Agenda of Whau Local Board - 17 September 2014

Whau Local Board

17 September 2014

Auckland Transport Update Report – Whau Local Board

File No.: CP2014/20297

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’s activities in the Board area.

Recommendation

That the Whau Local Board:

a) Receives the Auckland Transport update report.

Comments

RESPONSES AND PROGRESS REPORTS

ENCROACHMENTS ON LAND OWNED BY AUCKLAND TRANSPORT - THE WHAU BRIDGE ON GREAT NORTH ROAD

1. A request for Auckland Transport to investigate the encroachments.

Response

2. Some Auckland Transport and Auckland Council land near the bridge is currently used by private businesses and property owners. Auckland Transport is unable to locate any records to see whether the private properties have got licenses to occupy Auckland Transport land near the bridge. However, AT will send a letter to the property owners requesting them not to use Auckland Transport land for parking. A letter was sent and a follow up inspection will be conducted to ensure the area is cleared of encroachment.

3. This further investigation does require more time, and as such there will be an update regarding this matter by early October 2014.

REQUEST FOR SPEED CALMING MEASURES ON RIMU STREET

4. A request for Auckland Transport to look at installing speed calming on Rimu Street.

Update

5. Auckland Transport needs more time to complete its investigation as currently there are rehab works occurring on Rimu Street and this means that it would be difficult to get accurate results on the tube count that is required. The rehab construction works is taking longer than expected to complete, after which time AT will be able to carry out the required tube counts. An update will be available by the end of September 2014.

VICTOR STREET SPEED TABLE

6. Auckland Transport has received a request from the Avondale Police to look at the Speed Table on Victor Street, as it is causing major confusion to pedestrians and motorists alike, and there has now been a traffic accident resulting from that confusion.

Update

7. Auckland Transport is undertaking pedestrian surveys to identify whether it meets a warrant to upgrade the facility to a zebra crossing. It will update the Board on the outcome of this survey. This will take approximately 2-3 weeks. Also, Auckland Transport is investigating the option of installing signs to inform pedestrians that they need to give way to traffic, as vehicles have right of way in the current arrangement.

ST GEORGE STREET AND ROSEBANK ROUNDABOUT SAFETY ISSUES

8. A request has been received from the Local Board to look at the safety issues at the St George and Rosebank Road Roundabout.

Update

9. An Auckland Transport Engineer has visited the site and undertaken an initial review of the issue raised. Further detailed investigation now needs to be undertaken to ensure a comprehensive review of this issue. This investigation has been prioritised and programmed for review, with an expected completion date of mid October 2014 following which you will be to provided you with the outcome and recommendations of the assessment.

PARKING RESTRICTIONS OUTSIDE 125 AND 127 BLOCKHOUSE BAY ROAD REQUEST

10. A request has been recieved from the Local Board to investigage at the parking restrictions outside 125 and 127 Blockhouse Bay Road.

Update

11. Auckland Transport is looking at revisiting the current time restrictions, changing it from the current P60 to a P15 restriction. However, this will need to go through the consultation process with effected. This will be reported back to the Local Board the outcome of consultation once completed.

35 KELWYN RD, KELSTON SPEED HUMP REMOVAL

12. Auckland Transport has been requested to relook at the speed hump outside 35 Kelwyn Road.

Response

13. Auckland Transport has carried out observations on site and has also been doing some trial at a bus depot. The issue associated with 60 Kelwyn Road is that the cars tend to travel close to the side island instead of aligning themselves at the centre of the lane where the speed cushion is. By not aligning the car along the centre of the lane, it has resulted in vehicles being “tilted” as they drive through the speed cushion. This causes the noise and vibration that the resident was experiencing.

14. Auckland Transport will be replacing the cushion with a low profile speed hump which will be installed across the full width of the lane to avoid issues with vehicles being “tilted” as they drive over this calming device. Auckland Transport has completed testing at the bus depot to confirm it is an acceptable solution.

PROPOSED P5 PICK UP AND DROP OFF ZONE ALONG 131 GODLEY ROAD, GREEN BAY

15. Auckland Transport (AT) has been working with the Green Bay Primary School and the Local Community Constable to look at some appropriate time restrictions outside this school.

16. After consulting with various parties, it was decided that a new P5 time restriction, applicable during school hours of 8.15am to 9am and 2.30pm to 3.30pm, should be installed outside this location.

17. The proposed P5 restriction allows parents and visitors to use this area for quick pick up and drop off purposes during peak school hours. Auckland Transport is proposing to have these changes in place by the New Year (2015).

Local Board Response

18. The Transport Portfolio Leads support the proposal.

ROSEBANK ROAD REFUGE CONSULTATION

19. Many local residents as well as the Rosebank Association raised concerns at the lack of pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of the Patiki Road/Rosebank Road roundabout on Rosebank Road. There are also concerns as to the unsafe behaviour of vehicles travelling northbound on Rosebank Road towards the roundabout where vehicles drive over the Rosebank Road flush median in order to bypass northbound vehicle queues.

20. There have been 6 reported crashes in the past 5 years (2009-2013) out of which there have been 2 minor injury crashes at Rosebank Road/Patiki Road roundabout due to failing to give way at the intersection. There have been two crashes (1 injury, 1 non-injury) involving right turn movements from properties no. 624 and no.610 Rosebank Road/Patiiki Roads and vehicles travelling on the flush median illegaly to overtake queues.

21. Auckland Transport is proposing to install a 1.8 m wide raised refuge island within the flush median near no. 661 Rosebank Road to prevent motorists from using the flush for overtaking as well as providing a pedestrian crossing facility outside the local shops as shown in the attached consultation plan.

22. Please note that some footpath upgrade works will be required to be able to install a pram crossing at an appropriate grade and to ensure adequate drainage is maintained.

Local Board Response

23. The Transport Portfolio Leads support the proposal.

ASH STREET MID-BLOCK SIGNAL

24. Auckland Transport has received multiple requests by the community regarding a pedestrian facility on Ash Street in the vicinity of the racecourse due to high pedestrian demand generated from neighbouring schools, racecourse and the Avondale Sunday markets.

25. Ash Street is a Regional Arterial Road, with four lanes of traffic and a flush median. There are no crossing facilities on a long stretch of Ash Street and the closest formal pedestrian crossing is 500 m away from the main entrance of the racecourse at the intersection of Rosebank Road.

26. A weekday count was conducted which meets a warrant for a zebra crossing facility. Sunday count during the Avondale markets meets a warrant of signalised crossing. Pedestrians were observed struggling to cross this busy stretch of road and had to wait for long periods of time before finding a gap in the high volume of traffic.

27. As installing a zebra crossing on a 4 lane road with high traffic volumes is not an ideal option, and installing a refuge in the available flush will not provide significant benefits as the existing flush acts as a refuge for pedestrians either way. Hence installing a mid-block signal as shown in the attached plan is proposed. The pedestrian signal would only be called when there is a demand. Capacity of the proposed facility has been checked using SIDRA and the results indicate that traffic volumes can be accommodated without creating significant delays.

Local Board Response

28. The Transport Portfolio Leads support the proposal.

PROPOSED BUS STOP – 22 BINSTED ROAD, NEW LYNN

29. Auckland Transport is proposing to realign the existing kerb line and install a bus stop outside 22 Binsted Road, New Lynn. The bus stop will include bus stop signs, road markings to indicate the location of the bus stop and new no stopping lines in front of the bus stop. The proposed bus stop will be 15m long x 2.5m wide. The kerb re-alignment is to allow the bus to stop close to the kerb. The driveway for 22 Binsted Road is to be reconstructed.

Why Are AT Installing A New Bus Stop?

30. Over the next few years Auckland Transport is moving to a simpler and more integrated public transport network for Auckland. The new Greenbay / Titirangi network was rolled out in August 2014 and this includes changes to existing, and the installation of new, bus stop infrastructure.

31. This bus stop is aimed to service the New Zealand Post Collection Centre located on Binsted Road at the corner of Rata Street. The proposed bus stop will also fill a large gap between existing bus stops, and to ensure the distance between bus stops along this route does not exceed Auckland Transport’s preferred distance of 400m. This will improve the coverage of public transport in the area. This specific location has been selected for the bus stop for the following reasons:

32. It is away from the corner outside 10 Binsted Road where motorists visibility is compromised by the road alignment and the traffic queue;

33. There is sufficient footpath space for the bus to stop between the driveways and for the back door to open on to a fully kerbed footpath. This is desirable because it reduces the height of the gap between the bus platform and the footpath. When the back door opens at the driveway, the height of the gap between the step and the ground increases which may cause trips and falls, especially for the elderly.

What Other Issues Have Auckland Transport Considered When Selecting This Location?

Parking

34. The proposal will not result in loss of parking spaces as there is currently no stopping yellow lines along this section of Binsted Road.

Visibility From Driveways

35. A bus stop at this location should not severely impact on the visibility from driveways. This is because buses will only stop for about 10 to 20 seconds at a time, and only when there are passengers boarding and/or disembarking the bus.

Visibility From Intersection

36. The proposed bus stop is close to the intersection of Binsted Road and Riverbank Road. However, the bus stop has been positioned to ensure that when there is a bus parked at the bus stop, vehicles will be able to clearly see approaching traffic. Riverbank Road is also a cul de sac, and the traffic volumes are low. Further, buses will only stop for a short duration when there are passengers boarding or alighting at the bus stop. Therefore, the proposed bus stop will have minimal impact on the vehicles turning in and out of Riverbank Road.

When Will The Proposed Changes Be Implemented?

37. These changes are planned to be implemented in late 2014.

Local Board Response

38. The Transport Portfolio Leads support the proposal.

PROPOSED BUS STOPS AND SHELTERS – 75 AND 76 STOTTHOLM ROAD, GREEN BAY

39. Auckland Transport has recently completed a review of bus routes in the Titirangi and Green Bay area to simplify existing routes and introduce new routes. The new routes became operational on 3 August 2014. As a result of the bus route changes a number of gaps in the network were identified which required either new bus stops or upgrades to existing bus stops.

40. Auckland Transport consulted in early July 2014 on two new bus stops outside 68 and 83 Stottholm Road. The new stops were to include bus shelters, bus stop road markings and ‘no stopping’ broken yellow lines at the end of each bus stop. A number of submissions were received on this proposal which have been reviewed by Auckland Transport.

41. It was identified in the consultation feedback that a private child care facility operates out of a property that was directly affected by the proposed bus stop outside 68 Stottholm Road. On-street parking is required close to this facility as parents drop off small children throughout the day. Auckland Transport considered that it was necessary to provide on-street parking in this location so as not to compromise the safety of the children being dropped off at the child care facility. It was therefore decided to propose a new layout for the bus stops in this area.

42. Auckland Transport is now consulting on the proposed new bus stops and shelters in the vicinity of 75 and 76 Stottholm Road and are seeking feedback from directly affected property owners and occupiers on the proposal.

What Are The Proposed Changes?

43. Auckland Transport is proposing to install new bus stops and shelters outside 75 Stottholm Road and 76 Stottholm Road. The new bus stops will include bus stop signs, road markings to indicate the location of the bus stop, and new ‘no stopping’ yellow lines at both ends of the bus stop

Why Are Auckland Transport Installing New Bus Stops And Shelters?

44. 75 and 76 Stottholm Road have been chosen for the specific locations of the bus stops because:

· The bus stops are necessary to cater for passengers on the middle and southern sections of Stottholm Road and Dolbear Street as there are currently no bus stops for the altered route which has begun operating.

· This location provides good spacing between other bus stops on the route.

45. As discussed above an alternative location from 68 Stottholm Road was sought due to the feedback received during the previous consultation. Relocating the bus stop on the eastern side of the road has had a knock on effect on the bus stop on the western side of the road. The bus stops cannot be positioned directly opposite each other due to the narrow width of Stottholm Road. A new location was therefore also required for a bus stop on the western side of the road.

What Other Issues Have Auckland Transport Considered When Selecting This Location?

Parking

46. Auckland Transport acknowledges that this proposal will result in a loss of eight on-street parking spaces. This is a common occurrence when a new bus stop is established. As the Road Controlling Authority, Auckland Transport controls the road reserve which is the entire corridor between property boundaries (e.g. footpaths, berms, and road). When determining how to utilise this space, Auckland Transport gives priority to safety, pedestrian facilities, bus stops, bus lanes, loading zones, traffic flow and cycle lanes over other uses. On-street parking is only permitted when there is not an activity of greater priority that requires use of the space. As such the establishment of the bus stop takes priority over the use of this space for parking.

47. Further to this, there is widespread on-street parking available in the surrounding area, which can be utilised by vehicles affected by the parking removal.

Visibility from driveways

48. Currently, on-street parking limits the visibility from the driveways either side of the proposed bus stop. Replacing the on-street parking with a bus stop should, most of the time, improve visibility from these driveways because, generally, buses will only occupy the stop for about 20 to 30 seconds at a time.

49. The positions of the proposed shelters have been carefully determined to ensure that visibility for drivers entering and exiting the driveway is not obscured.

Vehicle Access

50. The spacing between driveways on both sides of Stottholm Road is not sufficient to fully accommodate a bus stop therefore the proposed stops will overlap the driveways to 76 and 77 Stottholm Road. A bus at the stop may temporarily block driveways for 20 to 30 seconds but this is not uncommon throughout the region where the distances between driveways are not sufficient for a bus stop. Further, this will only occur if there is a passenger to pick up or drop off at the stop.

When Will The Proposed Changes Be Implemented?

51. These changes are planned to be implemented in late 2014

Local Board Response

52. The Transport Portfolio Leads support the proposal.

PROPOSED BUS STOPS AND SHELTERS – 49 AND 50 CONNAUGHT STREET, GREEN BAY

53. Auckland Transport consulted in May 2014 on two new bus stops outside 49 and 56 Connaught Street. The new stops were to include bus shelters, bus stop road markings and ‘no stopping’ broken yellow lines at the end of each bus stop. A number of submissions were received on this proposal from residents which have been reviewed by Auckland Transport.

54. Based on the feedback received it has been decided that a new layout is required for the proposed bus stops. A new position of the bus stop on the southern side of the road is required which is more suitable for the placement of a bus shelter. The location of a tree and a power pole within the berm in the vicinity of 56 Connaught Street means that this location is not ideal for a shelter.

55. The proposed bus stop outside 49 Connaught Street is unchanged.

56. Auckland Transport is now consulting on the proposed new bus stops and shelters in the vicinity of 49 and 50 Connaught Street.

Local Board Response

57. The Transport Portfolio Leads support the proposal.

PATIKI ROAD – TRAFFIC CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS

58. Auckland Transport (AT) and New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) have investigated journey time delays that have been experienced along the north-western motorway during the evening peak as a result of the string of capital works projects currently underway to construct the Western Ring Route.

59. Patiki Road has been identified as a critical constraint, at times there can be up to 3km of queues tailing back from the motorway, and the motorway merge area also experiences flow breakdown and queuing in the northbound direction. As this location contributes to mainline delays, some form of interim term management regime is sought which can balance the journey times for all users of the north-western motorway corridor.

60. The proposed upgrade to Patiki Road involves line marking changes only as shown in the attached plans. The existing carriageway width between the properties of No. 31 to 98 Patiki Road will be redistributed so that there will be a single wide northbound lane, an on average 2.5 metre wide flush median and a narrower southbound lane. The intention of the wide northbound lane is that traffic would use it in single file during off-peak conditions, but would queue in two lines during the evening peak congestion. The 2.5 metre flush median will allow for vehicles to safely access into and out of properties along Patiki Road as well as provide additional width to manoeuvre around left turning vehicles in both directions. As a result of the lane redistribution, it is also necessary to provide additional No Stopping At All Times (NSAAT) parking restrictions on both sides of Patiki Road. This will prevent parked vehicles obstructing traffic movements along this stretch of Patiki Road.

Local Board Response

61. The Transport Portfolio Leads support the proposal.

PROPOSED BUS STOPS OUTSIDE 77 AVONDALE ROAD AND OUTSIDE 9 AVONDALE ROAD, AVONDALE

62. Auckland Transport is consulting on the proposed bus stop outside No. 77 Avondale Road, Avondale.

What are the proposed changes?

63. Auckland Transport is proposing to install a new bus stop outside No. 77 Avondale Road. The proposed bus stop will include bus stop signs, road markings to indicate the location of the bus stop, new no stopping lines at the back of the bus stop and removing one street tree. The existing footpath will be raised to provide pedestrian access to the bus stop, and the existing driveways to No. 75, No. 77 No. 79, No. 79A, No. 81, No. 81A Avondale Road are proposed to be reconstructed to tie in with the proposed footpath.

Why are we installing a new bus stop?

64. Auckland Transport is re-routing the 104 bus route along Avondale Road. To service the new bus route a bus stop needs to be installed at No. 77 Avondale Road. This letter outlines the proposed changes to your local bus stop as a result of the bus re-route. This roll out includes changes to existing, and the installation of new, bus stop infrastructure.

65. The proposed bus stop outside No. 77 Avondale Road will ensure the distance between bus stops along this route does not exceed Auckland Transport’s preferred distance of 250m. This ensures the public transport network is conveniently accessible for residents in the area. This specific location has been selected for the bus stop because:

66. There is sufficient footpath space for the bus to stop and for the back door of the bus to open onto the fully kerbed footpath. This is desirable because it reduces the height of the gap between the bus step and the footpath. When the back door opens onto a driveway, the height of the gap between the bus step and the ground increases which may cause trips and falls, especially for the elderly;

Local Board Response

67. The Transport Portfolio Leads support the proposal.

47 TITIRANGI ROAD BUS STOP - CHANGE OF LOCATION

68. Due to the Local Board advocating for the local dairy owner about the installation of the above bus stop outside the dairy and the difficulty that has occurred for the shop owner’s business Auckland Transport is looking at changing the location of the bus stop outside 47 Titirangi Road. Auckland Transport has presented the amended site to the dairy owner for information. Auckland Transport is know required to undertake consultation with the affected parities before AT can progress with the change of location. AT will report back to the Local Board after the outcome of the consultation with the next steps.

LOCAL BOARD’s ISSUES FOR INVESTIGATION BY AUCKLAND TRANSPORT
Subject Name	Location	Description	Auckland Transport Response
3107-3119 Great North Road Footpath Repair	Great North Road, between Thai Gardenia and Cycle Shop, north end of shopping area	Short-term repair of footpath surface and holes. Currently in bad state of repair. Water blast and re-sand bricks	Recommend to the Local Board that it be changed the concrete not paving. Board needs to consider.
10 St Leonards Shop Footpath Replacement	10 St Leonards Road: shops opposite Kelston Boys High School	Repair of hotch/potch paving along footpath in front of shops;	Part of the 14/15 Footpath Renewal programme which will be presented to the Local Board in October 2014.
Remove Kelston Shops Planter Boxes	10 St Leonard Road: shops opposite Kelston Boys High School	Remove Planters installed by SLIPS team	AC Parks have removed the Planter boxes as requested.
Rua Road Footpath Replacement	5 Tomo Street Outside Humbug Café	Tidy up footpath	Being considered as part of the 15/16 Footpath Renewal programme.
Blockhouse Bay TC Paving Matchups	Blockhouse Bay Village and Blockhouse Bay Road	Match up the paving outside shops	Auckland Transport will look at this. Local Board to provide physical location.
Blockhouse Bay TC Footpath Replacement	Blockhouse Bay village, Blockhouse Bay Road	Red asphalt outside Baroness Barber shop on corner in need of replacement.	Being considered as part of the 15/16 Footpath Renewal programme.
2004-2016 Great North Road Tree Base	Between 2004 & 2016A Great North Road, Avondale Town Centre	There is a tree landscaped into the sidewalk/footpath. The concrete at the base of the tree is lifting and may prove hazardous to passers-by. Request that pathway around this tree be fixed.	Trees are going to create ongoing issues. Parks to review trees prior to repairs being made.
3094 Great North Road To 12 Titirangi Road Footpath Renewal	Footpath renewal between Cambridge Clothing and the new Bunnings Warehouse	This footpath renewal needs to be programmed for when the Bunnings development has been completed.	This request will be considered as part of the 15/16 Footpath Renewal programme
Avondale Pedestrian Crossing Rehabilitation	Avondale Primary School Improvements	In Pre Scheme assessment	Part of the 14/15 Footpath Renewal programme which will be presented to the Local Board in October 2014..
New Lynn Traffic Light Review And Re-phrasing	SH20 to Clark St	Local Board has suggested that 7 sets of lights not required, needs review and re-phasing.	This has been forwarded to Auckland Transport JTOC specialist for consideration
Mitre 10 Entry Realignment	Great North Road	Safety issue	Being investigated by Auckland Transport Road Corridor Operations Team.
Rosebank Road Pavement Rehabilitation	Rosebank Road from the corner BHB Road down to Great North Road		Work is now in progress by Auckland Transport
1661-2180 Great North Road Footpaths	Whau Bridge to Heron Park	Footpath Renewal request	Part of the 14/15 Footpath Renewal programme which will be presented to the Local Board in October 2014.
Slippery Pavers	Avondale Town Centre	on exposed Slopes	Auckland Transport is investigating this request.

ISSUES PENDING
Subject Name	Description	Date Requested	Due Date
Roading Corridor Weed Control In The Whau Ward	The Local Board has requested information on weed control in the road corridor. Auckland Transport will arrange a workshop with the Local Board to discuss weed control in the Whau Ward.	19 February 2014	October 2014
Antisocial use of Cars in Lansford Crescent	Auckland Transport is processing a Bylaw “Car Curfew” which will assist the police to undertake enforcement in the commercial areas to mitigate the antisocial use of cars.	25 November 2013	October 2014
Avondale Town Centre Parking Assessment	A request from the Local Board that they be part of the assessment process in regards to the Avondale Parking Plan.	4 February 2014	October 2014
Proposed Waterview To New Lynn Shared (Cycle and Pedestrian) Path	Auckland Transport program for the New Lynn to Waterview Shared Path Activity Dates Background and options developed for the scheme · May 2014 Ranking of option · June 2014 Local Board Engagement and introduction · July 2014 Comprehensive investigation of archaeological heritage, arboriculture, ecological, contamination NES, pavement/civil geometric, bridges and flooding assessment of effects, lighting, visual amenity and urban design · August 2014 Draft SAR · August 2014 Consultation · September 2014 Outcome of consultation · October 2014 Final SAR · November 2014 Deed of grant from Kiwirail agreed in principle subject to detailed design of the bridge at Whau River and Trent Street · November 2014	April 2014	September workshop to be arranged
Blockhouse Bay Town Centre Parking Management	Auckland Transport in conjunction with Auckland Council will be undertaking a workshop with the Local Board on this request in the near future. Auckland Council is reviewing town centres parking management currently.	March 2014	August 2014
Roading Network Totara Avenue Road Completion	The Local Board would like an update on this project.		August 2014
Delta Avenue and Stock Street, New Lynn	Private Use of land. Keep as a Public Assess request from the Local Board. Auckland Transport Property and AC Parks are working through this.	March 2014	August 2014

ISSUES COMPLETED
Subject Name	Decision Description	Date Requested	Completion date
Kelston Cluster Footpath Issues	The Local Board has requested investigation be undertaken on several footpath issues in the Kelston area	July 2014	September 2014
No Stopping At All Times (Broken Yellow Lines) –	The Transport Portfolio Leads support the proposal	July 2014	August 2014
Parking Issues In Drury Street New Lynn	Auckland Transport along with the police will moniter this issue.	June 2014	August 2014
Pedestrian Crossing request at the top of Heaphy Street near the roundabout.	A zebra crossing facility on Heaphy Street has been proposed and added to the ‘Minor Improvements Programme’ in the 2014-2015 financial year.	June 2014	August 2014
Ash Street – Clearway Extension Request	In considering pedestrian safety, Ash Street is a busy road and the number of pedestrians walking along, and crossing the road is quite high. With the on-street parking limiting traffic to a single lane, this improves safety for pedestrians in two ways: vehicles speeds are reduced, and it is safer and easier to cross a single lane road.	June 2014	August 2014
Proposed Bus Stops Outside 77 Avondale Road And Outside 9 Avondale Road, Avondale	The Transport Portfolio Leads support the proposal	June 2014	August 2014
Proposed Bus Stop Relocation – No. 78a/80 Bollard Avenue, New Windsor	The Transport Portfolio Leads support the proposal	June 2014	August 2014
Proposed Bus Stop Upgrade – No. 40/42 Bollard Avenue, New Windsor	The Transport Portfolio Leads support the proposal	June 2014	August 2014
Methuen/Bollard Intersection NSAATRestrictions	The Transport Portfolio Leads support the proposal	June 2014	August 2014
Proposed Bus Stop Kerb Build-Out And Bus Shelter – 35 Ulster Road, Blockhouse Bay	The Transport Portfolio Leads support the proposal	June 2014	August 2014
Proposed Bus Stops – 44a And 55a Portage Road, New Lynn	The Transport Portfolio Leads support the proposal	June 2014	August 2014
Proposed Removal Of Existing Bus Stop – 32 – 30 Hutchinson Avenue	The Transport Portfolio Leads support the proposal	June 2014	August 2014

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Proposed Plans	27

Signatories

Author

Owena Schuster - Elected Member Relationship Manager - West, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon - Elected Member Relationship Team Manager, Auckland Transport

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Whau Local Board

17 September 2014

Manukau Harbour Stormwater Network Discharge Consent – Stormwater Priorities Consultation

File No.: CP2014/18696

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 Whau Local Board:

a) Provides feedback to the stormwater unit by the 30 September 2014.

b) Indicates 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	67
b View	Manukau Harbour CRE - Feedback Form	71
c View	Manukau Harbour CRE - Frequently Asked Questions	75
d View	Manukau Harbour CRE - Information Brochure	97

Signatories

Author

Theresa Pearce - Relationship Advisor

Authorisers

John Dragicevich - Manager Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Whau Local Board

17 September 2014

Draft Community Grants Policy

File No.: CP2014/21116

Purpose

1. To seek local board feedback on the draft Community Grants Policy (Attachment A) and provide an overview of public feedback on the policy for members’ consideration. The report also briefly outlines the key components of the draft policy, proposes a transitional approach to establishing a multi-board grants programme, and discusses the budgetary implications of the policy.

Executive summary

2. On 3 July 2014 the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee (the Committee) endorsed a new draft Community Grants Policy (CGP) for local board engagement and public consultation.

3. The draft CGP has been developed to guide the allocation of local, multi-board and regional grants to groups and organisations delivering projects, activities and services that benefit Aucklanders. It covers grants for community development, arts and culture, events, sport and recreation, environment and heritage.

4. The draft CGP proposes a new community grants programme aligned to Auckland Council’s governance structure, with:

a) a local component (21 local grants programmes and a ‘multi-board’ grants programme, governed by local boards and aligned with local board plans), and

b) a regional component (six regional grants programmes aligned to strategic directions in the Auckland Plan, with governing body decision-making).

5. Community grants are a critical tool to implement Auckland’s vision as set out in the Auckland Plan, local board plans and the council’s core regional strategies, policies and plans. The draft CGP provides a regional framework for grant-making by Auckland Council, while ensuring flexibility for local boards to shape their own grants programme to respond to the specific needs and priorities of their communities. To reflect this, and give effect to local boards’ decision-making role in relation to local grants, staff propose that each local board be supported to develop an individual schedule to the CGP that sets out the specific outcomes, priorities and structure of their local grants programme.

6. The draft CGP proposes that local boards be supported to form a range of new, outcome-driven multi-board clusters. However to achieve a smooth transition from the interim funding arrangements to the new grants programme, staff propose that the existing joint funding committees and subcommittees form the basis of four multi-board clusters for the 2015-2016 financial year. Although this would mean that the current ‘membership’ of these clusters would continue for the first year, this is the only aspect that would remain the same.

7. Once adopted, the CGP will replace an interim community funding programme that has operated since amalgamation, consisting of more than 50 local and legacy ‘city-wide’ grants schemes and a small number of regional grants schemes. The community grants budgets inherited from the legacy councils are currently over-subscribed, especially at the regional level. To fully implement the CGP and deliver on the transformational shifts, staff propose additional investment of $2 million p.a. be considered through the Long-term Plan process 2015-2025. This will increase the amount of funding for regional grants to a more viable level, without reducing the existing funding envelope for local and multi-board grants.

Staff attended local board workshops to discuss the draft policy during July and August 2014, to support the provision of formal local board feedback on the CGP during September and October. Public feedback on the CGP was invited between 14 July and 11 August, and a summary of this input is provided as Attachments B and C.

Recommendations

That the Whau Local Board:

a) Endorses the Community Grants Policy as a regional framework for the Auckland Council community grants programme, noting that the local board will be supported to develop an individual schedule to the policy that sets out the specific outcomes, priorities and structure of their local grants programme.

b) Provides feedback on any policy provisions of specific interest or concern to the local board, for consideration during the review and finalisation of the Community Grants Policy.

c) Indicates whether they support the proposal to participate in an interim ‘multi-board cluster’ with Albert-Eden Local Board, Orakei Local Board, Puketapapa Local Board, and Waitemata Local Board to consider jointly supporting projects and activities of mutual benefit, noting that if this is agreed:

i) staff will work with participating local boards to agree funding priorities and terms of reference for the cluster;

ii) participating local boards will continue to hold their funds separately within the cluster, and can choose whether or not to allocate funds towards individual grant applications on a case-by-case basis;

iii) additional multi-board clusters can still be explored, and will be supported wherever feasible;

iv) the cluster is a transitional arrangement and would exist for the duration of the 2015-2016 financial year only, unless otherwise agreed by the participating local boards.

Comments

Background

8. A discussion paper outlining the key elements, issues and options for a new Community Grants Policy (CGP) was work-shopped with local boards during March and April 2014. Workshops were also held to test draft approaches with the governing body and key stakeholders in May. A summary of the feedback received is provided as Attachment D.

9. Feedback on the discussion paper informed the preparation of a draft CGP, which was reported to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee (the Committee) on 3 July 2014. The Committee endorsed the draft CGP for local board engagement and public consultation.

10. Staff attended local board workshops to discuss the draft policy during July and August 2014, to support the provision of formal local board feedback on the CGP during September and October.

Summary of draft Community Grants Policy approach

11. The draft Community Grants Policy proposes a framework for a new Auckland Council community grants programme with two main components: a local grants programme (incorporating multi-board grants) and a regional grants programme.

Local grants programme

12. Local grants are a key tool local boards can use to implement the vision set out in their local board plans, and provide a direct, tangible way of supporting local community aspirations and responding to local needs and opportunities.

13. At the local level the CGP is not intended to be prescriptive, but rather to provide a framework and guidelines that will assist local boards to deliver best practice in grant-making. This approach responds directly to feedback received from local boards during consultation on the draft Community Funding Policy in May 2012.

14. The draft CGP proposes that each local board is supported to operate their own local grants programme under the broader umbrella of the CGP, and can award grants to groups and organisations, projects, services, events and activities that benefit residents in their local board area. Boards will be supported to develop specific funding priorities for their grants programme, drawing on the priorities set out in their local board plans.

15. Two grant schemes are proposed to operate through the local grants programme:

a) Fast Response Local Grants (up to $1,000)

Applicants for Fast Response Local Grants will complete simplified application and accountability processes. Funding rounds are proposed to be held more regularly, and timeframes for decision-making and payment will be kept as short as possible to ensure responsiveness to the community.

b) Local Grants (over $1,000)

Local Grants are for larger amounts and are proposed to be distributed only once or twice per year, to enable the local board to consider how best to allocate their limited grants budget to deliver the local outcomes they are seeking. Applicants for Local Grants will complete application and accountability processes proportionate to the size of the grant they are seeking. Grants can be ‘one-off’ awards, or a commitment to fund over multiple years (up to a full political term).

Local board grants programme schedule

16. A regional briefing for local board chairs and portfolio holders was held on 30 June 2014 to provide an overview of the proposed policy and discuss next steps ahead of reporting to the Committee.

17. At the briefing, questions were raised about the policy’s recognition of local boards’ decision-making allocation in this area. Although the policy does provide sufficient flexibility for local boards to exercise this decision-making, it was felt this authority needed to be made more explicit. Following further discussion, it was agreed that this could be achieved by working with local boards to shape the structure and intent of their individual local grants programmes. Once the local board has agreed and adopted their programme, this can become a schedule to the policy. This approach was endorsed by local board chairs at the Chairs Forum on 28 July.

18. Each individual local board grants programme schedule could include:

a) Outcomes sought through the local grants programme (driven by local board plans) Any specific local funding priorities

b) The types of funding opportunities available through the local grants programme

c) Any specific eligibility criteria or exclusions that are additional to the baseline provisions of the CGP

d) Any other factors the local board consider to be significant to their decision-making.

19. Staff will work with local boards between February and April 2015 to develop and adopt their local grants programme schedules, and an implementation plan will be prepared for each local board to sit alongside the schedule (outlining key operational aspects such as the number and timing of funding rounds).

20. Local boards will be able to review and update their schedules over time as strategic priorities and budgets change.

Proposed multi-board grants programme

21. The draft CGP proposes that local boards be supported to form a range of new, outcome-driven multi-board clusters. These clusters will invite applications from, and award grants to organisations, services, projects, events and activities that benefit residents across their combined areas. Local boards could participate in more than one cluster.

22. Multi-board clusters may be:

a) Groups of local boards with contiguous boundaries, for example southern local boards wanting to support events in the Southern Initiative area

b) Local boards that share a common characteristic or interest, for example high populations of older people, or bordering the Hauraki Gulf

c) Local boards that want to address a common issue, for example by supporting employment programmes targeting marginalised young people.

23. Staff will engage with local boards to scope and establish appropriate clusters, which may be in response to a need or opportunity identified by their communities, or to deliver strategic outcomes they have mutually identified in their local board plans. Once local boards have instigated (or agreed to participate in) a multi-board cluster, council staff will work with the participating boards to understand the outcomes sought, and design a grants programme to deliver these.

24. Applicants seeking support from a multi-board cluster will make one combined application to all participating local boards in the cluster, will receive a single decision notification and grant award, and will submit one accountability report when their funded activities have been completed.

Implementation of the multi-board grants programme

25. To achieve a smooth transition from the interim funding arrangements to the new grants programme, staff propose that the existing joint funding committees and subcommittees form the basis of four multi-board clusters for the 2015-2016 financial year.

26. Although this would mean that the current ‘membership’ of these clusters would continue for the first year, this is the only aspect that would remain the same. Participating local boards would agree new funding priorities and terms of reference with the other local boards in that cluster, have discretion over the amount of their local funding to set aside for considering multi-board applications, and support applications on a case-by-case basis.

27. This phased approach would enable a multi-board grants programme to launch in 2015 alongside the new local grants programmes with minimum additional preparation, given that the joint funding committees and subcommittees have some existing structure in place that could be used as a guide (e.g. delegated local board representatives, approximate schedule of funding rounds, and an existing pool of applicants). Staff could work with these existing multi-board clusters to develop appropriate funding priorities for the transitional year. This approach would be a good test for the model and enable refinements to the process to be agreed with local boards, while minimising any initial impact on community organisations.

28. The current geographical clusters of local boards (i.e. the joint funding committees aligned to the former city and district council areas in the Auckland region) are:

a) Northern cluster: Devonport-Takapuna, Kaipatiki, Upper Harbour (Northern Metro Subcommittee) Hibiscus and Bays, Rodney (Former RDC Subcommittee)

b) Southern cluster: Franklin, Howick, Mangere-Otahuhu, Manurewa, Otara-Papatoetoe, Papakura (note that suitable arrangements would need to be developed with the southern local boards, as they have not been operating as a cluster)

c) Western cluster: Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

d) Central cluster: Albert-Eden, Great Barrier (optional), Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Orakei, Puketapapa, Waiheke, Waitemata

29. In addition, if boards wish to establish and resource other clusters, this could also be supported where feasible.

30. If this approach is agreed, the transitional arrangements would be reviewed prior to the financial year commencing 1 July 2016. At this time, the clusters could either continue, or additional and/or alternative clusters could be established.

Regional grants programme

31. It is proposed that the governing body of Auckland Council, through its various committees, will award grants to regionally significant organisations, services, events and activities that benefit residents across Auckland. At the regional level the CGP proposes six activity-focused grants programmes aligned to strategic directions outlined in the Auckland Plan.

32. The proposed regional grants programmes are:

a) Regional Arts and Culture Grants Programme

b) Regional Community Development Grants Programme

c) Regional Environment and Natural Heritage Grants Programme

d) Regional Events Grants Programme

e) Regional Historic Heritage Grants Programme

f) Regional Sport and Recreation Grants Programme

33. Each of the proposed regional grants programmes is conceived and will be promoted as a key mechanism to implement the relevant regional strategy, policy or plan (e.g. the Regional Arts and Culture grants programme will support the Arts and Culture Strategic Action Plan). These regional strategies enable – or will enable – the council to determine where it will target its resources in the medium to long term.

34. The draft CGP proposes that most of the regional grants programmes provide for two distinct grant types: single-year project grants, for standalone initiatives, and multi-year strategic relationship grants. Project grants of varying size will be awarded through a contestable process at least once per year, while the strategic relationship grants will enable the council to enter multi-year funding relationships with a small number of organisations operating at the regional level. The majority of organisations receiving strategic relationship grants will have an existing relationship with Auckland Council and be able to demonstrate a clear track record of achievement at this level.

35. To be considered eligible for regional grants, applicants must be able to show that their service, project or activity:

a) Primarily addresses regionally determined priorities, and it would therefore be unreasonable to expect local boards to meet the cost, and is:

b) Regional in terms of scale and/or significance, and/or is

c) Regional in terms of impact and/or reach.

36. The regional grants programmes are described in schedules to the Draft Community Grants Policy, as it is anticipated these schedules may be reviewed and updated over time as strategic priorities change.

Feedback from public consultation

37. Public consultation on the CGP was undertaken from 14 July – 17 August 2014 and included:

a) provision of accessible and easy-read versions of the policy summary document

b) distribution of information packs and fliers at all Auckland Council service centres, community centres, local board offices and libraries

c) provision of information via ‘Shape Auckland’ and a dedicated webpage on the Auckland Council website

d) advertisement in ‘Our Auckland’

e) advertisement through community and ethnic newspapers

f) promotion via Council’s social media channels (e.g. Facebook)

g) provision of a dedicated community assistance email account to allow people to make enquiries and submit feedback

h) distribution of online survey to the following audiences:

· those who provided feedback during previous consultations

· all community grant applicants since amalgamation

· community networks via Council’s advisory teams (CDAC, PSR, IE)

· other stakeholder networks as appropriate

i) provision of hard copy consultation material and submission forms by request

j) five public workshops (Rodney, north, central, west and south)

k) local board public workshops as requested (Orakei and Maungakiekie-Tamaki)

l) two Mataawaka hui (west and south)

m) presentations at southern and northern mana whenua hui and a regional environmental sector hui.

38. At the regional local board briefing on 30 June, some members expressed interest in seeing feedback from their communities prior to providing their own feedback on the policy. To enable this staff agreed to extend formal reporting to local boards so that a summary of public input could be provided. This is now attached for the local board’s consideration (Attachments B and C).

Financial implications of the CGP

39. The CGP will be a critical tool to implement Auckland’s vision as set out in the Auckland Plan, local board plans and core regional strategies, policies and plans, and it is important that there is sufficient funding to effectively resource the new programme for this purpose.

40. The legacy grants budgets inherited at amalgamation (or created subsequently) total c. $8.3 million p.a., or around $6 per head of population, with the majority supporting groups and activities that are either local or multi-board (via the legacy ‘city-wide’ funds). These funds are already oversubscribed – on average the value of requests is three times the available budget, and in some cases considerably more.

41. Of the total community grants budget, c. $2.4 million is currently targeting regional groups and activities. Current baseline funding for each of the regional grants programmes is as follows:

a) Regional Arts and Culture grants programme (c. $650,000)

b) Regional Community Development grants programme (No regional budget: all current grant schemes for this activity are administered by local boards, with some regional groups receiving interim allocations via the Annual Plan)

c) Regional Environment and Natural Heritage grants programme (up to $545,000)

d) Regional Events grants programme ($400,000)

e) Regional Historic Heritage grants programme (up to $345,000)

f) Regional Sport and Recreation grants programme (c. $500,000)

42. The existing grants programmes at this level are not able to meet current demand, and in some cases include funding tagged to specific recipients, or funding for regional outcomes that is being provided through local grants schemes. While contestability will be introduced for all funding schemes, there is little ‘headroom’ to support new applicants or address emerging priorities. For example, there is an expectation that a number of major events dropped from ATEED’s portfolio will now need to be funded through the Regional Events Fund from 2015/16, at an additional cost of $170,000 against the existing budget of $400,000.

43. Many regional organisations have been waiting for implementation of the new CGP to access regional funding, and in some cases their need has become so urgent that the governing body has allocated emergency funding through the annual plan as an interim measure.

44. Additional investment in the regional grants programme of $2 million p.a. is proposed as an option for governing body consideration through the LTP process 2015-2025. Staff consider a minimum of between $600,000 and $800,000 is required for each regional grants programme if the CGP is to support meaningful progress against the council’s stated priorities in these activity areas and deliver on the transformational shifts. The level of investment requested will support an average fund size of $750,000 (the exact distribution of budget between the six programmes would be proposed alongside the final policy).

Consideration

Local board views and implications

45. The design of the new grants programme proposed in the CGP has been strongly influenced by local board feedback received during consultation on the first draft Community Funding Policy in May 2012, and during more recent engagement.

46. A discussion paper on the new CGP was prepared in February 2014 and discussed in specially convened local board cluster workshops in March 2014, which were attended by representatives of all local boards. The paper outlined the basic elements of the proposed grants programme and sought feedback on specific policy issues. A summary of the feedback received during the cluster workshops and how this has been reflected in the draft CGP is provided as Attachment D.

47. A regional briefing for local board chairs and portfolio holders was held on 30 June to provide a further overview of the proposed policy and to discuss next steps. At the briefing, questions were raised about the policy’s recognition of local boards’ decision-making allocation in this area. Staff met with local board chairs on 28 July and agreed a process to address this concern (see ‘Local board grants programme schedule’ paras 16-20).

48. Staff attended workshops with local boards during July and August 2014 to discuss the draft policy and support the provision of formal local board feedback requested via this report.

Māori impact statement

49. Community grants have the potential to make a significant impact on Māori through supporting the outcomes in the Māori Plan. Under the proposed principles for the CGP, all grants programmes should respond to Auckland Council’s commitment to improving Māori wellbeing, as outlined in the Auckland Plan, local board plans and regional strategies, policies and plans, by providing grants to organisations delivering Māori outcomes locally and regionally.

50. There is already some dedicated funding for Māori outcomes at the regional level, currently focused on papakainga and marae development across Auckland. Te Waka Angamua will be working with mana whenua and mataawaka to explore how best to target this and/or other funding allocated for Māori outcomes in future, e.g. determining eligibility criteria and the most appropriate forums for priority-setting and decision-making.

51. During workshops in March/April 2014, staff discussed options with local boards for creating dedicated Māori funding schemes at the local level, or embedding Māori outcomes as a ‘standing priority’ across all proposed grants programmes at the local and regional level. Local boards expressed interest in dedicated Māori funding schemes at the local level if regional funding was made available to them for this purpose, but otherwise felt it was more appropriate for any targeted spending to be at each local board’s discretion, driven by local board plan priorities. The CGP’s intent to align grant-making to strategic priorities should ensure funding is allocated to groups and projects delivering Māori outcomes.

52. The current interim funding programme includes one grants scheme dedicated to Māori outcomes (the Marae Development Fund in the former Manukau City area), and this particular scheme, along with all others operating through the interim programme, will cease to operate once a new CGP is adopted. Regional marae development funding may provide some capacity to meet this need going forward, and Te Waka Angamua will release details of the application and decision-making process for that funding for the next financial year.

53. However local boards also have full discretion to provide grants for any purpose that benefits their local communities, and this is likely to include supporting marae especially where grants have been provided for this purpose in the past. The draft CGP provides flexibility for decision-makers to award grants to community groups that are not formally constituted charitable organisations, where appropriate, and staff understand this should increase access to funding for some Māori organisations, such as marae, who may not previously have been eligible.

Implementation

Budget alignment

54. Existing funding arrangements and grants schemes were rolled over for the 2014/2015 financial year. If adopted, implementation of the CGP will begin from 1 July 2015 to align with the new LTP 2015-2025 and implementation of the Local Board Funding Policy (LBFP). This will enable the finalised budget structures to be implemented alongside the policy.

55. Existing grants budgets categorised as ‘local’ will form part of the overall locally driven initiatives (LDI) budget allocated to local boards through the LBFP formula. Local boards will then set aside a budget to support their local grants programme from their LDI funding envelope through the Local Board Agreement process.

56. Staff will propose an overall budget structure for the new grants programme when the final policy is tabled with the committee in November 2014, outlining the treatment of any inherited (and new) community grants budgets and funding arrangements that will support the CGP going forward. This should enable staff to take into account the outcome of LTP deliberations in the second half of 2014 and present budget structure options accordingly.

Operationalisation of the CGP

57. The draft CGP has been developed with substantial input from the relevant operational departments to ensure that it is able to be delivered.

58. The proposed implementation timeframe should provide operational teams with adequate time to design supporting systems and business processes, and to produce public-facing collateral that outlines the structure and requirements of the new grants programmes in detail. This will include:

a) Working with all decision-makers to schedule an annual calendar of funding rounds for each level of the programme

b) Working with local boards to assist them in developing their local board grants programme schedules

c) Producing new promotional materials for the council website, marketing and promotion through media channels and to support public information sessions

d) Designing new online application forms and guidelines for prospective applicants

e) Ensuring support will be available for prospective applicants requiring assistance or capacity building to access the grants programmes, working with specialist colleagues where appropriate

f) Developing business processes and templates to enable consistent assessment and reporting to elected members, and to support their decision-making

g) Updating funding agreements, accountability forms and other legal documentation to ensure they are fit-for-purpose, and developing processes to deal with any grant recipients in breach of their agreements

h) Ensuring payments processes and associated financial controls are robust, efficient and fit-for-purpose.

59. If the CGP is adopted on schedule towards the end of 2014, grant applicants / recipients will also have more than six months to prepare for the changeover to the new policy and manage any implications. Staff will work with previously funded organisations to support them to access the new grants programmes during subsequent years, and provide advice to elected members if there is a need to consider transitional arrangements in individual cases.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Draft Community Grants Policy	133
b View	Summary of feedback from public consultation	181
c View	Summary of public feedback from the Whau Local Board area	187
d View	Key feedback provided during political engagement	191

Signatories

Author

Rebekah Lauren - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Whau Local Board

17 September 2014

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

File No.: CP2014/19104

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 Whau 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) Appoints 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) Appoints one member as a chairperson of the local alcohol ban review panel

d) Delegates 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

No.	Title	Page
a View	Statement of Proposal - Review of Alcohol Control Bylaws	209
b View	Proposed Alcohol Control Bylaw	225

Signatories

Author

Kylie Hill - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Helgard Wagener - Team leader, Policies and Bylaws

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Whau Local Board

17 September 2014

Whau Local Board Workshop Records

Date of Workshop: Wednesday, 27 August 2014

Time: 9.30am – 2.05pm

Venue: Whau Local Board Office, 31 Totara Avenue,

New Lynn

Present: Catherine Farmer

Ami Chand

Ruby Manukia-Schaumkel (from 10.08am, item 1)

Simon Matafai (from 1.50pm, item 5)

Apologies: Derek Battersby (for absence)

Duncan Macdonald (for absence)

Simon Matafai (for lateness)

Susan Zhu (for absence)

Item	Topic	Presenter(s)	Time
1.0	LB Admin/portfolio catch up.	Board Members	9.30am – 10.30am
Board members provided portfolio updates.
2.0	Destination Bike Skills Park	Sarah Natac	10.30am – 11.00am
Notes Concept of destination bike skills parks was discussed. Actions Board requested officers to investigate further options through parks portfolio. A report to come to the Whau local board meeting (probably in November) with possible locations, ideas and estimate costs.
3.0	Avondale Community Meeting (16 September 2014)	Steve Wilcox	11.15am – 12.05pm
Notes Possible content of the meeting were discussed: • Mayoral Proposal - Update • Local board plan – progress + summary input - Update • Community facilities plan – update • Avondale pools update – Avondale Intermediate - Update • Greenways prioritisation - Update • Whau arts festival - Update • Avondale community centre – update document Avondale design process - Dialogue
3.0	Te Waka Angamua roadshow To provide further information to the local board via a roadshow. The roadshow will cover the Maori story for individual Local Boards, who Te Waka Angamua is, and how they can support elected members and Local Board staff to implement the Maori Responsiveness Framework. There has been a change in how Te Waka Angamua work and who is involved with Local Boards and Mana Whenua relationships. They would also like to hear directly from Local Board members about what the issues are they are currently dealing with. Te Waka Angamua will update the PowerPoint presentation delivered to the Rodney and Takapuna Local Boards last year with new maps and organisational responsibilities.	Johnnie Freeland	11.00am – 11.45am
Officers were not present to cover this session.
	LUNCH		12.05am – 12.30pm
4.0	Environment Strategic Action Plan (ESAP)	Dot Dalziell Duncan Munro	12.30pm – 1.25pm
Notes The board identifies the following areas as delivering green growth and/or environmental action for Whau local board area: • Whau river focus • Local connections • Stewardship • Town centre – New Lynn The following were noted as “flagship projects” for the Environment or Green Growth that the board want to promote through ESAP • Whau river restoration • Warm low energy and water use homes • Greenways links / public transport / boardwalk • New Lynn- shift from industrial to post industrial • Rosebank 2030 Actions Draft ESAP to come to future local board meeting.
5.0	Watercare	Brent Evans	1.25pm – 1.55pm
Notes Brent provided update, including local and North Western growth projects to the board members. Actions Brent to liaise with portfolio holder (Ami Chand) to organise a site visit to Mangere plant.
6.0	Avondale College To provide an update to the board on Avondale College contract for 14-15.	Gabrielle Gofton	1.55pm – 2.05pm
Notes Gabrielle provided an update to the board on Avondale College’s contract for 14-15 (including the KPIs).

Relationship Manager: Glenn Boyd

No.	Title	Page
a View	Record of Workshop 6 August 2014	239
b View	Record of Workshop 13 August 2014	241
c View	Record of Workshop 20 August 2014	243
d View	Record of Workshop 27 August 2014	245

Item	Topic	Presenter(s)	Time
1.0 A	General discussion at beginning of meeting. Whau Coastal Walkway Project is seeking a representative from the Whau Local Board to sit on the Steering Committee which will be set up in the initial stages of project. Derek Battersby has been supported by the board to fulfil this role.
1.0	Long-term plan workshop	Mark Allen/Glenn Boyd	9.30am – 11.30am
Notes The following points were agreed on as Whau LB feedback to the Mayor’s proposal. a) Acknowledging the cost the board agree with moderate rates increase. b) Would support equity and consistency to service levels for all of the Auckland and would not support cuts to the current service levels. c) Would support the review the difference between business and residential rates. d) Development Contributions – especially in light of current legislation change. e) Would oppose local board capex cuts. f) UAGC – support holding it at current level. g) Notes that centralised procurement does not provide opportunities for savings. h) Spatial prioritisation – i) Welcome the opportunity to have ongoing discussion with the Governing Body on how to meet the challenges of delivering on the Auckland Plan within affordable parameters. Actions Mark Allen to draft a letter as feedback from Whau local board on Mayor’s draft proposal.
2.0	Transport (AC land) bylaw review	Colin Craig Michael Dance	11.30am – 11.50am
Notes The board agreed with the scope and setting of the by-law. It was noted that cost for signs for parking should be paid by the revenue gatherer.
3.0	Construction bylaw review	Colin Craig Michael Dance	11.50am – 12.20pm
Notes The board agreed with the scope and setting of the by-law.

Item	Topic	Presenter(s)	Time
1.0	LB Admin/portfolio catch up	Board Members	9.35am – 10.30am
Board members Chand and Farmer provided portfolio updates.
2.0	Community Facilities Network Plan	David Shamy Jan Brown Linda Greenalgh	10.30am – 11.15am
Notes The board provided feedback on the draft Community facilities network plan. Actions A report to come to future board meeting this year for formal feedback.
3.0	Quarterly Performance Report To receive Local Board feedback on the Quarterly performance report	David Rose	11.15am – 1.15pm
Notes The board provided the following feedback on quarterly performance report: · Cumulative data to be put on Community Facility graphs so that board can compare graphs. · It would be helpful if more departments start reporting in same format as parks. · David to check if discretionary community grant to Ngaue Fakalakalaka Kakai Fefine (Tongan Womens Dev Programme) has been uplifted. (Page 40) · In future a column needs to be added to show if grant money has been uplifted. · David to check line 3 on page 64 where is the site of this slippage? – UPDATE Not in Whau) Actions It was noted that board may need to advocate for GB to continue funding the lease of the portacoms for Avondale CAB for 2015/16 and 2016/17 as well.
4.0	Heritage Incentives Policy	Raewyn Sendles Helen Sharpe	1.15pm – 1.45pm
Notes The board was provided with update on Heritage Incentives policy.
5.0	Economic Development Agencies of NZ annual international forum - July 2014	Derek Battersby	1.45pm – 2.00pm
Notes Members Battersby provided a verbal update on the Economic Development Agencies of NZ annual international forum that he attended in July.
6.0	Capex review	David Rose Andreas Lilley Helen Biffin Peter Loud Richard McWha Bruce Gardner	2.00pm – 3.00pm
Notes The board provided views on the possible project deferrals list for the Governing Body capex review.

Chairperson	Catherine Farmer
Deputy Chairperson	Susan Zhu
Members	Derek Battersby, QSM, JP
	Ami Chand
	Duncan Macdonald, JP
	Ruby Manukia-Schaumkel
	Simon Matafai

Author	Riya Seth - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau