Agenda of Waitākere Ranges Local Board

1 Welcome

2 Apologies

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

3 Declaration of Interest

Members were reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.

Specifically members are asked to identify any new interests they have not previously disclosed, an interest that might be considered as a conflict of interest with a matter on the agenda.

At its meeting on 28 November 2013, the Waitakere Ranges Local Board resolved (resolution number WTK/2010/5) to record any possible conflicts of interest in a register.

Board Member	Organisation / Position
Sandra Coney	· Waitemata District Health Board – Elected Member · Women’s Health Action Trust – Patron
Neil Henderson	· Portage Trust – Elected Member · West Auckland Trust Services (WATS) Board – Trustee/Director · Weedfree Trust – Employee
Greg Presland	· Portage Trust – Elected Member · Lopdell House Development Trust – Trustee · Titirangi Residents & Ratepayers Group – Committee Member
Steve Tollestrup	· Waitakere Licensing Trust – Elected Member · Community Waitakere – Trustee · West Auckland Trust Services (WATS) Board – Trustee/Director
Saffron Toms	NIL
Denise Yates	· Ecomatters Environment Trust – Deputy Chair · Keep Waitakere Beautiful Trust – Board Member · Huia-Cornwallis Ratepayers & Residents Association – Co-chairperson · Charlotte Museum Trust – Trustee

Member appointments

Board members are appointed to the following bodies. In these appointments the board members represent Auckland Council.

Board Member	Organisation / Position
Sandra Coney	· Friends of Arataki Incorporated – Trustee
Neil Henderson	· Friends of Arataki Incorporated – Trustee · Living Cell Technologies Animal Ethics Committee – Member
Saffron Toms	· Ark in the Park – Governance Group Member

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) Confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 28 August 2014, as a true and correct record.

5 Leave of Absence

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

6 Acknowledgements

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

7 Update from Ward Councillors

An opportunity is provided for the Waitakere Ward Councillors to update the board on regional issues they have been involved with since the last meeting.

8 Deputations

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

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

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

9 Public Forum

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

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

10 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 Notices of Motion

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

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

11 September 2014

Psychoactive substances – draft Local Approved Product Policy

File No.: CP2014/16299

Purpose

1. The purpose of the report is to seek local board feedback on the proposed option for the draft Local Approved Product Policy (LAPP).

Executive summary

2. On 6 March 2014 the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee approved a work plan for the development of Auckland Council’s LAPP (REG/2014/34). The LAPP will set rules regarding where retail outlets of psychoactive substances may operate. The Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 provides that a policy may regulate the location of retail outlets by reference to broad areas within a district, proximity to other premises selling approved products and/or distance from certain types of premises such as schools, places of worship and other community facilities.

3. On 3 July the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee considered a report setting out the proposed content for the draft Local Approved Product Policy. The committee agreed the following recommendations (REG/2014/86).

a) endorse the proposed draft Local Approved Product Policy that will prevent the sale of approved psychoactive substances in the following areas:

· high deprivation areas as defined by the Ministry of Health’s Deprivation Index score of 8, 9 or 10 indicating areas that fall in the bottom 30% of deprivation scores

· neighbourhood centers as defined by the unitary plan

· within 300m of a high school

· within 100m of a primary school

· within 300m of the mental health or addiction treatment center

· within 500m of an existing psychoactive substance retail licence

b) forward a copy of this report to local boards to be considered on their agendas

c) note that once all the local board feedback has been analysed, a final draft Local Approved Product Policy (LAPP) will be presented to the committee on 9 October 2014 to be approved for public notification via the special consultative procedure

d) note the special consultative procedure will begin in November 2014 with the expected final adoption of the policy in March 2015.

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) Provide feedback on the draft Local Approved Product Policy option set out in attachment A of the report entitled “Psychoactive substances – draft Local Approved Product Policy”.

Comments

4. On 6 March 2014 the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee approved a work plan for the development of Auckland Council’s LAPP (REG/2014/34). On 3 July the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee endorsed a preferred option for the LAPP (REG/2014/86).

5. The LAPP will set rules regarding where retail outlets of psychoactive substances may operate. The Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 provides that a policy may regulate the location of retail outlets by reference to broad areas within a district, proximity to other premises selling approved products and/or distance from certain types of premises such as schools, places of worship and other community facilities.

6. Six options were considered for the LAPP. Three options were rejected prior to consultation as not being able to achieve the outcomes for a successful LAPP. The remaining three options were discussed with local boards, external stakeholders and council staff. After consideration of feedback and relevant research a preferred option was developed.

7. The preferred option for the LAPP would prevent licences being granted in areas of high deprivation, near high schools and near addiction and mental health treatment centres. It would also limit how close to an existing shop a new shop could open. This option would reduce the availability of these substances in areas where their presence is likely to have the greatest potential for harm. The prevention of harm is achieved while maintaining the intent of the government to allow a regulated sale of these substances.

8. Further details on the rationale for the preferred option for the LAPP are set out in the report that went to the Regional Policy and Strategy Committee on 3 July (attachment A). Local board feedback on this option is being sought through this report. Local board feedback on this preferred option will inform the final draft of the LAPP which will be reported to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee on 9 October. Local boards will an opportunity to provide feedback on the final draft in November 2014 – February 2015.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

9. Local board views on the draft LAPP option are being sought via this report. Local boards have previously provided feedback on possible options. Workshops on the proposed options were held with all of the local boards except for Great Barrier, Waiheke and Orakei local boards who declined to be involved in the process. Of the remaining 18 local boards Whau declined to attend the workshop and did not provide any feedback.

10. Of the 17 local boards who took part in the LAPP workshops 13 endorsed the specified place option as their preferred option. Four boards that for local reasons preferred either the town centre or industrial option as they felt it provided tighter restrictions in their areas. All of these local boards also provided the specified areas as their second option acknowledging that it was unlikely that all local boards would opt for their preferred option. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board declined to provide a preferred option. All local board feedback was considered in the selection and development of the option presented for feedback in the current report.

Maori impact statement

11. Māori are over represented amongst the groups of vulnerable people likely to be affected by using approved psychoactive substances. This over representation has two effects. Firstly getting the right option for the LAPP to maximize harm reduction will be more effective for Māori. Secondly, any solutions need to be designed in close collaboration with Māori to ensure they are workable and support wider initiatives aimed at improving Māori outcomes.

12. A workshop has been undertaken with representatives from Hapai Te Hauora Tapui an agency representing Māori health providers in the Auckland region. Council staff will be working with the Independent Māori Statutory Board and Hapai Te Hauora Tapui to set up hui for iwi feedback. Information from the workshop and hui will be central to the development of the LAPP.

Implementation

Step	Estimated timeframe
1. Local board and stakeholder engagement on draft option Officers will seek feedback from local boards, internal, external and political stakeholders on the approved draft LAPP option.	July – September 2014
2. Final draft LAPP for special consultative procedure Officers will then present a final draft policy to RSPC for approval for consultation.	9 October
3. Special consultative procedure Officers will follow the special consultative procedure set out in section 83 of Local Government Act 2002. This will include public submissions and hearings.	November 2014
4. Local board feedback of final draft Officers will seek formal feedback from local boards on the final draft policy.	November 2014 – February 2015
4. Adopt final policy Following the hearings the draft will be finalised and presented to RSPC for adoption.	March 2015
5. Implementation and review A copy will be sent to Ministry of Health after it has been completed. The LAPP will then be reviewed every five years in accordance with section 69 of the Act.	Ongoing

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Psychoactive Substances Draft Local Approved Products Policy	11

Signatories

Authors

Callum Thorpe - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

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

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

11 September 2014

Manukau Harbour Stormwater Network Discharge Consent – Stormwater Priorities Consultation

File No.: CP2014/18691

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 Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) Receive the report.

b) Provide feedback to the stormwater unit by the 30 September 2014.

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

Comments

The Auckland-wide Stormwater Network Discharge Consent

8. Auckland Council is required under the Resource Management Act (1991) to obtain resource consents to discharge stormwater from the region’s stormwater network into the natural environment (a stormwater network discharge consent).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How will the stormwater network discharge consents affect you?

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

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

The Consultation Process

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

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

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

18. A comprehensive background report and a summary of the consultation programme, key findings, and changes made as a result of consultation will be provided to the relevant council committees towards the end of 2014.

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

Local Board Workshop - Feedback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions for Consultation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consideration

Local board views and implications

30. A cluster workshop with local board representatives was held for 30 July 2014 to introduce the consultation process and discuss these questions in detail. Feedback received from the consultation process will be summarised and will help to inform the setting of priorities for the network consent application.

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

Maori impact statement

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

Implementation

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Manukau Harbour CRE - Stakeholder List	47
b View	Manukau Harbour CRE - Feedback Form	51
c View	Manukau Harbour CRE - Frequently Asked Questions	55
d	Manukau Harbour CRE - Information Brochure (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Authors

Theresa Pearce - Relationship Advisor

Authorisers

John Dragicevich - Manager Infrastructure and Environmental Services

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

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

11 September 2014

New community lease to Piha Community Centre Society Incorporated and approval for the Society to enter into a sublease with Piha Community Preschool Trust, 2A North Piha Road, Piha

File No.: CP2014/18873

Purpose

1. This report seeks Waitakere Ranges Local Board approval to grant a new community lease to Piha Community Centre Society Incorporated and approval for the Society to enter into a sublease with Piha Community Preschool Trust for part of Les Waygood Park, 2A North Piha Road, Piha.

Executive summary

2. Piha Community Centre Society Incorporated (the Society) has a community lease entered into with the legacy Waitakere City Council for a period of 5 years commencing 1 September 2004. The lease contains one 5-year right of renewal with final expiry on 31 August 2014. The Society owns the building known as Barnett Hall and wishes to continue leasing with Auckland Council.

3. As specified in the Auckland Council Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012, groups that own their own buildings have an automatic right to re-apply at the end of their occupancy term without public notification.

4. The portion of Barnett Hall located on council land is used by the Piha Community Preschool Trust (the Preschool) as a preschool. With the consent of Auckland Council, a deed of lease was entered into between the Society and the Preschool. This lease will expire on 30 August 2014.

5. The Society and Preschool wish to continue this arrangement and the Society is seeking approval to enter into a sublease.

6. A Community Outcomes Plan is not required to be attached to the community lease document as the Society is not actively involved in the activities being conducted on the land by the Preschool.

7. This report recommends that the Board grant a community lease to Piha Community Centre Society Incorporated with approval to enter into a sublease with Piha Community Preschool Trust for a term of 10 years commencing 1 September 2014 with one 10-year right of renewal. This is the recommended term in the Auckland Council Community Occupancy Guidelines July 2012.

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) Approves granting a new community lease to Piha Community Centre Society Incorporated for part of Les Waygood Park, 2A North Piha Road, Piha, being part of Lot 2 on Deposited Plan 173989 (Attachment A) subject to the following terms and conditions:

i) Term – 10 years commencing 1 September 2014 with one 10-year right of renewal;

ii) Rent - $1.00 plus GST per annum if requested;

iii) Auckland Council has adopted a Smoke-Free Policy to apply on Council land, which Policy Piha Community Centre Society Incorporated is obliged to abide by during the Term. Piha Community Centre Society Incorporated will use its best endeavours to ensure its members, employees, invitees, contractors and agents abide by the Policy;

b) All other terms and conditions in accordance with the Auckland Council Community Occupancy Guidelines July 2012.

c) Grants approval to Piha Community Centre Society Incorporated to enter into a sublease with Piha Community Preschool Trust for the lease area referred to in a) above on the following terms and conditions:

i) Term – not exceeding 10 years commencing 1 September 2014 with an option to renew for a further term of 10-years less one day;

ii) Rent - $1.00 plus GST per annum if requested;

iii) Auckland Council has adopted a Smoke-Free Policy to apply on Council land, which Policy Piha Community Preschool Trust is obliged to abide by during the Term. Piha Community Preschool Trust will use its best endeavours to ensure its members, employees, invitees, contractors and agents abide by the Policy.

Comments

8. Piha Community Centre Society Incorporated (the Society) has a community lease entered into with the legacy Waitakere City Council for a period of 5 years commencing 1 September 2004. The lease contains one 5-year right of renewal with final expiry on 31 August 2014. The Society owns the building known as Barnett Hall and wishes to continue leasing with Auckland Council.

9. As specified in the Auckland Council Community Occupancy Guidelines July 2012, groups that own their own buildings have an automatic right to re-apply at the end of their occupancy term without public notification.

10. The Society wishes to continue leasing with Auckland Council. Barnett Hall occupies two parcels of land. The first parcel is 2 North Piha Road, Piha being Lot 2 on Deposited Plan 61084 which is held in fee simple by the Society. The second parcel which requires a lease is part of Les Waygood Park, 2A North Piha Road, Piha being part Lot 2 on Deposited Plan 173989 which is held in fee simple by Auckland Council and not subject to the Reserves Act 1977.

11. The portion of Barnett Hall located on council land is used by the Piha Community Preschool Trust (the Preschool) as a preschool. With the consent of Auckland Council a deed of lease was entered into between the Society and the Preschool which expires on 30 August 2014.

12. The Society and Preschool wish to continue this arrangement and are seeking approval to enter into a sublease.

13. A Community Outcomes Plan is not required to be attached to the community lease document as the Society is not actively involved in the activities being conducted on the land by the Preschool.

14. The Society was registered as an Incorporated Society on 15 April 1946. The Society’s objectives are:

· To foster and encourage the practice and knowledge of all forms of arts, crafts, handwork, hobbies, pastimes and leisure activities which the Society might consider desirable and to encourage the growth of a real community spirit in the area

· To promote and hold functions and entertainments of any kind with or without charge and whether for the exclusive benefit of the members of the Society or not and to use any funds derived there from for the furtherance of any or all of the objects of the Society

· To affiliate with any Society, Body or Association having similar objects or to join or co-operate with or subscribe to the funds of any such Society, Body or Corporation for the purpose of better attaining or otherwise furthering the objects or interests of the Society.

15. The Society has a membership of 100 adults and the Preschool has 27 enrolled pre-schoolers.

16. Council staff have sought input from relevant council departments.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

17. Council staff sought input from the Local Board Portfolio Holder on 11 August 2014.

18. The recommendations within this report fall within the local board’s allocated authority relating to local, recreation, sport and community facilities.

Māori impact statement

19. There are no changes in use or operational activities being conducted on the land.

20. Ensuring community facilities are well maintained and accessible for all members of the community, will be of benefit to all, including Maori.

Implementation

21. The recommendations contained in this report do not trigger the Auckland Council Significance Policy.

22. There are no cost implications for Auckland Council.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Site Plan for Piha Community Centre Society Incorporated	81

Signatories

Authors

Donna Cooper - Community Lease Advisor

Authorisers

Kevin Marriott – Acting Manager community Development Arts and Culture

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

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

11 September 2014

Review of Alcohol Control - Proposed bylaw for local board feedback

File No.: CP2014/19077

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 Waitākere Ranges 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	89
b View	Proposed Alcohol Control Bylaw	105

Signatories

Authors

Kylie Hill - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Helgard Wagener - Team leader, Policies and Bylaws

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

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

11 September 2014

Infrastructure and Environmental Services 2014/15 Proposed Work Programme for Waitakere Ranges Local Board

File No.: CP2014/19599

Purpose

1. To provide Waitakere Ranges Local Board with the summary of programmes for delivery by the Infrastructure and Environmental Services Department (I&ES) in the 2014/2015 financial year and to seek approval for the local board budget to be allocated to this work programme.

Executive summary

The Waitakere Ranges Local Board has six natural environment budget lines totalling $867,000 for the 2014/15 financial year. This report is seeking approval for allocation of the budgets for the following proposed work programme and as further detailed in attachment A.

· Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Visitor management plan ($30k)

· Weed and pest management ($80k)

· Maui dolphins ($10k)

· Kauri dieback coordinator ($45k)

· Community environmental services ($88k)

· Septic tank programme ($612k)

3. The proposed work programme has been prepared following workshops with the Local Board and consideration by the Waitakere Ranges environmental portfolio holder. It is reflective of the budget set in the 2014/15 Local Board Agreement and Annual Plan to support and deliver Local Board priorities.

4. Attachment A for this report provides a breakdown of the proposed 2014/15 work programme for environmental activities for the Waitakere Ranges Local Board, and also shows regional environmental activities that take place in the local board area.

5. The Project Twin Streams capex budget allocation of $466,367 was reported separately and approved at the Waitakere Ranges Local Board business meeting 26 June 2014.

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) Receives the report.

b) Agrees to allocate budget for the 2014/15 local work programme for delivery by the Infrastructure and Environmental Services Department as detailed in attachment A.

c) Notes that any significant changes identified during programme delivery will be brought to the Waitakere Ranges Local Board for approval.

Comments

6. The work programme has been informed by the Waitakere Ranges Local Board Plan 2011, emerging priorities in the draft Local Board Plan 2014 and the Waitakere Ranges Local Board Agreement 2014/15.

7. The Waitakere Ranges Local Board has 6 environmental budget lines totalling $867,000 for the 2014/15 financial year. This report is seeking approval of allocation of the budgets for the following proposed work programme and further detailed in the attachment A.

· Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Visitor management plan ($30k)

· Weed and pest management ($80k)

· Maui dolphins ($10k)

· Kauri dieback coordinator ($45k)

· Community environmental services ($88k)

· Septic tank programme ($612k)

8. The proposed work programme has been prepared following workshops with the Local Board and consideration by the Waitakere Ranges environmental portfolio holder. It is aligned to the budget set in the 2014/15 Local Board Agreement and Annual Plan to support and deliver Local Board priorities.

9. Attachment A for this report provides a breakdown of the proposed 2014/15 work programme for the environmental activities for the Waitakere Ranges Local Board, and regional environmental activity that takes place in the local board area.

10. Many of these budget lines are delivered by community organisations and third party contractors. These funding agreements align with Council’s procurement policy and will be reported through regular departmental reporting. Attachment B provides summary of deliverables and budget breakdown for the Keep Waitakere Beautiful Trust across all three western local boards.

11. The Project Twin Streams capex budget allocation of $466,367 was reported separately and approved at the Waitakere Ranges Local Board business meeting 26 June 2014.

12. While this report is primarily to gain the Local Board’s approval of the proposed 2014/15 local work programme, it also lists regional activities which are delivered within the local board area.

13. Two pieces of strategic regional environmental work will be discussed with local boards and progressed within the 2014/15 financial year. These are:

- Regional Pest Management Plan

- Environmental Strategic Action Plan

Consideration

Local board views and implications

14. This is a report prepared specifically to inform the local board of the proposed 2014/15 work programme. It has been prepared taking into account workshops with the Board and consideration by the Waitakere Ranges environmental portfolio holder.

Maori impact statement

15. It is recognised that environmental management, water quality and land management has integral links with the mauri of the environments and concepts of kaitiakitanga.

Implementation

16. The activities detailed in this report are to be delivered within the 2014/15 financial year.

17. Many of these budget lines are delivered by community organisations and third party contractors. These funding agreements align with Council’s procurement policy and will be reported through regular departmental reporting.

18. The KWB agreement states that ‘equity of service to the constituents of the three local boards, that provide funding for this agreement, will be actively pursued whilst recognising that KWB provides predominately an ‘on demand’ service”. Financial equity across the three Local Boards is the desired outcome after the full suite of projects have been delivered by both organisations. The agreements also require that the partner organisations report their activities on a board by board basis to provide transparency and alignment to local board budgets and outcome areas.

19. Staff will continue to meet with the local board environmental portfolio holder to provide updates on the work programme.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Local and Regional 2014/15 Work Programme	121
b View	Keep Waitakere Beautiful Table of Deliverables	123

Signatories

Authors

Emma Cordery - Relationship Advisor

Authorisers

Mara Bebich - Stakeholder Liasion Manager

John Dragicevich - Manager Infrastructure and Environmental Services

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

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

11 September 2014

Deferral of 2014/2015 Capital Projects

File No.: CP2014/19719

Purpose

1. To seek agreement from the Waitakere Ranges Local Board to the list of capital projects outlined in Attachment A that are proposed for deferral from 2014/2015, prior to consideration by the Finance and Performance Committee on 18 September 2014.

Executive summary

2. Prior to decisions being made by the Finance and Performance Committee regarding a 2014/2015 capex deferral programme, engagement was held with all local boards.

3. Between 12 and 19 August 2014, staff attended 21 local board workshops to outline the capex deferral process and obtain feedback on proposed deferrals affecting each local board area.

4. On 21 August 2014, the Finance and Performance Committee resolved that decisions on the deferral of local board capital projects from 2014/2015 to 2015/2016 be deferred until local boards have formally considered and responded to each project in full (FIN/2014/47).

5. The list of capex projects proposed for deferral is outlined in Attachment A.

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) Formally consider and agree the deferral of capex projects outlined in Attachment A to 2015/2016.

b) Notes that any projects where timing has been deferred, but project planning is underway, should be given high priority in the 2015/2016 capital programme.

Comments

6. As foreshadowed in the 2014/2015 Annual Plan and LTP workshops, operating budgets for 2015/2016 (the first year of the LTP 2015-2025) would need to be reduced by about $90 million to achieve a 2.5 per cent average rates increase.

7. It is not possible to reduce the average rates increase for 2015/2016 down to 2.5 per cent solely by reducing or deferring capex in that particular year. The lagged impact of changes in the capital programme on operating budgets means that reducing or deferring capex in 2014/2015 will have a greater impact on rates for 2015/2016.

8. Since amalgamation the quantum of planned projects each year has exceeded the council parent’s capacity to deliver. While delivery capacity is now increasing, a significant bow wave has built up. This historical underspend is acknowledged in the Annual Plan and factored into council’s rates and debt projections by way of a $207 million assumed underspend. However, the individual projects that will not be delivered are not explicitly identified in the Annual Plan as they had not yet been identified.

9. Council staff have reviewed 2014/2015 capex budgets to identify work that must be completed this year as a matter of practical necessity, or where not doing the project in this timeframe would negatively impact existing service levels, external revenue or the realisation of efficiency savings.

10. The specific categories used to develop the list of deferred projects and process undertaken is explained further in Attachment B which was circulated to Local Boards prior to the proposed capex projects for deferral being discussed at a recent workshop.

11. In order to develop a realistic capex programme for 2014/2015 and contain pressure on rates in 2015/2016, staff recommend that the capex projects included in Attachment A for the council parent be explicitly deferred from 2014/2015 to 2015/2016, and be included as part of the LTP prioritisation process.

12. Between 12 and 19 August, staff attended workshops for all 21 local boards to obtain feedback on the proposed capital deferral schedules for 2014/2015. This engagement provided opportunity for local boards to ask questions, reinforce the reason for deferring capital funds and provide feedback on the status of projects in alignment to criteria used to assess proposed deferrals.

13. Of the total proposed projects for deferral tabled at the Finance and Performance Committee on 21 August 2014, regional projects amounted to $80 million, local projects amounted to $35 million and CCO’s collectively deferred $109m.

14. Staff reduced the total of local projects for deferral by approximately $7 million due to responding to the information provided through the recent workshops held with local boards. These reductions were due to corrections in applying the criteria used for identifying potential deferrals. Attachment A takes into account these reductions.

15. Local boards also identified projects that are discretionary and could be deferred, but which are very important to their local community. Rather than making decisions about removing any high-priority discretionary projects from the deferral list, staff included these comments in the schedule provided to the Finance and Performance Committee.

16. The decisions being made are budget adjustments that represent timing changes only. Any decisions to drop or reprioritise projects should be made as part of the LTP process.

17. Through September and October Local Boards, the Governing Body, CCOs and council staff will all contribute to the development of draft LTP 2015-2025 budgets in response to the Mayoral Proposal. Decisions on discretionary local budgets will be made by Local Boards in October and decisions on regional activities and local asset based services will be made by the Budget Committee on 5-7 November.

18. Local Board Plans, along with the Auckland Plan and the agreed spatial priorities will help inform this prioritisation. Final decisions on which projects are included in the LTP 2015-2025 will be made by 30 June 2015, following full public consultation.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	List of 2014/2015 projects proposed for deferral until 2015/2016 including Local Board feedback	131
b View	Local Board Memo distributed prior to the workshops on 7 August 2014	133

Signatories

Authors

Taryn Crewe – Financial Planning Manager Council Parent

Authorisers

Matthew Walker - Manager Financial Plan Policy and Budgeting

Karen Lyons – Manager Local Board Services

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

11 September 2014

Chairperson’s Report

File No.: CP2014/20459

The local board emerged from a long day hearing 35 oral submissions on the local board plan feeling surprisingly elated. Submissions were of a very high standard, well presented, and on a wide variety of subjects. We now have the task of deliberating on the 170 written and oral submissions to see how we want to modify and reshape our plan in the light of these representations.

We needed a boost after the nasty shock of deferrals of capex projects that the board was told about at very short notice. All local boards had proposals to defer capital projects unless they met some specific criteria. Unless these projects were well along the way, with contracts let, they were delayed to 15/16.

The purpose of the deferrals was to achieve the mayor’s target of a 2.5% rates increase, much lower than the 4.9% projected rates increase in the Long-term Plan.

When we pursued the list of our projects that were earmarked for deferral (which at first added up just over $3m), we were able to see that some projects were already in the process of being built, such as the new Piha changing rooms and toilets, but others had been cracking along at a nice pace and now they were to be halted. We were particularly disappointed to see that money that had been scraped together to do some works in Glen Eden, and $400,000 for the foothills walkway, were to be delayed. When these deferral proposals went before the governing body Finance and Performance Committee, committee members said they wanted to give local boards more chance to respond before they made a decision and so we won’t know the ultimate outcome until later in September.

An item on this agenda/details the local board projects which are earmarked for deferral.

Behind this immediate budget review, there is a larger project going on where the Mayor has proposed major savings for the Long-term Plan 2015-25.

The Mayor’s proposal is based on an ambition to deliver an average 2.5% rates increase for the rest of the term and an average 3.5% for the remaining eight years. This compares with the previous LTP where rates were capped at 4.9% for the remaining seven years.

The proposal involves big reductions in many areas, including a new level of $4.8 billion (over 10 years) operating expenditure for parks, community and lifestyle, compared to the previously budgeted $5.3 billion over 10 years, and environmental management and regulation down from $4.8 billion to $4.7 billion. Capex for the parks grouping decreases from $2.1billion to $1.3 billion.

With parks and environmental protection there’s a proposal to take up the slack by “empowering communities”. But it’s highly dubious whether mum and dad volunteers can do the hard work that goes into running parks or environmental protection. The new Auckland Council has never really understood or embraced its environmental protection role, inherited from the Auckland Regional Council. In my view we’ve gone backwards in the last four years.

The last State of the Environment Report (2009) said that in terms of environment, all the easy things had been done and now we were down to the hard nuts to crack: sedimentation, poor water quality, loss of species, seriously diminished fish and shellfish stocks, weed explosions, and on and on. These are not things volunteers can solve in the weekend. To add to our problems, the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan proposes development of some coastal areas which were the last pristine places in the region: eg Weiti.

The State of the Hauraki Gulf Report said the same thing in the last term of Council, and it’s hard to see what progress the Council has made addressing the issues highlighted in that report.

People out West will know the huge amount of community commitment, support from Council and funding that goes into a large project like Ark in the Park. To be effective, environmental projects need to be highly organised and have longevity. And it’s easy to under-estimate the cost to Council of supporting community action. I recall when I was on the Governing Body trying to get a handful of volunteer coordinators funded, to support community groups. I got funding for one for the whole region!

If you short-sell the environment, you will lose it, and our children and grand-children will face a future where they will not enjoy the things that make Auckland such a wonderful place to call home.

Recommendation

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) Receives the Chairperson’s report.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors	Tua Viliamu – Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

11 September 2014

Portfolio update: Member Sandra Coney

File No.: CP2014/20464

Purpose

1. This report provides an opportunity for Member Sandra Coney to give an update with regards to activity within her portfolio areas.

2. Portfolio holders are responsible for leading policy development in their portfolio area, proposing and developing project concepts, overseeing agreed projects within budgets, being active advocates, accessing and providing information and advice.

3. Member Coney has lead for the portfolios of Historic Heritage/Character and Parks area.

Executive Summary

Heritage and WW1 Portfolio

4. On 22 August the Waitakere Ranges Local Board invited a wide range of local groups to meet with the Board to discuss activities for the centenary of WW1. This was a good meeting, attended by historical groups, RSAs, community groups and Lopdell House. Council staff outlined the main projects being undertaken by Council.

5. Libraries are being particularly active, with exhibitions and support for research and researchers. Local Parks Manager, Mark Bowater, outlined the work to make sure our memorials and military/veterans graves are in fine condition for the centenary. The group heard that further work was due to be carried out on the obelisk at Waikumete Cemetery and a resource consent had been lodged for the work. Disappointingly, I later heard that this work was one of the projects deferred by Council so it will not be completed by Anzac Day 1915.

6. Local groups are already working on WW1 centenary projects, with the Waitakere Genealogical Society partnering with libraries to research the men on Rolls of Honour in the west. West Auckland Historical Society is planning a WW1 Heritage Walk through Henderson with a narrative thread of how the town would have looked when the soldiers left and when they came back.

7. There was discussion of groups working together on projects: for example, on the Soldiers’ Walk at Titirangi, a plan for a poppy garden in Glen Eden, research into soldiers’ graves at Waikumete, a service at the Soldiers’ Memorial Church in Titirangi and exhibitions at Lopdell.

8. It was agreed the meeting was worthwhile and that another meeting would be held later in the year.

9. One of the main Council projects is a WW1 Heritage Trail of sites associated with WW1 throughout the region. I am speaking at the launch of the Trail at Narrow Neck on 8 September. Our Local Board has three sites in the trail: Spragg Memorial at Kaitarakihi, Waikumete Cemetery and the WW1 Roll of Honour on Lion Rock, Piha. Sites will be explained through a web site, cellphone Ap, and displays at each site.

10. In my role as chair of the Auckland Council WW1 Political Steering Group, I also called a regional meeting of non-military organisations that were involved in WW1 – such as schools, nurses’ and doctors’ organisations, YMCA and YWCA, women’s organisations Red Cross, St Johns, churches and so on. This meeting was quite small, but very rewarding to hear what activities were already planned and to sow the seeds for activities that looked at how the war affected the wider New Zealand community. Another meeting will be called in the next couple of months.

11. On 29 August, Neil Henderson and I were taken on a tour of a Museum exhibition “Entangled Isles” about New Zealand’s relationship with Samoa and its occupation of German Samoa in 1914. I was impressed to see a Roll of Honour of the NZ soldiers who went to Samoa for this bloodless invasion, most of whom went on to the war in Europe, many of whom never came back. One was Jim O’Meara of Swanson, who is on the Swanson RSA memorial, and whose family descendants, the Calverts, are still in Swanson.

12. Neil has written a full report of the exhibition in his portfolio report so I won’t outline it further, but just urge you to go and visit it. Later the same day I attended a service at the cenotaph at the museum, marking the 100^th anniversary of the New Zealand occupation of German Samoa. This was attended by Sir Jerry Mateparae, Governor General of New Zealand, His Excellency Leasi Papali’i Tommy Scanlan, High Commissioner for Samoa, and other dignitaries.

13. Wreaths were laid and there was stirring singing by the choir from De La Salle College. Two young students, Leorida Peters and Ben Gatting read a poem by Karlo Milo called “Remembering WW1 in Samoa”, in memory of her great-grandfather.

14. Following this, I attended a lecture at the museum by Sir Hew Strachan, an eminent WW1 historian, whose very relevant address examined the subject of how we memorialise this centenary. He emphasised that we need to think about what we can learn from WW1 that is relevant to today and he stressed that WW1 really was a world war, with virtually every nation in the world involved.

15. One of the challenges for Auckland, is how we draw in new national groups that have made NZ their home, who have their own histories of WW1, while for refugees, war is a very real and recent experience.

16. And finally, the Heritage Festival in September has WW1 as its theme. On Saturday 26 September, there will be activities on Queens Wharf from 11 am to 2 pm, with HMNZS Wellington at the wharf, and people able to go on board.

Recommendation

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) Receives the portfolio update from Member Sandra Coney.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors	Tua Viliamu – Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

11 September 2014

Portfolio update: Member Neil Henderson

File No.: CP2014/20467

Purpose

1. This report provides an opportunity for Member Neil Henderson to give an update with regards to activity within his portfolio areas.

3. Member Henderson has lead for the portfolios of Waitakere Ranges Heritage area including walkways and Greenways.

Executive Summary

Bethells Local Area Plan (LAP)

4. The consultation on the LAP is now at a stage where specific topics are being discussed and the information gathered from these topic workshops will inform the specific sections of the LAP. I have been able to attend four of the meetings myself and other local board members have also attended various sessions. I especially enjoyed the presentation by Mica Ploughman from the Cultural heritage Unit and subsequent discussions that followed.

5. Currently there is an absolute minimum of heritage site locations available to us through the Council database and this is something that we are acting on as a Local board. It was noted that there are, for example, three historical botanic sites in the Bethells area and yet there are bound to be many others, including remnants of old taro plantings, as well as a possible site of an ancient grove of Te Aute, the paper mulberry or Tapa cloth tree (see image).

6. It was suggested by one of the residents that the site was on one of the high points of Te Aute Ridge Rd, hence the name. The ridge top is certainly a likely spot for this plant as Te Aute readily colonizes available habitat, particularly disturbed areas, like dry exposed ridges and it is a pioneers species that easily fills forest clearings. We would probably think twice about reintroducing it to the valley however, as it has a fearsome reputation as a weed species, particularly in Pakistan, Argentina and Uganda. One other thing came out clearly from this meeting and that was a desire to have much more engagement with Te Kawerau A Maki and it was agreed that avenues for greater contact be explored during the further development of the LAP.

Paper Mulberry (image from Wikipedia)

List of the LAP workshops:

Workshops	Date / Venue	Number of participants
Initial community workshop	June 4, Waitakere Primary School	86
Vision and values	29 July, Waitakere Primary School	22
Waitakere Quarry	Thursday 7 August, 7-9pm at Bethells Fire Station	24
Ecology and Ecosystems	Tuesday 12 August, 7-9pm at Bethells Surf Club	15
Community and Economic Development, Civil Defence	Tuesday 19 August, 7-9pm at Bethells Surf Club	32
Cultural Heritage	Thursday 21 August, 7-9pm at Bethells Fire Station	14
Parks and Visitor Management	Tuesday 26 August, 7-9pm at Bethells Surf Club	15
Walkways and Transport	Tuesday 2 September, 7-9pm at Bethells Surf Club
Day-time drop in	Thursday 4 September, 9:30-11:30am at Bethells Surf Club
Ecology and Ecosystems	Tuesday 9 September, 7-9pm at Bethells Surf Club

Newsletter number 3 for the Bethells LAP has also been generated, and this is attached.

WWI Centenary Commemorations

7. Along with Local Board Chair and also Chair of the Auckland Council WW1 Commemoration working party, Sandra Coney, I was privileged to be taken on a brief tour by the curator of the current exhibition ‘Entangled Island: Samoa, New Zealand and the First World War’, which runs through until Sunday, 1 February 2015.

8. ‘Entangled Islands: Samoa, New Zealand and the First World War’ is the first in a series of exhibitions at the Museum during the centenary. New Zealand’s first action in the war was to occupy German Samoa. The Germans had established a wireless station at Apia in Samoa. On 6 August the British informed the New Zealand government that the capture of German Samoa would be a ‘great and urgent Imperial service’. Australian intelligence advised that the station was protected by a German-officered constabulary of around 80 men and a gunboat. This was no match for the New Zealand Expeditionary Force (NZEF) of 1374 men, led by Colonel Robert Logan, which achieved its objective without resistance on 29 August. This was the second German territory, after Togoland in Africa, to fall to the Allies in the First World War. The exhibition tells this lesser-known story of the First World War using the many perspectives and experiences of those involved. The exhibition is the first in a series of ‘chapters’ about the New Zealand war experience over the coming years. What stands out for me was the story of the hapless German Customs official, detained after the occupation on Motuihi Island in the Hauraki Gulf. He spent a great deal of his time writing well considered, economically logical missives as to why it was fruitless interning him at great cost, on one island when he could just have easily remained on another (Samoa) and continued to pay his customs agent. Despite falling on blind eyes, he kept up his arguments until the end.

9. Then there was an old faded New Zealand flag on display that had been first transported to Samoa, where it was duly flown and from there it made various appearances at other theatres of war like Gallipoli and the hospitals of Alexandria, evidenced by handwritten notations on the fabric. It did not quite make it to the Western front but it remains for me a sombre image of wars continuity, a piece of cloth that passed through many hands, some who may not have returned, rather like the boots in “All quiet on the Western front”. My own grandfather, Jack Moller was shot through both legs within twenty minutes of landing on the beach at Gallipoli and then spent the rest of the war recuperating in Alexandria. It was quite possible that he might have seen this very flag flying.

10. This first exhibition of the WW1 Centenary was curated with the aim of not simply laying out a dry, matter of fact series of events culminating in an occupation of another country by New Zealand, our first and only such invasion. Our presence in Samoa was complex and although we did not fire a shot, it was an invasion nonetheless and there have been equally complex reverberations right through until today, including the devastating influenza epidemic of 1918 and the increasing development of the Mau movement, culminating on 28 December 1929 in the streets of the capital Apia when the New Zealand military police fired on a procession who were attempting to prevent the arrest of one of their members. The day became known as Black Saturday. Up to 11 Samoans were killed, including Mau leader and high chief Tupua Tamasese Lealofi III with many others wounded. One New Zealand constable was clubbed to death by protesters. These events form part of the second room at the exhibition, depicting key elements of New Zealand and Samoa’s intertwined modern history since the initial occupation. The exhibition seeks to raise as many questions as it might answer and I strongly recommend attending.

Local Government New Zealand Conference

11. In July Denise Yates and I attended the Annual LGNZ conference in Nelson. Aside from taking the opportunity to meet up with elected members from the Auckland Region, it was also a chance to make contacts with members from places like Queenstown and Nelson, where I feel we (Waitakere Ranges Local Board) share similar concerns around maintaining environmental protection in the face of steady pressure to develop economic and tourism opportunities. In addition I was interested in attending a master class on Funding models and assessing the economic impact of cycleways.

12. At the conference we were given out standing talks by, Paul Pisasale, current mayor of Ipswich in Queensland as well as the economist Shamubeel Eaqub (who argued for breaking down the barriers between the “Auckland versus the rest“ approach to economic development) and Rod Drury, the founder of Wellington based Xero. Rod, who lives in Hawkes Bay, runs a business of over 600 staff in 4 countries. He says that there is great opportunity for home grown small businesses to find niche markets around the world and those current technological advances are making it easier and easier. He cited as an example a small fashion shoe making business growing from a couple of shops in Wellington, to becoming a widely known presence overseas through effective online marketing sales.

13. The real standouts for me however were the talks of Professor Caroline Saunders, who is very much interested in how our provincial economies will function in the future and she is also a champion along with Dr Ganesh Nana, who followed her talk, of adding value to whatever we produce, especially food products, so that we always target high end markets. Dr Nana, echoing the emphasis on technologically aided access to increasingly sophisticated markets stated that at present ”Terms of trade have never been better for NZ”. This is quite a provocative challenge considering how hung up we are at present struggling against the impositions of a high kiwi dollar.

Recommendation

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) Receives the portfolio update from Member Neil Henderson.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	LAP Newsletter Issue 3	147

Signatories

Authors	Tua Viliamu – Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Chairperson	Sandra Coney, QSO
Deputy Chairperson	Denise Yates, JP
Members	Neil Henderson
	Greg Presland
	Steve Tollestrup
	Saffron Toms