implementation of those initiatives.

5. Local board specific supporting detail is included in Attachments A, B, and C.

Recommendation/s

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) accept the Auckland Council Property Limited Local Board six-monthly update 1 January to 30 June 2014.

Comments

Workshops and Meetings

6. A schedule of Puketāpapa Local Board workshops and meetings attended by ACPL representatives from January to June 2014 is included as Attachment A. The list includes property specific meetings and workshops relating to general property management and the on-going portfolio Rationalisation Process.

Property Portfolio Management

7. ACPL manages all Auckland Council or AT owned non-service properties. These are properties that are not immediately required for service delivery or infrastructure development.

8. The property portfolio continued to grow during the last six-months and now totals 1185 properties, an increase of 90 since our February 2014 update. The current property portfolio includes industrial sites and buildings, retail tenancies, cafés, restaurants, offices and a substantial portfolio of residential properties.

9. ACPL’s specialist property knowledge and understanding enables us to optimise revenue streams and identify future opportunities. ACPL’s return on the property portfolio for the quarter ending 30 June 2014 provides the shareholder a net surplus of $1.9 ahead of budget, with an actual surplus of $25.4m against budget of $23.5m. During the quarter the average monthly collectable arrears rate and vacancies rate were respectively 2.1% and 2.4%. Well under the SOI targets of 5% and 3%.

10. A Properties Managed schedule is included as Attachment B of this report. The schedule details:

§ Current ACPL managed commercial and residential property within the Puketāpapa Local Board

§ Each property’s classification or reason for retention

§ The nature of the property, such as a café within a library, or a residential property with a tenancy in place

§ The budget under which operating expenditure and lease revenue for the property is reported, e.g. regional or local board.

11. A report indicating portfolio movement in the local board area is attached as Attachment C. The report details all new acquisitions including the reason for acquisition, any transfers and the reason for transfer, and any disposals.

Portfolio Review and Rationalisation

Overview

12. ACPL is required to undertake on-going rationalisation of the council’s non-service assets. This includes identifying properties from within council’s portfolio that may be suitable for potential sale and development if appropriate. ACPL has a particular focus on achieving housing outcomes. Identifying potential sale properties contributes to Auckland Plan outcomes by providing the council with an efficient use of capital and prioritisation of funds to achieve its activities and projects.

Performance

13. January to June 2014 Targets

UNIT	TARGET	ACHIEVED	COMMENTS
Portfolio Review	$12.3m disposal recommendations	$14.8m	These recommendations include $5.6m of sites that are identified for development projects

14. In setting future disposal targets ACPL is working closely with the council and AT to identify potentially surplus properties.

15. 2014/2015 Targets

UNIT	TARGET	COMMENTS
Portfolio Review	$30m disposal recommendations	These targets will include disposal recommendations and sales for sites that are identified for place-shaping and housing development projects
Development & Disposals	$30 net sales

Process

16. Once identified as a potential sale candidate a property is taken through a multi-stage Rationalisation Process. The agreed process includes engagement with; council, CCOs, local board and mana whenua. This is followed by ACPL Board approval, engagement with local ward and the Independent Maori Statutory Board and finally a governing body decision.

Under review

17. Properties currently under review for future use opportunities via the Rationalisation Process in the Puketāpapa Local Board area are detailed below. The list includes any properties that may have recently been approved for sale or development and sale by the governing body. Further details are included in Attachment B.

PROPERTY

DETAILS

30C Giletta Road, Mt Roskill

Vacant site vested as road reserve. Vested in the Mount Roskill Borough Council in or about 1971 under section 353A of the Municipal Corporations Act 1954. Any sale, development and/or exchange of the land is constrained by the requirements of the Reserves Act 1977. ACPL is progressing the property through the Rationalisation Process to evaluate future use options. The internal organisation-wide Expression of Interest (EOI) phase commenced 30 June 14. An EOI received from AT is currently being worked through prior to local board engagement.

Place Shaping and Housing Initiatives

Overview

18. ACPL is contributing commercial input into around 48 council-driven place-shaping and housing initiatives region wide. Involvement extends from provision of initial feasibility advice through to implementation, with projects ranging in size from $400k to in excess of $100million. ACPL works closely with the local boards on ACPL lead developments to ensure we give effect to the local boards’ place-shaping role.

19. ACPL is also actively contributing to the Housing Action Plan Group, which is a council initiative focusing on non-regulatory efforts to encourage and increase affordable residential development. We have an SOI target to undertake five housing development projects with an affordable housing component over three years which would encompass Community Housing Organisation involvement. We are currently actively working on 13 such projects.

Local Activities

20. ACPL is working with council units and the local board on evaluating the implications of a proposed land exchange of reserve land at Three Kings Quarry. A separate report on this discussion is scheduled for the local board’s business meeting on 25 September.

21. Additionally an increasing focus for ACPL is property optimisation. In this we are keen to work with local boards on development opportunities that facilitate upgrades within the service portfolio. For example a community facility upgrade or build may be funded by incorporating the facility into a mixed-use development that makes better use of the overall site. We welcome the opportunity to review any such opportunities that may be identified by the Puketāpapa Local Board.

Acquisitions

Overview

22. ACPL continues to support Council and Auckland Transport programmes and projects by negotiating required property acquisitions. All such acquisitions are funded through approved Council or Auckland Transport budgets. We also provide advice to assist with budgets, business cases and strategy to support an acquisition.

23. By the end of the financial year 2013 to 2014 two hundred and seven property purchases were completed for the council and AT to the value of $132.4m. All of the property acquisitions met independent valuation thresholds agreed with AT, the council and Public Works Act 1981 requirements.

Council Acquisitions

24. Over the past six months 14 properties were acquired to meet council open space and storm water requirements and to contribute to City Transformation projects. These included the following acquisitions in or neighbouring the Puketāpapa Local Board area.

PROPERTY	STAKEHOLDER	PURPOSE	LOCAL BOARD
52 Waitangi Road, Onehunga	Community, Policy & Planning	Open Space	Maungakiekie-Tamaki

Auckland Transport Acquisitions

25. 72 properties were also acquired over the past six-months on behalf of AT. The focus was on acquisitions to support major transport projects such as AMETI (30 acquisitions) Dominion Road (7 acquisitions) Te Atatu Road (9 acquisitions) and City Rail Link (16 acquisitions). Full details of relevant AT projects and associated acquisitions will come to the local board directly from AT.

Business Interests

26. ACPL manages eight business interests region wide on council’s behalf. This comprises two forestry enterprises, two landfills and four quarries. There are currently no ACPL managed business interests in the Puketāpapa Local Board area.

Local Board Views and Implications

27. This report is for the Puketāpapa Local Board’s information.

Maori Impact Statement

28. The importance of effective communication and engagement with Maori on the subject of land is understood. ACPL has accordingly developed robust engagement with the 19 listed Tamaki region mana whenua groups for our core business activities.

29. Key engagement activities include: identifying cultural significance concerns regarding disposal properties, flagging commercial interests, development partnering discussions and issues relating to property management such as protection of waahi tapu or joint management relating to Treaty Settlements. ACPL also engages with relevant mana whenua in respect of development outcomes for ACPL lead projects where appropriate. ACPL will advise the Puketāpapa Local Board as appropriate of any discussions that arise in the local board’s area.

30. ACPL has additionally undertaken to be part of council’s Maori Responsiveness Plan (MRP) pilot programme. The project’s key output is an operational document outlining ACPL’s contribution to council’s strategic and operational commitments to Maori. The Improvement Planning Phase of this project is nearly complete. We anticipate finalising our MRP in September/October 2014.

Implementation

31. There are no implementation issues.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Schedule of meetings and workshops	73
b View	Properties managed by ACPL in the Local Board area	75
c View	Property movement in the Local Board area	77

Signatories

Authors	Caitlin Borgfeldt, Local Board Liaison
Authorisers	David Rankin, Chief Executive

Puketāpapa Local Board

25 September 2014

Report from Onehunga Foreshore Dog Access Panel

File No.: CP2014/19041

Purpose

1. The purpose of the report is to submit to the Puketāpapa Local Board the Onehunga Foreshore Dog Access Panel decision on dog access rules for the Onehunga foreshore on the southern side of Orpheus Drive.

Executive summary

2. The Maungakiekie-Tamaki and Puketapapa local boards respectively resolved at their business meetings on 28 January 2014 (resolution CP2014/00138) and 30 January 2014 (resolution CP2014/00145) to review the default dog access rules on the new Onehunga foreshore on the southern side of Orpheus Drive via a joint panel.

3. The Onehunga Foreshore Dog Access Panel at a meeting on 19 May 2014 adopted proposed changes to local dog access rules on the new Onehunga foreshore on the southern side of Orpheus Drive.

4. The hearing panel has considered eight submissions in relation to the proposal and has decided to allow dogs under control on a leash on the western side of the new Onehunga foreshore and prohibited from the eastern wildlife areas.

5. Reasons for the decision include that the proposal is the most appropriate way to protect public safety and comfort, to provide for the needs of dogs and their owners, and to protect wildlife on what is expected to be a busy sub-regional destination.

6. The hearing panel acknowledge submissions that sought time and season dog access and note that this can be considered as part of the wider review of local dog access rules by the Maungakiekie-Tamaki and Puketapapa local boards in 2016 when the actual use of the new Onehunga foreshore is better known.

7. The hearing panel also note that under control off-leash dog access is retained on the adjoining Onehunga Lagoon which includes extensive grass areas and a beach, and that the new Onehunga foreshore will in the future form part of a coastal walkway including Mangere Bridge.

Recommendations

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) receive the decision report titled “Hearing Panel Report on Dog Access Rules on the new Onehunga foreshore on the southern side of Orpheus Drive 2014”.

b) thank the Onehunga Foreshore Dog Access Panel for their work considering the proposal and submissions on dog access rules for the Onehunga foreshore.

Comments

8. The Onehunga Foreshore Dog Access Panel at a meeting on 19 May 2014 adopted proposed changes to local dog access rules on the new Onehunga foreshore on the southern side of Orpheus Drive.

9. The panel considered eight submissions in relation to the proposal.

10. The panel deliberations as contained in the decision report are provided below. A copy of the hearing panel’s decision report is contained in Attachment A and contains details of the proposal, public notification, decision-making considerations, matters raised in submissions and hearing panel deliberations.

Submission Topic 1 – Western side of the new Onehunga foreshore

11. The panel resolved to adopt the proposed dog access rules on the new Onehunga foreshore as publicly notified.

12. Reasons for the decision include that the proposal is the most appropriate way to protect public safety and comfort, to provide for the needs of dogs and their owners, and to protect wildlife on what is expected to be a busy sub-regional destination.

13. The panel acknowledged submissions that sought time and season dog access and note that this can be considered as part of the wider review of local dog access rules by the Maungakiekie-Tamaki and Puketapapa local boards in 2016 when the actual use of the new Onehunga foreshore is better known.

14. The hearing panel also noted that under control off-leash dog access is retained on the adjoining Onehunga Lagoon which includes extensive grass areas and a beach, and that the new Onehunga foreshore will in the future form part of a coastal walkway including Mangere Bridge.

Submission Topic 2 – Eastern side of the new Onehunga foreshore

15. The panel resolved to adopt the proposed prohibition of dogs from the eastern portion of the new Onehunga foreshore as publicly notified. Reasons include that it better protects birdlife.

No.	Title	Page
a View	Hearing Panel Report on Dog Access Rules on the new Onehunga foreshore on the southern side of Orpheus Drive	81

Signatories

Authors

Brett Clark, Chair Onehunga Foreshore Dog Access Panel

Authorisers

Helgard Wagener - Team leader, Policies and Bylaws

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Puketāpapa Local Board

25 September 2014

Review of Alcohol Control Bylaws - Proposed bylaw for local board feedback

File No.: CP2014/19115

Purpose

1. The purpose of the report is to provide local boards with a copy of the proposed Auckland Council Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014 and to request formal feedback by resolution.

2. Local boards are also requested to appoint a review panel to make recommendations to the local board on the review of the local alcohol bans.

Executive summary

3. On 22 July 2014, the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee recommended to the governing body to adopt the Statement of Proposal for the proposed Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014 (Attachment A) for public consultation (resolution number RBC/2014/27). The governing body formally adopted the Statement of Proposal on 31 July 2014 (resolution number GB/2014/70). Following this discussion, the council commenced public consultation (using the special consultative procedure), on 15 August 2014.

4. In addition to the public consultation process, staff are seeking feedback from local boards on the proposed bylaw.

5. The proposed Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014 will establish the bylaw structure and delegation that will be used to make, review, amend or revoke alcohol bans. Decisions on existing and new alcohol bans will be made by local boards after a new bylaw is adopted. This ensures decisions meet the proposed new requirements in the bylaw.

6. Regardless of the final form of the bylaw and delegations, local boards have an important role in the review of alcohol bans and the appointment of an alcohol ban review panel is sought.

7. Details of the proposed bylaw are outlined in the report.

Recommendations

That the Puketāpapa Local Board:

a) provides formal feedback (by passing resolutions) on the proposed Auckland Council Alcohol Control Bylaw to the hearing panel, including whether the local board wish to meet with the hearing panel

b) appoint a local alcohol ban review panel comprised of up to three local board members to make recommendations on the review of the alcohol bans in the local board area

c) appoint one member as a chairperson of the local alcohol ban review panel

d) delegate to the chairperson of the local board the power to make a replacement appointment to the review panel in the event that any member appointed by the local board under resolution (b) is unavailable.

Comments

Legislative Framework

8. The Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 requires the review of all seven legacy alcohol control bylaws (previously called liquor control bylaws) and associated alcohol bans (previously called liquor bans) by 31 October 2015.

9. In December 2012, Parliament enacted the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. This in turn amended the Local Government Act 2002. The requirements for making or continuing individual alcohol bans has changed significantly with the passing of the Local Government (Alcohol Reform) Amendment Act 2012 (the Act).

10. The Act introduced a higher threshold to be met for alcohol bans to be made or continued. The higher threshold requires that the council is satisfied that there is evidence to show a high level of crime or disorder is caused or made worse by the consumption of alcohol in that public place and that the alcohol ban is a reasonable restriction on people’s rights in light of that evidence.

11. The process for making a bylaw under the Local Government Act 2002 requires that the council determine if a bylaw is the most appropriate response to a problem. A bylaw must also be in the most appropriate form and must be consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. All bylaws must meet the legal requirements as set out in the Bylaws Act 1910, including not being unreasonable, providing rules that are proportionate to the issues being addressed and not being beyond the powers of the enabling legislation.

Current Auckland regulation

12. Currently, there are seven legacy alcohol control bylaws and more than 1,600 individual alcohol ban areas across Auckland. The legacy bylaws significantly differ in their drafting style and presentation.

13. In general, all legacy bylaws provide the structure used to make alcohol bans. Some legacy bylaws enable the making of alcohol bans by resolution while others require a change to the bylaw itself. Making alcohol bans by resolution means the level of consultation is determined on a case by case basis and can result in more effective and efficient decisions compared to amending the bylaw.

14. An assessment of the appropriateness of the legacy bylaws indicate that:

· A single bylaw is necessary to enable the adoption of alcohol bans that prohibit or regulate or control the consumption or bringing into or possession of alcohol in public places. The New Zealand Police consider that limiting the consumption of alcohol in public places may reduce alcohol related harm.

· It is appropriate to delegate decisions on alcohol bans in local public places to local boards.

15. Within an alcohol ban area the possession and consumption of alcohol is prohibited during the time the ban is operational. Exceptions enable alcohol to be transported in an unopened container to and from licenced and private premises.

16. Enforcement of the bylaw is the responsibility of the New Zealand Police. The police have powers of search, seizure and arrest, and may issue a $250 infringement notice for breach of an alcohol ban.

Auckland Council’s proposed Alcohol Control Bylaw

The council’s decision to adopt the proposed Auckland Council Alcohol Control Bylaw for public consultation

17. On 22 July 2014, the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee recommended to the governing body the Statement of Proposal for the proposed Alcohol Control Bylaw.

18. On 31 July 2014, the governing body adopted the proposed Alcohol Control Bylaw Statement of Proposal (Attachment A), which includes the proposed bylaw for public consultation (resolution number GB/2014/70).

19. Following the decision, the council commenced the public consultation process (using the special consultative procedure), on 15 August 2014. The key consultation dates are summarised in the table below:

Table 1. Key consultation dates

Date	Milestone
15 August 2014	Written submission period opens
15 September 2014	Written submission period closes
September/October 2014	Staff will review and analyse all submissions in a report to the hearings panel Report will include all formal feedback received from local boards
Early/Mid October 2014	Public hearings will be held by hearing panel This will include an opportunity for local boards to meet with the hearings panel
End October 2014	Hearings panel will report back to governing body (final bylaw adopted)
18 December 2014	Bylaw commences

Summary of proposed alcohol control bylaw content

20. This section of the report summarises the key proposals contained in the proposed bylaw.

21. The purpose of the bylaw is to control the consumption or possession of alcohol in public places to reduce alcohol related harm. This aligns to the section 147 (Power to make bylaws for alcohol control purposes) of the Local Government Act 2002.

22. The bylaw proposes that local boards be delegated decisions on making, reviewing amending or revoking alcohol bans in local areas. This supports previous feedback obtained by local boards requesting this delegation from the governing body.

23. Alcohol bans of regional significance will remain the responsibility of the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee. This is consistent with the Auckland Council Long Term Plan where issues of a regional significance are the responsibility of a council committee.

24. It is proposed within the bylaw that prior to making a new alcohol ban, the council be satisfied that the alcohol ban gives effect to the purpose of the bylaw and comply with criteria and decision making requirements Subpart 1 of Part 6 of the Local Governments Act 2002; and section 147B of Local Government Act 2002. This includes that:

· There is evidence that the area to which the bylaw applies (or will apply by virtue of the resolution) has experienced a high level of crime or disorder that can be shown to have been caused of made worse by alcohol consumption.

· The alcohol ban is appropriate and proportionate in light of the evidence and can be justified as a reasonable limitation on people’s rights and freedoms.

25. Four different times are proposed in the bylaw for consideration of new alcohol ban areas:

· 24 hours, 7 days a week (at all times ban)

· 7pm – 7am daily (evening ban)

· 10pm – 7am daylight saving and 7pm – 7am outside daylight saving (night time ban)

· 7pm on the day before to 7am on the day after any weekend, public holiday or Christmas/New Year holiday period (weekend or holiday alcohol ban).

These times are a guide to improve consistency across Auckland. This recognises that in some instances the use of the times specified may be disproportionate to the evidence of the problem and therefore contrary to the statutory requirement that requires alcohol bans to be proportionate in light of the evidence. These times are generally consistent with a number of legacy council bylaws.

26. Enforcement of alcohol bans is the responsibility of the New Zealand Police. The penalty for breaching an alcohol ban is a $250 infringement under the Local Government (Alcohol Ban Breaches) Regulations 2013.

Review of local alcohol bans

27. To ensure local board decision making on the existing alcohol bans is consistent with the new bylaw, local boards will be required to review all bans once the bylaw is adopted. It is a statutory requirement these all be reviewed by 31 October 2015 otherwise the bans will lapse.

28. Staff will support the local board review. The proposed alcohol ban review process is outlined in the table below:

Table 2. Proposed local board review process

Date	Milestone
September 2014	Local boards establish local alcohol ban review panels to review existing local alcohol bans
End October 2014	Final Alcohol Control Bylaw adopted by governing body
November 2014 – end February 2015	Staff to present information on local alcohol bans to each local alcohol ban review panel and assist the panels in making recommendations on existing local alcohol bans
March 2015	Recommendations of the local alcohol review panels presented to local boards
April/May 2015	Public consultation on alcohol controls (if required by local boards)
June 2015	Alcohol bans adopted by local boards
October 2015	Legacy alcohol bans lapse.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

29. The review of the legacy bylaws was discussed with local boards in the context of the significant other changes arising from new alcohol-related legislation. In relation to alcohol bans, local boards sought clear decision-making criteria, some form of regional consistency in times while providing for local variation where necessary, provision for temporary changes, and local board delegations.

Māori impact statement

30. Throughout the initial engagement phases of the review project, staff worked with the Community Policy and Planning team, Te Waka Angamua, policy advisors at the Independent Maori Statutory Board (IMSB) and Hapai Te Hauora Tapui to deliver a program for engaging with Māori on alcohol issues.

31. As part of this, staff ran a workshop with rangatahi (youth), organised a rangatahi engagement session as part of the Atamira event and held a hui with mana whenua and mataa waka to discuss both the Local Alcohol Policy Project and the Alcohol Control Bylaw Project.

32. There is broad support from the police iwi liaison officers, mana whenua and mataa waka in relation to protecting children and young people from the harms associated with alcohol consumption in public places.

Implementation

33. If adopted as proposed local boards will be required to review all current alcohol bans after the bylaw is adopted by 31 October 2015. This ensures that decisions on alcohol bans meet the proposed new requirement in the bylaw and the enabling legislation.

34. The Policies and Bylaws Unit will assist local boards with this process. Polices and Bylaws staff have been collating evidence from legacy council files, the Police and community safety audits and are working closing with Integrated Bylaw Review Implementation team to ensure practicality and ease in the implementation of the Auckland-wide bylaw. As part of this process, the appointment of local board alcohol ban review panels is sought.

Attachments