Agenda of Upper Harbour Local Board

	Portfolio Activity	Responsibilities	Board Lead/s and Alternate
1	Governance	· Board Leadership · Board-to-Council Relationships · Board-to-Board Relationships · Civic Duties · Advocacy (local, regional, and central government) · Relationships with Maoridom · Relationships with government departments and agencies · Relationship with Property CCO · Relationship with Auckland Waterfront Development · Advocacy with Governing Body (Local Board Plan; Local Board Agreements) · Unitary Plan · Local area plan	Brian Neeson Lisa Whyte
2	Regulatory & Bylaws / Civil Defence Emergency Management .	· Resource consents · Heritage · Liquor · Gambling · Swimming pools fencing · Trees · Bylaws · Relationships with the Civil Defence Emergency Management Group · Community preparedness, disaster response, relief, and recovery	Callum Blair John McLean Christine Rankin-MacIntyre Margaret Miles (Resource Consents only)
3	Events / Arts and Culture	· Community celebration · Community identity · Neighbourhood gatherings and renewal · Event compliance · Relationship with ATEED · Relationship with Regional Facilities CCOs · Tourism · Artistic and cultural service levels · Promoting all aspects of artistic endeavour · Development of public art strategy and policy	Margaret Miles
4	Community and social well-being / Local Facilities	· Community development · Neighbourhood relationships · Funding for neighbourhood projects · Community safety (excl. town centres) · Graffiti removal · Community advocacy · Relationships with Youth · Leisure centres · Community houses · Halls · Community hubs · Arts facilities · Community Partnerships · Asset Management	Callum Blair Margaret Miles

	Portfolio Activity	Responsibilities	Board Lead/s and Alternate
5	Libraries	· Stewardship of libraries · Mobile library	Christine Rankin-MacIntyre Lisa Whyte
6	Sports parks and recreation (active) / Parks, Reserves and playgrounds (passive)	· Stewardship of sports parks · Stewardship of recreation facilities · Relationship with sports clubs · Neighbourhood parks and reserves (incl. esplanade reserves and the coastline) · Design and maintenance · Plantings, playgrounds, bollards, and walkways · Skateparks · Track Network development	Margaret Miles Lisa Whyte
7	Town Centres	· Town centre renewal · Design and maintenance · Community safety within town centres · Business Improvement Districts liaison · Urban design · Built Heritage	Margaret Miles Brian Neeson
8	Transport / Regional Transport and CBD development	· Local transport projects and public transport (incl. roading, footpaths, cycleways) · Liaison on regional Transport matters · 2^nd harbour crossing · Bridge walk cycleway · Inner City Rail Link · Waterfront development · CBD master plan	John McLean Margaret Miles
9	Natural Environment .	· Restoration of wetlands, streams, and waterways · Local priorities in relation to regional environmental management · Costal management including mangrove encroachment and erosion mitigation · Relationships with Watercare · Waste minimisation strategy · Bio security	John McLean Callum Blair Lisa Whyte (waste minimisation only)
10	Economic Development / Financial oversight	· Key relationship with Business Development Manager in Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development team · Establish and promote local opportunities for increased tourism and economic development · Budgets · Project expenditure · Monitor GB strategy and Finance · Service Levels · Local funding policy	Lisa Whyte Margaret Miles

Upper Harbour Local Board

23 September 2014

Road Name Approval for Subdivision at the Hobsonville Corridor

File No.: CP2014/20621

Purpose

1. This report seeks the approval of the Upper Harbour Local Board for the road names for the proposed public roads that will service the subdivisions (which include both approved and proposed developments) currently being developed by Neil Construction Limited and Brigham Creek Business Park Limited.

Executive summary

2. Neil Construction Limited and Brigham Creek Business Park Limited are undertaking subdivision development to the land identified as the Hobsonville Corridor, generally consisting of 96, 98, 100,102, 106-108 and 110 Hobsonville Road. The developers have proposed the following names for new roads that are to be constructed in the Hobsonville Corridor:

· Westpoint Drive (main spine road through the industrial precinct)

· Laurenson Road (east west local road in the industrial precinct)

· Dowdens Lane (east west local road next to Hobsonville Primary School)

· Workspace Drive (north-south local link road in the industrial precinct)

· Rawiri Place (cul de sac road connecting the main spine road to a stormwater pond; near Rawiri stream)

· Taimaro Road (east west link opposite Marina View Drive)

3. Please refer to the attached map (Attachment A) for the road’s locations within the Hobsonville Corridor.

4. The names are not outside the procedures and guidelines currently being developed for the naming of streets in an Auckland Council region wide context.

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

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receive the Road Name Approval for Subdivision at the Hobsonville Corridor report.

b) support the proposed road names for the proposed subdivision development at the Hobsonville Corridor.

Comments

6. Neil Construction Limited and Brigham Creek Business Park Limited have undertaken extensive pre-application consultation with council, and have been applying for various resource consents for the above mentioned land parcels (generally identified as the Hobsonville Corridor) to carry out industrial subdivision developments in general accordance with the provisions of Plan Change 14 to the Auckland Council District Plan: Waitakere Section. Regional and district consents approved thus far include bulk earthworks consent to establish contours to enable the future industrial development of the land, streamworks consent to modify a stream through 106-108 Hobsonville Road, and integrated subdivision consent for a 23-allotment industrial subdivision at 102 Hobsonville Road. The consents history of the land can be sought from Western Resource Consenting and Compliance planning officers if required.

7. As part of the subdivision developments, the developer’s eventual intention is to construct and vest roads on this land in accordance with approved resource consents and, on land that has yet to be granted consent, the indicative future road alignment as shown on the Hobsonville Village Centre Special Area Urban Concept Plan. The nominated names are discussed below:

Westpoint Drive

8. Westpoint Drive is proposed for the main spine road through the industrial precinct. It is chosen for its pleasant sound and easily recognisable name for the proposed commercial road.

Laurenson Road

9. Laurenson Road is proposed for the east-west local road through the industrial precinct between Westpoint Drive and Hobsonville Road. The name is a reference to the family name of the land’s historic owners.

Dowdens Lane

10. Dowdens Lane is proposed for the east-west local road immediately to the south of Hobsonville Primary School between Westpoint Drive and Hobsonville Road. The name is a reference to Dowden’s Pottery Works (also known as Point Pottery), a clay-pottery which operated on the land in the 1870s and 1880s.

Workspace Drive

11. Workspace Drive is proposed for the north-south local link road in the industrial precinct that runs parallel to Hobsonville Road. The name is a reference to the subdivision development brand of the Neil Construction Limited development (102 Hobsonville Road), and is also reflective of the intended purpose of the land once the development is completed.

Rawiri Place

12. Rawiri Place is proposed for the cul de sac road connecting the main spine road (Westpoint Drive) to a stormwater pond. The name is a reference to the adjacent Rawiri Stream.

Taimaro Road

13. Taimaro Road is proposed for the east-west link between Westpoint Drive and Hobsonville Road, and immediately opposite Marina View Drive. The name is a reference to Taimaro, a Kawerau ancestor with association to the Hobsonville area. This name is nominated by Te Kawarau A Maki following consultation between the iwi and developers.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

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

15. The avoidance of name duplication is a key tenet in road naming from an emergency services perspective.

16. The legacy Waitakere City Council guidelines typically required that road names either have some local historical significance, reflect the natural characteristics of the land or locality, or establish or extend a theme in a locality.

17. The names nominated are considered to be consistent with the aforesaid procedures and guidelines.

18. The naming of the proposed roads does not preclude the developer from obtaining all necessary resource consents to undertake the land development; the current application seeks only the approval of road names only.

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

20. Once the road names have been endorsed, the usual statutory process will be followed with Land Information NZ (LINZ) and other necessary parties advised as part of the subdivision compliance process.

Māori impact statement

21. It is considered that there is no significance to Maori as a result of the proposed road names and that there will be no adverse effects on Maori communities. The developers have consulted the mana whenua for the Hobsonville and wider Waitakere/West Auckland area – Te Kawerau a Maki, who have provided their endorsement of the names and are not of the view that the names would cause an adverse effect to iwi.

Implementation

22. The Western Resource Consenting and Compliance Team will ensure that relevant resource consents are obtained by the developer, and appropriately compliant road signage is installed by the consent holder in conjunction with the completion of the subdivision.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Roading Plan indicating the position of the roads and their respective names	27

Signatories

Authors

Michelle Tomkins - Unit Administrator

Authorisers

Heather Harris - Manager Resource Consents

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

23 September 2014

Scope of 2014/2015 Review of Local Dog Access Rules for the Upper Harbour Local Board area

File No.: CP2014/18174

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to decide on the scope of review of local dog access rules in the Upper Harbour Local Board area in 2015.

Executive summary

2. The Auckland Council governing body delegated the review of dog access rules on local park, local beach and local foreshore areas to local boards in 2012.

3. The primary objective for local boards in making decisions on dog access is to ensure public safety and comfort, and to ensure that the needs of dogs and their owners are met.

4. The governing body has established a standard process to assist local boards.

5. The process is intended to start in September 2014 and ends in October 2015. The Upper Harbour Local Board will need to adopt a proposal by April 2015, hold hearings and deliberations, and subsequently make decisions on submissions by August 2015.

6. The following matters were identified through the 2012 governing body review process and initial scoping work undertaken by staff:

· a review of the time and seasons and beach and foreshore rules;

· a review of the parks adjacent to beaches;

· a review the following high use parks or areas under redevelopment:

o Christmas Beach

o Bomb Point

o Hobsonvile Coastal Walkway

o Luckens Landing

o Wainoni Park South

o Rosedale Park

o Hooton Reserve

o Collins Park

o Kell Park

o Albany Lakes

· a review of Sanders Reserve to clarify and align the dog access rules with the reserve management plan;

· a review of 20m from beach time and season rule;

· a review of “picnic” and “fitness apparatus” area dog access rules;

· a review of the dog access rules in order to limit the spread of Kauri dieback disease in the following locations:

o Gills Road Reserve (Albany)

o Paremoremo Scenic Reserve

· a review of the bushwalks within the local board area.

7. The final scope of the review is a matter for the Upper Harbour Local Board to decide.

8. Depending on the scope of the review, options for pre-consultation and research may include both internal and external engagement activities.

Recommendations

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) resolve to review local dog access rules in the Upper Harbour Local Board area in 2014/15 as follows:

· a review of local beach and foreshore dog access rules with specific reference to the following matters:

i. The identification of possible under control off-leash at all times beaches;

ii. The identification of where it is appropriate to use the region wide standard summer times (10am and 5pm) and summer season (Labour weekend to 1 March);

iii. Identification of marine based significant ecological areas.

· a review the following high use parks or areas under development:

iv. Christmas Beach

v. Bomb Point

vi. Hobsonville Coastal Walkway

vii. Luckens Landing

viii. Wainoni Park South

ix. Rosedale Park

x. Hooton Reserve

xi Collins Park

xii. Kell Park

xiii. Albany Lakes

· a review of Sanders Reserve to clarify and align the dog access rules with the reserve management plan and supporting documents.

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

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

· a review of the dog access rules in order to limit the spread of Kauri dieback disease in the following locations:

i. Gills Road Reserve (Albany)

ii. Paremoremo Scenic Reserve

· a review of the bushwalks within the local board area.

Comments

Background

9. In 2012, the governing body replaced seven legacy policies and bylaws on dogs with a single Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 and Auckland Council Dog Management Bylaw 2012. As part of that process, it delegated responsibilities for dog access rules on local parks, local beaches and local foreshore areas (areas not of regional significance or Department of Conservation land) to local boards

10. The delegations also contained a specific requirement that local boards review their dog access rules on any beach and foreshore area.

11. The Upper Harbour Local Board is programmed to review local dog access rules in the 2014/15 round of reviews.

General considerations

12. The primary issues of dog access under the Dog Control Act 1996, council’s Policy on Dogs 2012 and the Dog Management Bylaw 2012 is balancing the protection of the safety and comfort of the general public, the protection of wildlife and providing for the recreational and exercise needs of dogs and their owners on a region wide basis. This means having regard to:

(a) the need to minimise danger, distress, and nuisance to the community generally; and

(b) the need to avoid the inherent danger in allowing dogs to have uncontrolled access to public places that are frequented by children, whether or not the children are accompanied by adults; and

(c) the importance of enabling, to the extent that is practicable, the public (including families) to use streets and public amenities without fear of attack or intimidation by dogs; and

(d) the exercise and recreational needs of dogs and their owners^{^[1]}.

Safety and comfort of the general public

13. While the following information is not specific to the Upper Harbour Local Board area, it provides an indicative overview of the general issues.

14. Primary research undertaken by staff for the Auckland Council Dog Management Bylaw 2012 identified that in 2010 the top three dog related complaints^{^[2]} were dogs roaming or barking and dog attacks or aggression.

15. Key points from this research of common dog related complaints received include:

· dogs that roam unaccompanied by their owners account for just over half of all dog related problems;

· dogs that persistently bark or howl account for one third of all dog related problems.;

· dogs that attack, rush or are aggressive to people or animals account for just over a tenth of all dog related problems. Dog attacks on people account for less than three per cent of complaints.

16. The research (as shown in Figure 1) identified that of the most common location of reported dog attacks on people was outside the owner’s property (36 per cent). However, it should be noted that based on ACC injury statistics, the reported incidents are estimated to only account for less than a third of actual dog attacks^{^[3]}. A possible reason for lack of reporting, particularly in public places, may be an inability to identify the details of a dog or their owner in order to make a complaint.

17. Comfort of the general public is more problematic to assess and quantify. The first matter that the board is required to consider is whether the general public can utilise a public area without ‘fear of attack or intimidation’. While it is noted that most dog owners would consider that their pets are friendly and would not wilfully harm anyone, to another user of an area to whom a dog is unknown, the presence of an unleashed dog may engender fear or intimidation particularly within a confined area such as a boardwalk or narrow bush walk where there is no area to avoid coming into contact with the dog. Secondly, there is the requirement to consider nuisance to the community; do users of the space want to be approached by unknown dogs. As part of a survey conducted for the dog access reviews of the review for the Kaipatiki and Orakei local boards, 60 per cent and 65 per cent respectively of non-dog owner respondents did not want unknown dogs approaching them.^{^[4]}

18. This would indicate that in order for the comfort of people to be maintained, dogs need to be effectively controlled in the proximity of non-dog owners, particularly around vulnerable people. Any interactions must be managed so that they are positive for owners, their dogs and non-dog owners. Dog access rules can help in managing interactions by identifying areas where dogs are allowed under control off-leash, on-leash or are prohibited.

Wildlife

19. A number of wetland and shorebirds are vulnerable to dogs as they nest, roost, breed or feed in wetland or inter-tidal areas. Feedback from Auckland Council biodiversity staff indicates that for some species, including the New Zealand dotterel, the presence of dogs can cause ground-nesting birds to leave the nest resulting in loss of clutches and broods and disrupted feeding which is particularly important for migratory birds.

20. Dog restrictions in protected wildlife areas are not only about protecting wildlife, but also reducing the risk of associated penalties on owners if such areas are disrupted by dogs.

21. Under the Dog Control Act 1996, it is an offence to allow dogs to roam or attack protected wildlife. Penalties include seizure and destruction of the dog, owner imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or a fine not exceeding $20,000, or both. Under section 63 of the Wildlife Act 1953 it is an offence to kill or disturb wildlife. Penalties for individuals include imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or a fine not exceeding $100,000, or both.

Recreational and exercise needs of owners and their dogs

22. Walking a dog is an important form of regular exercise for many dog owners, with a study in Manukau showing that for 50 per cent of owners with a dog it was their main form of exercise^{^[5]}. Supervised interaction between a dog with other dogs and people is also important for the socialisation of dogs.

23. It is generally accepted that areas to walk a dog (either on-leash or off-leash) that are easily accessible, desirable and provide diversity of experience for both the dog and owner are important.

What local dog access rules to review

To assist the local board, staff have identified the following dog access rules for possible review.

24. Category 1 - Review

This relates to the delegated duty to review all beach and foreshore dog access rules. A proposal must be adopted for public notification^{^[6]}.This review includes the following:

· the identification of possible under control off-leash at all times beaches;

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

The identification of marine based significant ecological areas is closely linked to the above rules, and is therefore recommended by staff to be considered appropriate for inclusion in the review.

25. Category 2 – Consider

This relates to public requests for changes to dog access rules on specific parks and beaches during the 2012 process. It is at the local board’s discretion to include any such requests in a proposal for public notification. The requests for changes to existing rules in the Upper Harbour Local Board area are as follows, with the number of people making the request shown in (brackets):

· Native bush areas. Want off-leash access (1).

26. Category 3 – Clarification

This category relates to making dog access rules less complicated so that the rules are easier to understand ‘on the ground’ and should be included in any review. Staff analysis identified the following issues for the Upper Harbour Local Board area:

· identify or review “picnic areas” and “fitness apparatus areas” in which dogs must be under control on a leash or prohibited;

· clarify default under control off-leash rules which currently refer to the two legacy council areas;

· review the 20 metre time and season rule for parks and reserves abutting the beaches and foreshore.

27. Category 4 – Optional

This category relates to areas that have been identified as having the potential issues with the dog access rules due to the intensity of their use, ecological matters or have known conflicts. Staff analysis identified the following issues for the Upper Harbour Local Board area:

· review the following beaches and reserves that are under redevelopment:

o Christmas Beach

o Bomb Point (additional off-leash area)

· review the following high use areas:

o Luckens Landing

o Wainoni Park South

o Rosedale Park

o Hooton Reserve

o Hobsonville Coastal Walkway

o Collins Park

o Kell Park

o Albany Lakes

o Sanders Reserve (to align dog access rules with reserve management plan)

· review the dog access rules in order to limit the spread of Kauri dieback disease in the following areas:

o Gills Road Reserve (Albany)

o Paremoremo Scenic Reserve

· bushwalks

28. The following tables provide options on each matter outlined above to assist the board in deciding what local dog access rules to review.

Table 1: Beach and foreshore dog access rules

Option

Advantages and disadvantages

Option 1: Review dog access rules of all beaches, foreshore and adjacent parks (includes a review of the significant ecological areas).

Why?

Provides a comprehensive review of the beaches and adjacent parks as these areas are used as a comprehensive manor.

Advantages

Provides for an integrated approach to the beaches, foreshore and adjacent parks in the way that they are actually used.

Disadvantages

Resource (time) required to investigate.

Option 2: Review dog access rules only on beaches and foreshore areas (includes a review of the significant ecological areas).

Advantages

Less resource required to investigate.

Disadvantages

The dog access rules for the parks adjacent to the beaches may be confusing or inappropriate if there are changes to the dog access rules for the beaches.

Table 2: High use parks and areas under redevelopment

Option

Advantages and disadvantages

Option 1: Review the following high use parks or areas under development:

· Christmas Beach

· Bomb Point

· Hobsonville Costal Walkway

· Luckens Landing

· Wainoni Park South

· Rosedale Park

· Hooton Reserve

· Collins Park

· Kell Park

· Albany Lakes

Why review?

Clarifying the dog access rules in the high use areas and areas under redevelopment to provides more certainty for residents (including dog owners) while reducing the potential for conflict.

Advantages

Provides greater certainty around the high use activities and areas under redevelopment while reducing the potential for conflict in these areas.

Disadvantages

Resource (time) required to investigate.

Option 2: Do not review

Advantages

No resource (time) required to investigate.

Disadvantages

The mix of activities and associated dog access rules can cause uncertainty and public safety and comfort issues for user of the areas.

Table 3: Sanders Reserve

Option

Advantages and disadvantages

Option 1: Review the dog access rules for Sanders Reserve to clarify and align the dog access rules with the reserve management plan and supporting documents.

Why review?

Extensive consultation has been recently been undertaken with the reserve management plan. Dog access rules made under the reserve management plan supersede the dog access rules made under the Dog Management Bylaw 2012, and having two different sets of rules can be confusing for users of the reserve.

Advantages

Make the dog access rules in the bylaw easier to understand as one does not need to also refer to the reserve management plan.

Disadvantages

Resource (time) required to investigate.

Option 2: Do not review

Advantages

No resource (time) required to investigate.

Disadvantages

Users of the reserve have to refer to two different documents to know what the dog access rules are of Sanders Reserve.

Table 4: Time and season rules applying to parts of a park within 20m of beach

Option

Advantages and disadvantages

Option 1: Review the 20m from beach rule within the areas previously under North Shore City Council.

Why review?

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

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

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

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

Advantages

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

Disadvantages

Resource (time) required to investigate.

Possible outcomes of review and costs (illustration)

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

No additional costs as current rule not signed.

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

Option 2: Do not review (retain current 20m rule within part of the local board area)

Advantages

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

Disadvantages

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

Table 5: Picnic areas and fitness apparatus

Option

Advantages and disadvantages

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

Why review?

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

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

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

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

Advantages

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

Disadvantages

Resource (time) required to investigate.

Possible outcomes of review and costs (illustration)

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

No additional costs.

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

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

Advantages

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

Disadvantages

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

Table 6: Bush tracks and Kauri die back

Option	Advantages and disadvantages
Option 1 Review dogs access within bush areas and reserves. Why review? If dogs are running off of the path in areas where there is Kauri dieback disease there is the potential to spread the disease through the movement of soil on their paws. On bush tracks people approaching from different directions have little chance avoiding an unknown dog in the confined width of the path unless the dog is on a lead.	Advantages · Provides the ability to have an integrated approach to dealing with Kauri dieback disease. · Allows for the preferences of the users of the bush areas to be assessed understanding what contributes to their safety and comfort when using the bush tracks within the Upper Harbour Local Board area. Disadvantages · Resource (time) required to investigate.
Option 2: Do not review (retain current under control off-leash rules).	Advantages No resource (time) required to investigate, and no costs for signs (if required). Disadvantages · May allow for the further spread of Kauri dieback diseases. · Possible concerns over public safety and comfort are not reviewed.

Option

Advantages and disadvantages

Option 1

Review dogs access within bush areas and reserves.

Why review?

If dogs are running off of the path in areas where there is Kauri dieback disease there is the potential to spread the disease through the movement of soil on their paws.

On bush tracks people approaching from different directions have little chance avoiding an unknown dog in the confined width of the path unless the dog is on a lead.

Advantages

· Provides the ability to have an integrated approach to dealing with Kauri dieback disease.

· Allows for the preferences of the users of the bush areas to be assessed understanding what contributes to their safety and comfort when using the bush tracks within the Upper Harbour Local Board area.

Disadvantages

· Resource (time) required to investigate.

Option 2: Do not review (retain current under control off-leash rules).

Advantages

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

Disadvantages

· May allow for the further spread of Kauri dieback diseases.

· Possible concerns over public safety and comfort are not reviewed.

Process and costs

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

30. The standard process established by the governing body supports changes to dog access rules on an annual basis being integrated with the dog registration process. This process allows for a more timely and robust discussion, as well as achieving efficiencies by aligning the review programmes across multiple local boards to allow for centralised support and activities.

31. The process timeline starts in September and ends in October of the following year. The local board will need to adopt a proposal by April 2015, hold hearings and deliberations and subsequently make decisions on submissions by August 2015.

32. Attachment B provides an outline of the process together with clarification of responsibilities and funding allocations between the governing body and the local board.

Pre-consultation and research

33. For completeness, the table below summarises the proposed activities covered through the standard process to be undertaken prior to the formal consultation for a statement of proposal using the special consultative procedure of the Local Government Act 2002. The confirmation of the standard initiatives is subject to the finalisation of the scope of the review.

Pre-consultation activities: September 2014 – March 2015

Auckland Council internal stakeholders

Workshops/meetings with representatives from:

· Parks

· Animal Management

· Biodiversity

· Biosecurity

· Community Policy and Planning

External interested parties and identified stakeholders

Workshops/meetings (via direct invitation) with representatives from:

· Ecological groups

· Specific interest groups (e.g. residents and ratepayer associations)

Survey (on-line survey), invitees to include:

· General public

· Local board identified stakeholders

· People’s panel members in affected Upper Harbour Local Board area

Consideration

Local board views and implications

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

Maori Impact Statement

35. The views of 19 iwi in relation to dog access were sought as part of two hui held on 22 and 23 October 2013. The hui covered five bylaw topics - signs, trading in public places, navigation safety and lifejackets, animal management and dog access, outdoor fires.

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

Implementation Issues

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

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Decision-making	41
b View	Standard Process	47
c View	Current dog access rules for Upper Harbour Local Board area	49

Signatories

Authors

Justin Walters - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Helgard Wagener - Team leader, Policies and Bylaws

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

23 September 2014

Attachment A: Decision-making^{^[7]}

1. Dog Control Act 1996 (s10(1), (2))

When making changes to dog access rules, council –

· Must use the special consultative procedure in the Local Government Act 2002.

· Must under the Local Government Act 2002, give notice to dog owners.

2. Dog Control Act 1996 (s10(4))

When making changes to dog access rules, council must have regard to –

(a) “the need to minimise danger, distress, and nuisance to the community generally; and

(b) the need to avoid the inherent danger in allowing dogs to have uncontrolled access to public places that are frequented by children, whether or not the children are accompanied by adults; and

(c) the importance of enabling, to the extent that is practicable, the public (including families) to use streets and public amenities without fear of attack or intimidation by dogs; and

(d) the exercise and recreational needs of dogs and their owners.”

3. Local Government Act 2002 (Subpart 1 of Part 6)

When making decisions in general, council must –

(a) Define the problem and outcome sought.

(b) Consider options and peoples (including Maori) views having regard to the significance of the matter.

(d) Prepare and invite people to have their say on a statement of Proposal.

(e) Hear and consider submissions to the statement of Proposal before making a final decision.

(f) Receive views with open mind and give them due consideration.

4. Policy on Dogs 2012 (Policy Statement 4)

When making decisions on dog access rules, council should aim to “provide dog owners with reasonable access to public places and private ways in a way that is safe to everyone in accordance with the following principles [(s10(4) DCA1996)] –

a) Recognises dog owners as legitimate users of public places [(s10(4)(d) DCA1996)];

b) Integrates (not separates) dog owners and their dogs with other users of public places [(s10(4)(d) DCA1996)];

c) Provides opportunities for dog owners to take their dog to public places that are accessible, desirable, and provide diversity in experience (sights, sounds, smells, textures, other dogs and humans) for both the dog and owner [(s10(4)(d) DCA1996)];

d) Considers access on a comprehensive region-wide basis rather than a place-by-place basis [(s10(4)(d) DCA1996)];

e) Manages the safe interaction between dogs and people using public places and private ways, in particular with children and vulnerable adults [(s10(4)(a) to (c) DCA1996)]; and

f) Manages the conflict between dogs and protected wildlife, stock and poultry, domestic animals, and property and natural habitat. [(s10(4)(a) DCA1996)]”

5. Policy on Dogs 2012 (Policy Method 3A)

When making decisions on dog access rules, council should satisfy the relevant criteria in the Policy on Dogs under Policy Method 3A(f) (standard beach summer times and season) –

3A(f) “Use the following summer time and season wherever a time and season rule is deemed appropriate to manage the safe interaction between dogs with their owners and people without dogs.

Beaches and adjoining parks

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

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

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

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

6. Policy on Dogs 2012 (Policy Method 3B to 3E)

When making decisions on dog access rules, council should satisfy the relevant criteria in the Policy on Dogs under Policy Method 3B to 3E as appropriate:

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

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

(b) Identify dog access rules in the vicinity.

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

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

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

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

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

This may include implementing design and/or management solutions.

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

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

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

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

(a) Matters contained in 3C are satisfied;

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

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

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

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

(f) Area has adequate signage; and

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

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

7. Decision-Making Considerations^{^[8]}

(a) Hearing Panels are appointed to receive, hear and deliberate on submissions and other relevant information and recommend changes to the proposed dog access rules.

(b) Hearing panel recommendations will then be considered by the local board who will decide whether or not to accept the panel recommendations. Any recommendations adopted that change a dog access rules or that request an exemption is then reported to the Governing Body. The Governing Body will update the Auckland Council Dog Management Bylaw 2012 and consider any requests for exemptions. Any changes will commence on a date recommended by the hearing panel.

(c) In conducting hearings and making decisions, the panel must comply with a range of statutory, policy and delegated authority requirements summarised in this attachment

(d) The most important statutory requirement is to ensure decisions on dog access provide for public safety and comfort and the needs of dogs and their owners. This means having regard to Section 10(4) Dog Control Act 1996 as described above.

(e) In relation to the region-wide standard summer beach time and season, it is important to note that the Governing Body desire for consistency does not override the local board responsibility to ensure public safety and comfort. Where alternative times and seasons would better achieve public safety and comfort, the local board can request an exemption from the Governing Body.

(f) The most important practical requirement is to make dog access rules easy to understand “on the ground”. Current dog access rules are a combination of general and specific dog access rules, meaning to know where you can take your dog under control off a leash, the dog owner must first find out all the places they cannot go. This approach is difficult to communicate and confusing for dog owners and general public alike.

(g) How the hearing panel decides what recommendations to make can be based on:

· The need to meet the statutory, policy and delegated authority decision-making requirements summarised in this Attachment.

· The weight the Hearing Panel puts on the matters raised by the submitters.

· Information used to develop and contained in the statement of proposal.

· Other information received by the Hearing Panel.

To assist the panel in this process, submissions are summarised into topics. Possible options in response to matters raised in submissions are provided by staff as a starting point for deliberations. The options may not reflect the views of the panel, and the panel in its deliberations may develop alternative options.

The illustration below outlines the decision-making process described:

Upper Harbour Local Board

23 September 2014

Swimming Pool Fencing Exemption – Special Exemption (Section 6) Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987

File No.: CP2014/19828

Purpose

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

Executive summary

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

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receive the applications by:

i) 297 Paremoremo Road, Paremoremo

ii) 50 Oakway Drive, Albany

iii) 14 Suncrest Drive, West Harbour

iv) 205 Luckens Road, West Harbour

b) determine each application, by way of resolution, to:

i) grant the application for special exemption as sought, or

ii) grant the application subject to conditions, or

iii) decline the application for special exemption sought

Comments

3. Each property, which is the subject of an application before the local board, has been inspected by Auckland Council pool inspectors. In each case, the swimming/spa pool fencing does not comply with the Act. The details of non-compliance in each case vary and are specified in the attachments to this report. Each applicant has chosen to seek a special exemption from the requirements of the Act.

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

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

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

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

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

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

a) Will the exemption be personal to the applicant so that on a sale of the property, a new

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

b) Will the exemption be granted for a fixed term and irrespective of changes of ownership so

that the exemption runs with the property?

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

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

Consideration

11. The recommendations contained within this report fall within the local board’s delegated authority.

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

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

14. The local board may resolve to grant, grant subject to conditions, or decline an application for special exemption.

15. If an application is declined the applicant will be required to fence their pool in accordance with the Act.

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

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

Local board views and implications

18. The local board is the decision maker in relation to exemption applications under the Act.

Māori impact statement

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

General

20. Compliance with the Act is a mandatory requirement for all pool owners unless exempt. Council’s pools inspectors have consulted with the applicants in each case. Applicants have been made aware of council’s requirements to ensure fencing is compliant with the Act. The applicants have elected to seek a special exemption for individual reasons.

Implementation

21. The decision must be made by resolution and contain conditions (if any).

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	297 Paremoremo Road, Paremoremo - Confidential
b View	50 Oakway Drive, Albany - Confidential
c View	14 Suncrest Drive, West Harbour - Confidential
d View	205 Luckens Road, West Harbour - Confidential

Signatories

Authors

Phillip Curtis - Senior Swimming Pool Specialist

Authorisers

Ian McCormick - Manager Building Control

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

23 September 2014

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

File No.: CP2014/21146

Purpose

1. To give the Upper Harbour 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 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 (SOI) as 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 are as follows:

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

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

o 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.

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

o Property acquisitions are undertaken in a commercially robust manner and in accordance with Auckland Council and AT agreed requirements and relevant legislation.

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

o 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 Upper Harbour Local Board:

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

Comments

Workshops and Meetings

6. A schedule of Upper Harbour 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 ongoing 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, which is 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 million ahead of budget, with an actual surplus of $25.4 million against budget of $23.5 million. During the quarter, the average monthly collectable arrears rate and vacancies rate were respectively 2.1% and 2.4%, which is 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 Upper Harbour Local Board area;

§ Each property’s classification or reason for retention; and

§ The nature of the property, such as a café within a library, or a residential property with a tenancy in place, as well as 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 Upper Harbour 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, as well as any disposals.

Portfolio Review and Rationalisation

Overview

12. ACPL is required to undertake ongoing rationalisation of 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 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	$12.3 million disposal recommendations	$14.8 million	These recommendations include $5.6 million of sites that are identified for development projects.

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

15. 2014/2015 Targets

UNIT	TARGET	COMMENTS
Portfolio Review	$30 million 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 million 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, the relevant local board and mana whenua. This is followed by ACPL Board approval, engagement with the relevant local board and the Independent Maori Statutory Board (IMSB) and finally a governing body decision.

Under review

17. Properties currently under review for future use opportunities via the rationalisation process in the Upper Harbour Local Board area are listed 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

8, 10, 12, 13, 13A, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 Clearwater Cove-West Harbour and 11A Breakwater, Clearwater Cove-West Harbour : Westpark Marina

Ground lease owned by council with use of the land owned by lessee. The various titles are currently being progressed through the rationalisation process to evaluate future use options for council’s interests in the land only.

A workshop was held with the Upper Harbour Local Board on 9 September to seek their views.

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 $100 million. ACPL works closely with local boards on ACPL-led developments to ensure effect is given 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. ACPL has an SOI target to undertake five housing development projects with an affordable housing component over three years that would encompass Community Housing Organisation involvement. We are currently actively working on 13 such projects.

Local Activities

20. Hobsonville Point – Marine Industry Precinct / Yard 37: At the Auckland Development Committee (ADC) meeting in June 2014, it was resolved that the marine industry be given 12 months to activate Yard 37 as marine precinct. This was premised around Alloy Yachts’ indication that they wished to purchase a site within Yard 37.

21. At the ADC meeting, the Upper Harbour Local Board requested review of the Sovereign building regarding its suitability for potential indoor recreational facilities. Council’s Parks, Sports and Recreation department plans to conduct an evaluation that will inform further planning for the site should it not progress as a marine precinct. We understand this evaluation will only be progressed once the involvement of the Sovereign building in the marine precinct is resolved.

22. Launch Road is progressing well and is due for completion later this year.

23. Movie Industry Precinct : ACPL has been approached by the Auckland Investment Office to potentially investigate creating a movie industry precinct on the site. Investigation in this area is ongoing.

24. Hobsonville Point – The Airfields Residential: The proposed 10ha residential solution master-plan has been completed and is currently on hold until the outcome for Yard 37 or the movie industry precinct is resolved.

25. Westpark Marina: The new marina operator has expressed a desire to discuss the potential to freehold the property through acquiring council’s lessor’s interest. The new operator also wants to explore the potential to develop a residential master plan for the site. The various titles are currently being progressed through the rationalisation process to evaluate future use options for council’s interests in the land only. A workshop was held with the Upper Harbour Local Board on 9 September to seek their views.

26. Property Optimisation: 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. ACPL welcomes the opportunity to review any such opportunities that may be identified by the Upper Harbour Local Board.

Acquisitions

Overview

27. 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. ACPL also provides advice to assist with budgets, business cases and strategy to support an acquisition.

28. By the end of the financial year 2013/14, 207 property purchases were completed for council and AT to the value of $132.4 million. All of the property acquisitions met independent valuation thresholds agreed with AT, Auckland Council and Public Works Act 1981 requirements.

Council Acquisitions

29. 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 Upper Harbour Local Board area.

PROPERTY	STAKEHOLDER	PURPOSE	LOCAL BOARD
102 Hobsonville Road, Hobsonville	City Transformation	City Transformation	Upper Harbour
Hobsonville Point Community Buildings (HQ & Sunderland Lounge)	City Transformation	City Transformation / Community	Upper Harbour
150 Greenhithe Road, Greenhithe	Parks, Sports and Recreation	Open space	Upper Harbour
136 Birkdale Road, Birkdale	Community , Policy and Planning	Open space	Kaipatiki
20 Park Avenue, Birkenhead	Parks, Sports and Recreation	Open space	Kaipatiki
139 Beach Road, Castor Bay	Community, Policy and Planning	Open space	Devonport-Takapuna

Auckland Transport Acquisitions

30. 72 properties were 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 the 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

31. 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 Upper Harbour Local Board area.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

32. This report is for the Upper Harbour Local Board’s information.

Māori impact statement

33. 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.

34. 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 led projects where appropriate. ACPL will advise the Upper Harbour Local Board as appropriate of any discussions that arise in the local board’s area.

35. 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

36. There are no implementation issues.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Attachment A - LOCAL BOARD BRIEFING SCHEDULE	89
b View	Attachment B - Properties Managed - Aug 14	91
c View	Attachment C - Portfolio Changes Jan - Jun 2014	93

Signatories

Authors	Caitlin Borgfeldt - Local Board Liaison
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

[2] A ‘dog related complaint’ is a dog related service request that relates to a dog incident (e.g. dog attack). In addition to dog related complaints, dog related service requests include such things as requests for property inspections and lost dog notifications.

[3] Auckland Council (2011)– Dog Control - Issues and options discussion paper.gust 2011

[4] While, some caution needs to be taken when interoperating the results of these surveys as they were self-selecting, the results were mirrored in a statistical study in Adelaide in 2004 which found 43 per cent of respondents were afraid of dogs. In addition the study found that being frightened by a dog was not related to having been attacked, however being threatened by a dog was a significant indicator of whether a person was likely to be frightened by dogs.

Boyd, C., Fotheringham, B., Litchfield, C., McBryde, I., Metzer, J., Scanlon, P., . . . Winefield, A. (2004). Fear of dogs in a community sample: Effects of age, gender and prior experience of canine aggression. Anthrozoos, 17 (2).

[5] Manukau City Council ( 2007) Understanding Dog and Dog Owner Physical Exercise Habits

[6] Refer to Governing Body Agenda Item12, 22 November 2012 (GB/2012/157)

[7] Attachment B from \\aklc.govt.nz\Shared\CPO\RLP\FC\LAWS AND ENFORCEMENT LAW\BYLAW - Dog Management B010\AMENDMENT 2013 0195\Template 1 Hearings Report v4.doc

[8] Adapted from \\aklc.govt.nz\Shared\CPO\RLP\FC\LAWS AND ENFORCEMENT LAW\BYLAW - Dog Management B010\AMENDMENT 2013 0195\Template 1 Hearings Report v4.doc

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

Fund	Total available in 2014/15 ($)	Amount spent ($)	Balance remaining ($)
Local Events Contestable Fund	36,693.00	22,000.00	14,693.00
Local Discretionary Community Grants	92,674.57	0.00	92,674.57
Local Events Support Fund	36,432.25	34,430.00	2,002.25
SLIPs Funding*	62,716.60	0.00	62,716.60

Authors	Suad Allie - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

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