Agenda of Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

1 Welcome

2 Apologies

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

3 Declaration of Interest

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

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 26 November 2014, as a true and correct record.

5 Leave of Absence

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

6 Acknowledgements

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

7 Petitions

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

8 Deputations

Standing Order 3.20 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are required to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications are approved by the Chairperson of the Hibiscus and Bays Local 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.

8.1 Footpath Improvements in Orewa

Mr John Clements has requested a deputation to discuss footpath improvements in Orewa.

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) thank Mr Clements for his presentation.

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 www 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.

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

10 December 2014

Local Event Support Fund - Round Two Allocations 2014/2015

File No.: CP2014/24571

Purpose

1. To present a summary of applications received in round two of the local event support fund for 2014/2015 for the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board.

Executive summary

2. A contestable local event support fund of $93,943.00, is available to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board for distribution over two funding rounds in the 2014/2015 financial year.

3. In round one the local board distributed $70,950.00, leaving $22,993.00 for allocation in round two. One applicant cancelled their event and that grant of $1,000 has been returned to the budget leaving a new figure of $23,993.00 for allocation.

4. For round two, eight applications totalling $40,205.00 have been received and reviewed at a workshop with the local board on 3 December 2014.

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) agree to fund, part-fund or decline the following applications in round two of the 2014/2015 contestable local event support fund:

Applicant	Event	Date	Amount Requested
Mairangi Arts Centre	InsideOut 6	11 April 2015	$3,560.00
East Coast Bays Community Project	Anzac Commemoration	28 April 2015	$500.00
East Coast Bays Community Project	Bastille Day	14 July 2015	$500.00
Getin2 Life Youth Development Trust	In2it Wild Winter – Hibiscus and Bays	1 March 2015 – 31 July 2015	$4,495.00
Stage51 Limited	Orewa Christmas on the Beach	22 December 2014	$8,000.00
Auckland Live – Regional Facilities Auckland	Morning Melodies	2 March 2015 – 14 September 2015	$5,000.00
Total Sport Limited	Coastal Challenge – North Shore	7 March 2015	$13,150.00
Auckland Live – Regional Facilities Auckland	School Holiday Programme 2015	13 April 2015 – 18 July 2015	$5,000.00
TOTAL			$40,205.00

Comments

5. The local event support fund provides the opportunity for Hibiscus and Bays Local Board to work in partnership with local event organisers to develop an events programme that reflects the aspirations of the community and supports the local board plan.

6. The contestable local event support fund has two funding rounds, which close at specified times during the 2014/2015 financial year, as follows:

Round	Applications Close	Assessment	Decision Making
1	31 May 2014	June 2014	July/August 2014
2	31 October 2014	November 2014	December 2014/February 2015

7. Round two of the 2014/2015 local event support fund received eight applications. A summary of these is as follows:

Applicant	Event	Date	Amount Requested
Mairangi Arts Centre	InsideOut 6	11 April 2015	$3,560.00
East Coast Bays Community Project	Anzac Commemoration	28 April 2015	$500.00
East Coast Bays Community Project	Bastille Day	14 July 2015	$500.00
Getin2 Life Youth Development Trust	In2it Wild Winter – Hibiscus and Bays	1 March 2015 – 31 July 2015	$4,495.00
Stage51 Limited	Orewa Christmas on the Beach	22 December 2014	$8,000.00
Auckland Live – Regional Facilities Auckland	Morning Melodies	2 March 2015 – 14 September 2015	$5,000.00
Total Sport Limited	Coastal Challenge – North Shore	7 March 2015	$13,150.00
Auckland Live – Regional Facilities Auckland	School Holiday Programme 2015	13 April 2015 – 18 July 2015	$5,000.00
TOTAL			$40,205.00

8. Local event support funding criteria guidelines for 2014/2015 have been established to assist applicants in understanding the focus of this fund and to guide decision-making. The applications have been assessed in accordance with the local event support fund guidelines.

9. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board has the opportunity to refer applications to a more appropriate fund or to allocate funding from within its local event support fund.

Consideration

10. Local boards are responsible for the decision-making and allocation of local board event funding including the local event support fund. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board has identified key priorities for the local area within its local board plan, some of which could be achieved through events.

11. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board seeks to engage with their diverse communities and provide for their social and cultural needs and to provide a better place to live through retaining and enhancing the character and charm of their unique town centres and coastal villages and ensuring that those town centres are attractive and bustling places which provide employment and reasons to visit and socialise.

Local board views and implications

12. The local board will discuss these applications at their workshop on 3 December 2014 and the resolution produced for the business meeting on 10 December 2014 will express the views of members from the workshop.

13. The decisions sought within this report fall within the local board delegations.

14. The decisions sought do not invoke the Auckland Council Significance Policy.

Māori impact statement

15. This fund does not specifically target Maori groups. However Maori communities are likely to benefit from the events supported by the local board, alongside other groups in the community.

Implementation

16. Once the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board has resolved the funding applications, staff will contact all applicants to notify them of the outcome, and commence contracting and payment.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Barbara Cade - Team Leader Events North/West

Authorisers

Graham Bodman - Manager - Community Development, Arts and Culture

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

10 December 2014

Request for approval of sublease between Nippon Judo Club Incorporated and Air Training Corps Association of New Zealand Incorporated

File No.: CP2014/27432

Purpose

1. To seek the approval of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board for the terms of the sublease between Nippon Judo Club Incorporated and The Air Training Corps Association of New Zealand Incorporated at 12 Hibiscus Coast Highway, Silverdale.

Executive Summary

2. At the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board business meeting of 7 August 2013, the local board resolved to approve a proposed new community lease to the Nippon Judo Club Incorporated at 12 Hibiscus Coast Highway, Silverdale. The approval from the local board for the proposed new community lease was subject to certain terms and conditions and included provision for a sublease to The Air Training Corps Association of New Zealand Incorporated for part of the premises (Attachment A showing resolution number HB/2013/1).

3. The terms and conditions relating to a), i) and vi) have now been satisfied in accordance with resolution number HB/2013/1.

4. This report seeks the approval of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board to the terms of the sublease between Auckland Council as head lessor, Nippon Judo Club Incorporated as sub lessor and The Air Training Corps Association of New Zealand Incorporated as sub lessee at 12 Hibiscus Coast Highway, Silverdale in accordance with resolution number HB/2013/1 vi).

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) approve the terms of the sublease between Auckland Council (Head Lessor), Nippon Judo Club Incorporated (Sub Lessor) and The Air Training Corps Association of New Zealand Incorporated (Sub Lessee) at 12 Hibiscus Coast Highway, Silverdale in accordance with resolution number HB/2013/1 vi) (Attachment A) subject to the following:

i) that the terms of the sublease for part of the premises are consistent with the terms of the head lease being:

a) Sublease area – Area of the facility for dedicated use by The Air Training Corps Association of New Zealand Incorporated comprise; storeroom, office and two (2) classrooms (Indicative area as marked in green on Attachment B)

b) Term – five years commencing 1 January 2015 with one right of renewal for four years and 364 days

c) Rent – amount to be negotiated annually between Nippon Judo Club Incorporated (Sub Lessor) and The Air Training Corps Association of New Zealand Incorporated (Sub Lessee) based on cost recovery for maintenance and utilities costs and payable to the Sub Lessor

ii) all other terms and conditions in accordance with the Deed of Lease between Auckland Council (Council) and Nippon Judo Club Incorporated (Tenant) as applicable and Auckland Council Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012.

Discussion

5. At the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board business meeting of 7 August 2013, the local board resolved to approve a proposed new lease to the Nippon Judo Club Incorporated at 12 Hibiscus Coast Highway, Silverdale. The approval from the local board for the proposed new community lease was subject to certain terms and conditions and included provision for a sublease to The Air Training Corps Association of New Zealand Incorporated for part of the premises (Attachment A showing resolution number HB/2013/1).

6. The terms and conditions relating to a) i) and vi) have now been satisfied in accordance with resolution number HB/2013/1.

Per i)

The proposed lease to the Nippon Judo Club Incorporated has been publicly notified in accordance with the terms of the Reserves Act 1977. The proposal regarding the lease and sublease was advertised in the Rodney Times on 12 June 2014 and in the North Harbour News on 13 June 2014 for one calendar month, respectively. No submissions or objections were received with respect to the proposed lease or sublease. During the months of August and September 2014, representatives on behalf of Ngati Manuhiri and Ngati Whatua o Kaipara were consulted on the proposed lease and sublease, respectively. Neither iwi had an objection to the proposal.

Per vi)

The terms of the sublease negotiated with The Air Training Corps Association of New Zealand Incorporated for part of the premises is consistent with the terms of the head lease document as follows:

· Term – five years commencing 1 January 2015 with one right of renewal for four years and 364 days

· Sublease area – Area of the facility for dedicated use by Air Training Corps Association of New Zealand Incorporated comprise; storeroom, office and two (2) classrooms (Indicative area as marked in green on Attachment B)

· Rent – amount negotiated annually between Nippon Judo Club Incorporated (Sub Lessor) and Air Training Corps Association of New Zealand Incorporated (Sub Lessee) based on cost recovery for maintenance and utilities costs and payable to Sub Lessor

· All other terms and conditions in accordance with the Deed of Lease between Auckland Council (Council) and Nippon Judo Club Incorporated (Tenant) as applicable and Auckland Council Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012.

7. This report seeks the approval of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board to the terms of the sublease between Auckland Council (Head Lessor), Nippon Judo Club Incorporated (Sub Lessor) and The Air Training Corps Association of New Zealand Incorporated (Sub Lessee) at 12 Hibiscus Coast Highway, Silverdale in accordance with resolution number HB/2013/1 vi).

Consideration

Local Board Views and Implications

8. The proposed head lease and sublease was discussed with Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Community Facilities portfolio holders at a meeting on 21 November 2014.

9. The recommendations in this report fall within the local board’s delegated authority relating to community facilities.

10. The present negotiated rental agreement between Nippon Judo Club Incorporated (Sub Lessor) and The Air Training Corps Association of New Zealand Incorporated (Sub Lessee) is currently set at $500 per school term based on cost recovery for maintenance and utility costs.

Maori Impact Statement

11. Representatives for Ngati Manuhiri and Ngati Whatua o Kaipara have been consulted on the proposal in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977.

12. There is no significant change or impact for Maori associated with the recommendations in this report.

Implementation Issues

13. The local board’s decision on this report will not trigger Auckland Council’s Significance Policy.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Attachment A: Resolution number HB/2013/1	15
b View	Attachment B: Indicative area of sublease as marked in green	17

Signatories

Authors

Karen Walby - Advisor Community Lease

Authorisers

Graham Bodman - Manager - Community Development, Arts and Culture

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

10 December 2014

New community lease to The Scout Association of New Zealand, 469 Hibiscus Coast Highway, Orewa

File No.: CP2014/27438

Purpose

1. To seek Hibiscus and Bays Local Board approval to grant a new community lease to The Scout Association of New Zealand for part of Arundel Recreation Reserve, 469 Hibiscus Coast Highway, Orewa.

Executive Summary

2. The Scout Association of New Zealand (the Scouts) entered into a community lease with the legacy Rodney District Council for a period of 19 years commencing 1 April 1994 with final expiry on 31 March 2013. Since that date the Scouts expired lease has been continuing on a month by month basis. The Scouts own the building known as Orewa Sea Scouts Den (Scout Den).

3. The Scouts wish to continue their lease with Auckland Council. The Scout Den is located on part of Arundel Recreation Reserve, 469 Hibiscus Coast Highway, Orewa being Allotment 696 Waiwera Parish SO 47562. The reserve is held in fee simple by Auckland Council and classified as a recreation reserve under the Reserves Act 1977. The Scout’s activities align with the reserve classification.

4. 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.

5. This report recommends the granting of a new community lease to The Scout Association of New Zealand for a term of 10 years commencing 1 April 2013 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 Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) approve granting a new community lease to The Scout Association of New Zealand for part of Arundel Recreation Reserve, 469 Hibiscus Coast Highway, Orewa, being part of Allotment 696 Waiwera Parish SO 47562 (Attachment A) subject to the following terms and conditions:

i) Term – 10 years commencing 1 April 2013 with one 10-year right of renewal;

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

b) approve the Scout Association of New Zealand Community Outcomes Plan (Attachment B) for inclusion in the lease document.

c) approve all other terms and conditions in accordance with the Auckland Council Community Occupancy Guidelines July 2012.

Discussion

6. The Scout Association of New Zealand (the Scouts) entered into a community lease with the legacy Rodney District Council for a period of 19 years commencing 1 April 1994 with final expiry on 31 March 2013. Since that date the Scouts expired lease has been continuing on a month by month basis. The Scouts own the building known as Orewa Sea Scouts Den (Scout Den).

7. The Scouts wish to continue their lease with Auckland Council. The Scout Den is located on part of Arundel Recreation Reserve, 469 Hibiscus Coast Highway, Orewa being Allotment 696 Waiwera Parish SO 47562. The reserve is held in fee simple by Auckland Council and classified as a recreation reserve under the Reserves Act 1977. The Scout’s activities align with the reserve classification.

8. 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.

9. The Scouts were registered as an incorporated society on 25 July 1966. The Scouts aims and objectives are to:

· Encourage the physical, mental, emotional, social and spiritual development of young people so that they may take a constructive place in society

· The method of achieving the aim of the association is by providing an enjoyable and attractive scheme of progressive training based on the Scout Law and Promise and guided by adult leadership

10. The scout unit occupying Arundel Recreation Reserve is the Orewa Sea Scouts (Sea Scouts) which has been operating for 54 years. The Sea Scouts have an open membership and there are over 92 youth members under the age of 20 and 16 leaders. The Sea Scouts are part of the Mahurangi Scout Zone which has had a 57.9% growth in youth numbers over the last seven (7) years. The Sea Scouts are at capacity and it is envisaged that membership numbers will reduce in 2015 with the scheduled opening of the Stillwater Scout group.

11. The Sea Scouts are made up of Keas, Cubs, Scouts and Venturers ranging in age from 6-19 years. The Sea Scouts programme involves learning about water safety, road safety, home safety including visits to the local fire station, building outdoor shelters, outdoor cooking, and for the older members basic rowing and sailing in 18ft open cutters and sunburst yachts. During the winter months the Scouts learn about boat maintenance.

12. The Scouts are willing to share their building with other community groups. The Sing to Breathe group currently uses the building two mornings a week.

13. The 2002 Arundel Reserve Management Plan recognises the existing lease to the Scouts. Objective 3 states:

To ensure that maximum use can be made of the Sea Scouts’ building.

Policies

(i) To obtain the Sea Scouts agreement to amending their lease to permit a wider range of community uses.

(ii) To consider favourably any further extension to the term of the Sea Scouts’ lease.

14. Council staff has sought input from relevant council departments.

Consideration

Local Board Views and Implications

15. Council staff sought input from Local Board portfolio holders who were apprised of the proposed new lease as a component of the Community Facilities Workplan 2014/2015. No objections were raised.

16. The recommendations within this report fall within the local board’s allocated decision-making relating to local, recreation, sport and community facilities.

Maori Impact Statement

17. There are no changes in use or operational activities being conducted on the land. It is considered that the granting of a new community lease will not have any adverse impact for Maori.

Implementation Issues

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

19. There are no cost implications for Auckland Council.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Site Plan for The Scout Association of New Zealand, Arundel Recreation Reserve, 469 Hibiscus Coast Highway, Orewa	23
b View	The Scout Association of New Zealand Community Outcomes Plan	25

Signatories

Authors

Donna Cooper - Community Lease Advisor

Authorisers

Graham Bodman - Manager - Community Development, Arts and Culture

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

10 December 2014

Stanmore Bay Pool and Leisure Centre Redevelopment Project

File No.: CP2014/28029

Purpose

1. To update the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board on project planning for the Stanmore Bay Pool and Leisure Centre re-development project to obtain support to a refined Stage 1 project scope that fits within the reduced FY14 and FY15 budget parameters.

Executive Summary

2. The Stanmore Bay Pool and Leisure Centre is a key resource in the regional pools and leisure network supporting outcomes and demand in the northern sector.

3. This is a large scale facility that was built approximately 24 years ago and is exhibiting signs of asset failure and degradation on a significant scale.

4. A previous Stage 1 project scope (circa $5.4M) was reported to the local board in March 2014. Since that time, the project has been involved in the wider council deferral and long term plan prioritization processes. The local board has successfully championed the project’s progression, however with a reduced budget envelope of $419K in FY15 and approx. $3.884M in FY16 (FY16 to be confirmed). This has necessitated a critical review of project objectives, priorities and scope.

5. The prioritisation of asset protection works to the facility’s structure, cladding, electrical and HVAC systems is supported to enable the existing built assets to serve the community for another functional cycle.

6. To maximise building efficiencies and to reduce consent and design costs, a strategy is being promoted to undertake a suite of strategic internal reconfiguration changes to achieve fitness and learn to swim revenue growth opportunities that underpin the business case for return on capital and the mitigation of net operating costs. Where extensions to the facility were being considered to accommodate growth, focus is now being given to achieving outcomes within the existing building footprint.

7. The previously planned change room upgrades and entry/reception changes remain in scope to support more effective operations and improve visitor experience and retention.

8. The project team’s programme is to commence the design process as soon as the project business case gateway is achieved to support completion of design, consenting and any preparatory works possible in FY15 from the $410K budget available.

9. The main works would be procured and planned for FY16 to be staged around facility operations and expiry of the crèche lease.

10. As per the previous project plan presented to the local board, the intention is that other “below the line” scope items that sit within the wider facility development master plan are considered as a future stage when further budget opportunity exists and demand increases in key areas to support those initiatives.

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) support in principle the revised scope for the stage 1 works to maximise outcomes from the reduced project budget parameters.

b) reaffirm that priority remains with asset function and protection works and that the Stage 1 scope give attention to longer-term solutions with items such as cladding and weather tightness.

c) support implementation strategies to minimise consent, design and management costs to maximise works delivery opportunities from the budget available.

d) support the progression of design, planning and consenting activities at the earliest opportunity.

e) support the progression of a development master plan in the initial design phase and report back to the local board.

f) support the expedient progression through the business case gateway process

g) delegate authority for the approval of the Stanmore Bay Pool and Leisure redevelopment project business case to the Chairperson, deputy Chairperson and Chairperson of the Facilities and Reserves committee (members Parfitt, Sayers and Fitzgerald).

Discussion

11. The Leisure Centre expansion project is a legacy project from Rodney District Council. A focus of initial planning was toward aquatic development amongst other things.

12. The project was reviewed as part of the council’s 2014 deferral process and is currently being confirmed via Long Term Plan prioritization and approval process.

13. The combined project budget provision for FY15 and FY 16 is now forecast at circa $4.3M (FY16 to be formally confirmed) and the local board is eager to see the project’s progression.

14. The reduced budget and changes to the Pools and Leisure team’s operational structures has promoted a critical review of the project drivers and scope that had been in play. In summary the project’s objectives and priorities were reconfirmed, however some alternative opportunities have been investigated to achieve improvements in the fitness and learn to swim areas. These areas of the facility do have some current problems and should be key revenue growth and community engagement opportunities.

15. In a bid “to do more for less” and to avoid the premium in fees and consenting, the project team has re-visited the current internal planning of the facility. That is to undertake alterations that stay within the current building footprint as much as possible. It is believed that we can re-purpose existing areas of the facility that have low use, are inefficient or where there is alternate provision within close proximity; to make way for priorities that offer better community engagement and a more financially sustainable position.

16. The zoning for the revised Stage 1 project scope submitted for local board consideration is outlined on Attachment 1. The key moves in summary are:

Asset works

· Structural remediation works

· Roof and wall cladding remediation works, including roof access works

· HVAC systems upgrade

· Electrical systems upgrade

· Re-tile the pool concourse and remediate drainage issues

Fitness and Learn to Swim

· Only retain one of the current squash courts

· Turning three squash courts into a single large group exercise and functional team training room at the ground level.

· Turning the current mezzanine group exercise room into a more premium cardio and strength machine gym for all

· Turning the upstairs cardio room into a small programmable studio (programmes/ yoga/pilates) or a women’s only gym.

· Leaving the strength and free weight room on the ground floor.

· Demolish the upper mezzanine administration offices and the existing crèche below and build a bigger learn to swim pool.

Customer experience and operational initiatives

· Reconfigure entry, reception and shop.

· Rationalise and bring administration offices downstairs.

· Upgrade pool and members change rooms.

17. “Below the line” items will be included in a master plan for future stages, or brought “above the line” if opportunity presents itself.

Consideration

Local Board Views and Implications

18. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board has:

· Indicated their support for comprehensive project initiatives via cost effective contracting strategies over ad-hoc delivery of multiple renewals and capital projects.

· Indicated support for “must do” scope items in advance of “nice to have” initiatives.

· Indicated support for financial sustainability initiatives.

· Been clear that they want long-term design and specification strategies applied to all project scope and expect the project team to “red flag” issues or possible compromises that may emerge through the project process.

Maori Impact Statement

19. The facility and project contributes positively to Maori participation and outcomes.

Implementation Issues

20. The next local board business meeting is not until February 2015. The finalisation and approval of the project’s business plan is programmed for December 2014 to enable immediate progression into the design phase. Alternate arrangements for business case approval require consideration to mitigate delay to programme and project activities.

21. Officers will report back to the local board periodically and around key milestones on project progress and implementation issues.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Development Zones	31

Signatories

Authors

Jane Franich - Contract Relationship Advisor

Authorisers

Ian Maxwell - Manager Parks, Sports & Recreation

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

10 December 2014

Auckland Transport Update to Hibiscus and Bays Local Board December 2014

File No.: CP2014/28040

Purpose

1. To respond to local board requests on transport-related matters and to provide information to elected members about Auckland Transport (AT) activities.

Executive Summary

2. The report provides an update on transport matters for the information of the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board and a register of transport issues in the local board’s area, as collated by Auckland Transport’s Elected Member Relationship Manager North.

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) request a rough order of cost for the following Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) projects:

i) provision of a short connecting footpath from the end of the existing footpath on Waiwera Place, Waiwera, to the footpath in Waiwera Place Reserve.

ii) urban upgrade of Beach Road, Torbay, including options to provide a higher level of amenity and an enhanced environment for pedestrian and vehicle safety.

b) with respect to Project 409, the provision of a short connecting footpath from the existing path on Waiwera Place, Waiwera, to the footpath in the beach front reserve, approve construction of a 1.5m wide footpath, minor shrub trimming, clearance and minor changes to the park fence, subject to dispensation approval for the footpath which does not meet Auckland Transport Code of Practice standards and to the completed cost being under the $37,000 rough order of cost indicated.

Discussion

Update on the Hibiscus and Bays LBTCF Projects

3. Construction of the following LBTCF projects nominated by the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board has now been completed:

· East Coast Road (vicinity of Spencer Road), Pinehill – footpath upgrade (Project 094);

· Duck Creek Road, Stillwater – new footpath (Project 097);

· Titan Place to Silverdale Township, Silverdale – new footpath (Project 098);

· 504 Beach Road, Murrays Bay – footpath upgrade (Project 099);

· 201-246 Centreway Road, Orewa – new footpath (Project 100);

· Grand Drive – Tauranga Place, Orewa – new walkway and footpath (Project 101);

· St John’s School, Mairangi Bay – new footpath (Project 229).

4. Project 091, provision of a footpath with a higher than normal amenity value on Hastings Road, Mairangi Bay, was discussed further at a meeting on 23 October 2014 with member Cooper, a representative of the Mairangi Bay Arts Centre and staff from AT. Discussions focussed on the provision of recycled posts to be used as artistic features, the number and design of twelve placeholder pavers, the removal of existing plinths and steps in the area of construction, planting on the berm and the provision of a footpath and handrail from the Mairangi Bay Park’s driveway entrance on Hastings Road to the area of the carpark. Costings for the project are being revised as a result of these discussions. It is anticipated that work will commence in January/February 2015.

5. Detailed design based on a rough order of costs of $90,000 provided for Project 096, safety improvements on Awaruku Road, Torbay, continues and the local board’s TPLs will be updated on its completion.

6. Car parking along the southern side of Duck Creek Road adjacent to Stillwater Reserve (Project 209) will be provided on completion of a new community hall on the reserve, but no later than the end January 2015 to meet the conditions of resource consent. AT staff are currently working with Auckland Council staff to determine a firm cost estimate for the work.

7. The local board’s TPLs have decided not to proceed further with the provision of a new footpath on Ferry Road, Arkles Bay (Project 233), for which a rough order of cost of $196,000 was provided.

8. Detailed design is now proceeding on the following projects based on the rough cost estimates shown:

· Project 232 – New footpath on Whangaparaoa Road, Stanmore Bay, from Cedar Terrace to Scott Road (rough order of cost $94,000).

· Project 240 – Safe Crossing Point on Tavern Road, Silverdale (rough order of cost $40,000).

· Project 346 - provision of lighting on a section of Te Ara Tahuna Walkway through Western Reserve, Orewa (rough order of cost $110,000).

· Project 383 - the provision of 5 – 6 parallel car parks on the property at 8 Galbraith Green, Silverdale (revised rough order of cost $62,000).

9. The local board approved construction for Project 395, Okura River Road Bus Stop Hard Stand area at its meeting on 19 November 2014, subject to the completed cost being below the $21,000 rough order of costs provided.

10. Rough order costs have been requested for the following projects:

· Relocation of the edge line on Glenvar Road, Torbay, on its approach to East Coast Road, where a temporary path was recently provided by AT at the request of the local board to ensure the safety of pedestrians, to provide greater separation between vehicles and pedestrians.

· Urban upgrade of Beach Road, Torbay, including options to provide a higher level of amenity and an enhanced environment for pedestrian and vehicle safety.

11. A rough order of costs was also requested for Project 409, the provision of a short connecting footpath from the existing path on Waiwera Place, Waiwera, to the footpath in the beach front reserve (from the cul-de-sac head). Advice was provided to the local board’s TPLs on 26 November 2014 that construction of a 1.5m wide concrete footpath, together with minor shrub trimming, clearance and minor changes to the park fence, could be carried out for a rough order of costs of $37,000.

12. However, a 1.5 m wide path does not meet ATCOP standards so dispensation approval will be required and completion of the project will therefore be subject to that approval. The rough order of costs also does not allow for any service relocation, however none is expected, nor does it allow for any consent costs, none of which are expected.

13. Construction appears straightforward and it is therefore suggested that the local board approve construction of the project at this meeting, subject to the completed cost being under the $37,000 rough order of cost indicated.

Footpath Projects

14. Auckland Transport is unable to progress a programme of new footpaths in 2014/15 due to budgetary constraints and a high volume of other schemes going to construction. However, it is hoped to make a start on the programme again in 2015/16, subject to funding becoming available through the Long-term Plan.

15. It the interim, it is acknowledged that there are a large number of outstanding requests from members of the public and local boards for new footpaths. A list of these requests previously assessed by AT for design and construction has been forwarded to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board. These schemes have already been subject to a prioritisation process with a focus around connecting up with the existing network and linking to key destinations.

16. The local board may wish to consider funding design and construction of some schemes in its area, using the LBTCF, though these decisions should be made as soon as possible so that construction can commence before June 2016.

Lower alcohol limits a milestone for road safety

17. Lower legal alcohol limits which came into force on 1 December 2014 will begin making New Zealand roads safer from day one, providing safer journeys for all New Zealanders as the country heads into the festive season.

18. Legislation passed earlier this year means that from 1 December 2014, the legal alcohol limit for drivers aged 20 years and over will be lowered from 400 to 250 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath (or from 80 to 50 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood), bringing New Zealand’s law into line with the limits already in place in the majority of OECD countries. The alcohol limit for drivers under the age of 20 will remain at zero.

19. The lower alcohol limit is a game-changer for road safety in New Zealand, and with the holiday season fast approaching, the message is clear – if you’re going to drink don’t drive, and if you’re going to drive don’t drink.

20. The NZTA has been undertaking a public information campaign to remind New Zealanders of the change, with promotions beginning in early November with the rollout of posters and coasters in pubs and bars. Promotional activity stepped up from 16 November with television, radio and outdoor advertising all focussing on the simple message of lower alcohol limits for drivers 20 and over from 1 December 2014.

21. Reducing deaths and serious injuries from drink-driving is a key plank of the Government’s Safer Journeys strategy, which looks across the entire road system to improve safety through safer roads and roadsides, safer speeds, safer vehicles and safer road use.

Five year time limits for new driver licences from 1 December 2014

22. Changes to New Zealand’s Graduated Driver Licensing System aimed at improving the safety of novice drivers and motorcyclists are set to come into force at the beginning of December 2014, including the introduction of a five-year time limit on new learner and restricted car and motorcycling licences.

23. The changes to the Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Rule mean that drivers or riders who obtain or renew their learner or restricted licence after 1 December 2014 and who haven’t moved on to the next licence stage within the following five years will need to pass another theory test to renew their licence after it expires.

24. The changes will encourage novice drivers and motorcyclists to progress to a full licence within a reasonable timeframe.

25. The changes are part of the Government’s broader Safer Journeys strategy which aims to significantly reduce deaths and injuries on New Zealand’s roads. The new time limits will work together with other recent measures introduced under Safer Journeys to improve the safety of young drivers, including raising the minimum licensing age from 15 to 16, the introduction of a zero alcohol limit for teen drivers and the rollout of more challenging practical driver tests to gain restricted and full licences.

26. Another change coming into force on December 1 2014 with the amended Driver Licensing Rule is the strengthening of the ‘evidence of identity’ requirements for licence applications, in order to reduce the risk of driver licences being obtained fraudulently.

27. Further details on all of the changes can be found on the NZTA website at http://www.nzta.govt.nz/consultation/driver-licensing-amendment-2014/index.html.

Share the Road Marketing Campaign

28. A total of 633 cycling crashes occurred in Auckland over the period 2011 to 2013, while cyclist numbers steadily increased from 731,000 in 2011 over the same period.

29. The primary barriers deterring people from cycling are safety concerns about sharing the road with traffic and insufficient cycle lanes. People are cycling less than they were 12 months ago and being deterred by safety concerns. Most agree that more should be done to promote safe cycling behaviours and safe driving around cyclists.

30. AT’s Share the Road Marketing Campaign, being carried out over the period 16 November to 14 December 2014, will feature advertising via bus back media, which has proven to be effective in reaching people on the move in cars. There will be a total of 58 bus backs expected to reach approximately 449,443 people on a daily basis.

31. Targeting all Auckland motorists, the objective is to encourage motorists to be more aware of cyclists on the road and to help reduce the numbers of cyclists killed and injured. The key messages are to give cyclists 1.5 metres space when passing; to look out for cyclists when turning; and to look out for cyclists before opening car doors.

Issues Update

32. The following Issues Update comprises issues raised by Elected Members and Local Board Services staff to 27 November 2014:

	Location		Issue	Status
1	Hibiscus Coast Highway, Hatfields Beach	Requests for safety improvements on Hibiscus Coast Highway, Hatfields Beach.		Previous responses in August and October 2014 to requests for safety improvements on Hibiscus Cost Highway in the Hatfields Beach area advised members that the speed limit on Hibiscus Coast Highway had been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2003 and the existing 70km/hr speed limit is correctly set under the rule, and that, with the 2014/2015 year’s New Footpath programme fully committed, the request for a single, contiguous pedestrian/cycle route between Hatfields Beach and Orewa will be included for consideration in the 2015/2016 programme, and retained for reassessment in subsequent programmes if it was not possible to accommodate the request within the 2014/2015 programme. On 20 November 2014 the local board's TPLs were advised that a pedestrian count indicated an average of 29 crossing the road at Hatfields Beach each day. The request for a crossing facility was therefore to be added to the candidate list for prioritisation early in 2015 for assessment against other projects region wide. If successful, and providing a feasible design can be developed, the project will then be added to AT's future Minor Improvements Works Programme.
2	Ralph Eagles Place, Long Bay	Request for P30 parking on Ralph Eagles Place, Long Bay.		Local board chairperson Julia Parfitt asked that P30 parking outside Long Bay Primary School on Ralph Eagles Place, Long Bay, be investigated to allow drop-off/pick up before and after school. Members were previously advised that AT’s Community Transport Coordinator (CTC) for Long Bay Primary School had previously discussed possible parking changes on Ralph Eagles Place requested by the school’s principal with staff from AT's Parking Design and Road Corridor Operations Teams at length. AT's engineers are reluctant to make any changes immediately outside the school at this stage but that, because the existing restrictions reflect those outside other primary schools where short term parking is allowed for drop off/pick up only, engineers were reluctant to make changes. However, they have agreed to further investigate time restricted parking for school days only on the southern side of Ralph Eagles Place from where the existing NSAAT restrictions end at the corner. In the meantime, the CTC and the school have introduced several strategies to reduce the number of family car trips, thus easing the congestion at the school gate. Under consideration by Road Corridor Operations staff.
3	Noel Avenue, Orewa	Drainage on Noel Avenue, Orewa.		Discussions took place on 21 November 2014 between the local board chair, AC stormwater and AT road corridor maintenance staff with regard to an informal carpark on Noel Avenue, Orewa, following concerns being raised about the amount of surface water during/after rain. Further investigations into proposed development of the properties at 3 and 5 Noel Avenue are being undertaken while the cost for upgrading the informal car park and the cost for reshaping the road to improve drainage are being established. An update will be provided to the local board when these investigations have been completed. Under consideration by AC stormwater and AT road corridor maintenance staff.
4	Silverdale Street, Silverdale	Requests for traffic calming measures on Silverdale Street, Silverdale.		The President and Vice President of the Silverdale Business Association made a presentation to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board at its meeting on 16 October 2014 requesting several improvements in Silverdale Street, Silverdale, including upgrading the existing pedestrian crossings at 11 and 21 Silverdale Street; signs on Hibiscus Coast Highway south-west of Silverdale Street to advise motorists to use either Wainui Road or Millwater Parkway to access Silverdale Town Centre; a speed reduction to 30 km/h on Silverdale Street; and angle parking rather than 90’ parking at the new retail development at 1-11/44 and at 22 Silverdale Street. A request was also made for the installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Silverdale Street/Tavern Road/Hibiscus Coast Highway. Responses regarding the signalisation of Silverdale and the reduction in the speed limit on Silverdale Street have been provided to the local board and the Association through its President, Lorraine Sampson previously. On 25 October 2014 local board members were advised that detailed investigation of the issues is being undertaken to ensure a comprehensive evaluation and that this is expected to be completed in March 2015. AT staff met with the local board's TPLs on 20 November and a verbal update on these and several other issues raised by the Association was provided. A written update is currently being prepared which will be circulated to the local boards and the Association.
5	Ferry/Wade River Roads, Arkles Bay	Request for hard stand area for pedestrians at the intersection of Ferry/Wade River Roads, Arkles Bay.		At the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board meeting on 16 October 2014 member Cooper requested provision of a hard stand area for pedestrians at the intersection of Ferry and Wade River Roads, Arkles Bay, so that they could stand off- rather than on-road while waiting to cross. On 20 November 2014 the local board's TPLs were advised that on visiting Ferry Road to assess the need for changes, staff identified that the safest location to cross Wade River Road in the vicinity of the Ferry Road intersection is just to the west of the intersection where pedestrians can safely wait on the grass berm before crossing the road. The location referred to is midway between the bends on Wade River Road which provides pedestrians with the best visibility of traffic coming in both directions. There is also a driveway at this location where pedestrians could wait before crossing to the footpath on the northern side of Wade River Road. Because there is no footpath on the southern side of Wade River Road or Ferry Road near the intersection, pedestrians would still need to walk on the grass berm or road to reach this location and there would therefore be limited benefits to providing a sealed area at this location for pedestrians waiting to cross the road. Pedestrian volumes were not observed to be high during the investigation and, because of this and the reasons outlined above, any upgrade of the current pedestrian facilities is therefore not considered to be warranted at this stage.
6	Hibiscus Coast Highway, Orewa	Improvements on Hibiscus Coast Highway at Orewa South Bridge.		Local board staff were provided with a synopsis of the project underway on Orewa South bridge on 29 October 2014. They were advised that, to improve safety for both recreational and confident cyclists, and for pedestrians, a new shared path would be installed on the north-western side of the bridge, together with an on-road cycle lane in each direction. To improve crossing amenity for both pedestrians and cyclists, AT also proposes the installation of a mid-point pedestrian refuge north of the bridge. Construction had begun on 16 October 2014 and it was anticipated that the physical works would be completed prior to Christmas. The traffic management measures in place during construction, whilst extensive, are required to ensure the safety of all users, including the construction workers.
7	Beach Road, Rothesay Bay; Beach Road/Lyons Street, Murrays Bay; Oaktree Ave, Browns Bay	Replacement signs required in Beach Road, Rothesay Bay; Beach Road/Lyons Street, Murrays Bay; Oaktree Ave, Browns Bay and general information requested about signage.		Member Cooper advised on 16 November 2014 that signs at 609 Beach Road, Rothesay Bay (crossing ahead sign); corner Beach Road and Lyons Street, Murrays Bay (street sign); and Oaktree Ave, Browns Bay (several street signs along the road) had been knocked over. (Note: details of the location of the signs in Oaktree Avenue were requested on 21 November 2014.) Member Cooper also noted at the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board meeting on 19 November 2014 that signs installed since the transition seemed to be less robust as those used prior, asking if there had been a conscious decision made to change the standard design. He also requested an estimate of the maintenance costs for replacing signs in the Hibiscus and Bays area annually. Referred to Road Corridor Maintenance.
33. 8	Hibiscus and Bays General	Query as to whether the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area would be included in the LED luminaire replacement programme.		Members were advised on 30 October 2014 that AT will be replacing 44,000 high pressure sodium (golden yellow light) street lights with energy efficient light emitting diodes (LED) luminaires in what will be New Zealand’s most ambitious LED replacement programme to date. Member Fitzgerald requested details of the replacement programme. On 20 November members were advised that AT is currently in the process of prioritising the areas that will be retrofitted with LED luminaires, but all the residential streets will be upgraded over the next 4-5 years, with areas chosen based on the age profile of the luminaires in service. Further advice will be provided to local boards on completion of the prioritisation process.
9	Hibiscus Coast Highway, Silverdale	Surface deterioration on roundabout on Hibiscus Coast Highway, Silverdale.		Having been advised that AT is responsible for the roundabouts at Silverdale, not NZTA, on 20 November 2014 the local board’s senior advisor asked that surface deterioration on the section between the first and third exits on the western-most roundabout adjacent to the second exit (that goes on towards the toll road) be repaired. Referred to Road Corridor Maintenance
10	Total Mobility Scheme	Request for information about AT's Total Mobility Scheme.		On 20 November 2014 Cr Wayne Walker asked for information on the Total Mobility Scheme additional to that shown on AT’s website and advice as to the number of total mobility card holders in the Auckland Region, the Hibiscus Coast area, the Rodney Local Board/Ward area, the Albany Ward. In addition he asked whether the advisory group’s meetings are open to the public and whether the minutes of those meetings are available to the public. On 26 November 2014 Cr walker was advised that his request was being treated as a request for information under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act and the timeframe for the response would therefore be in accordance with the requirements of the Act. Referred to PT staff.
11	Beach Road, Rothesay Bay	Provision of real time (bus) information to be made available in Beach Road, Rothesay Bay.		At the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board meeting on 19 November 2014, local board chairperson Julia Parfitt asked whether it would be possible for a Rothesay Bay developer to display real time (bus) information in his café across the road from a Rothesay Bay bus stop. Referred to PT Facilities staff.
12	342 - 348 Hibiscus Coast Highway, Orewa	Relocation of celebrity stars on Orewa Boulevard's Walk of Fame, 342 - 348 Hibiscus Coast Highway, Orewa.		An Orewa resident presented to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board on 19 November 2014 requesting support for the relocation of the celebrity stars on Orewa’s Walk of Fame, outside 342 and 348 Hibiscus Coast Highway, Orewa. Members asked for information as to AT's process in this regard. On 24 November 2014 the local board's TPLs were advised that on the two separate occasions the resident had contacted AT’s Elected Member Customer Response Team responses provided had indicated that, because the stars are on private property, AT has no jurisdiction in the matter and further, could not fund their relocation. The response from AT's General Manager Communications to the resident in August had simply been to request further information and no indication had been given that an application to install additional stars within the road reserve would be approved. Members were advised that the existing stars had been installed in their current location in June/July 2010, at which time the road controlling authority for the Hibiscus Coast area was Rodney District Council, not AT. With regard to the installation of the stars on the footpath on the opposite side of Hibiscus Coast Highway and in other Orewa streets where these are under AT management, the resident will be required to submit a formal application for encroachment.
13	Arran Road, Browns Bay	Traffic congestion on Arran Road, Browns Bay.		Cr George Wood asked on 25 November 2014 on behalf of a constituent whether there were plans to install NSAAT restrictions on Arran Road, Browns Bay, either on the corners or perhaps along one side of the road, to improve traffic flow. Referred to Road Corridor Operations.

Consideration

Local Board Views and Implications

34. This report is for the local board’s information.

Maori Impact Statement

35. No specific issues with regard to the Maori Impact Statement are triggered by this report.

General

36. The activities detailed in this report do not trigger the Significance Policy, all programmes and activities are within budget/in line with the Council’s Annual Plan and Long-term Plan documents and there are no legal or legislative implications arising from the activities detailed in this report.

Implementation Issues

37. There are no implementation issues.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report

Signatories

Author	Ellen Barrett, Elected Member Relationship Manager, Auckland Transport
Authoriser	Jonathan Anyon, Elected Member Relationship Team Manager, Auckland Transport

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

10 December 2014

Request for feedback on the draft Local Approved Product Policy

File No.: CP2014/27099

Purpose

1. To seek local board feedback on the draft Local Approved Product Policy (LAPP).

Executive summary

2. On 9 October 2014 the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee approved the draft LAPP for public consultation (REG/2014/123). The LAPP sets 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. Local boards are being asked to provide formal feedback on the draft LAPP by the end of December. There will be an opportunity for local boards to present their views to the hearings panel in February 2015.

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board :

a) provide feedback on the draft Local Approved Product Policy in the attached report.

Comments

4. On 9 October 2014 the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee approved a draft LAPP for public consultation (REG/2014/123).

5. The LAPP sets 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. The draft LAPP will 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. The policy also has a separate set of rules for the city centre where licences won’t be granted in areas of high residential deprivation and new shops would have to be a certain distance from existing shops. This draft would reduce the availability of these substances in areas where their presence is likely to have the greatest potential for harm.

7. Public consultation on the draft LAPP will be conducted via a special consultative procedure. The consultation will begin on 28^th October and run for four weeks. The consultation is being publicised via social media, Our Auckland, the peoples panel, various public events and advisory panel networks.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

8. Local board views are being sought via this report. Local boards have previously provided feedback on possible options and on a proposed draft. Workshops on the proposed draft were held with a number of boards. Seventeen (17) boards provided feedback on the specific options, three requested a complete ban. Great Barrier Local Board declined to comment as they did not consider it an issue for their area.

9. As a result of local board feedback to the proposed draft the following changes were made:

· Buffer zones around schools were increased

· Buffer zones around mental health and addiction treatment centres were increased

· New rules for the city centre were added.

10. Local board feedback is being sought in a parallel process to the special consultative process. The local board process will last until the end of December 2014 with local boards having the opportunity to present their views to the hearings panel in February 2015.

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. Both of these goals are consistent with outcomes set out by Auckland Council to improve social outcomes for Māori in Auckland.

12. The consultation process with Māori has been developed in partnership with Māori agencies. A workshop has been undertaken with representatives from Hapai Te Hauora Tapui, an agency representing Māori health providers in the Auckland region, to provide initial feedback. Council staff are working with the Independent Māori Statutory Board, Te Waka Angamua and Hapai Te Hauora Tapui to ensure effective engagement with Māori. The initial work has centred on ensuring information is available to iwi and maata waka.

Implementation

Step	Estimated timeframe
1. Special consultative procedure	28 October – 28 November
2 Local board consultation	20 October – 19 December
3 Hearings	February 2015
4. Adopt final policy	April 2015
5. Implementation and review	Ongoing

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Changes from proposed to draft summary	101
b View	Statement of Proposal - draft LAPP	103

Signatories

Authors

Callum Thorpe - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

10 December 2014

Why were these rules chosen?

Why restrict where they can be sold?

Because psychoactive substances are new and continue to change composition there is almost no information on their impact on communities or groups of people. In lieu of this information the proposed approach is to use the available data concerning the effects of similar substances. The best comparisons concern the effect of alcohol, smoking and other substance use. One of the ideas to reduce harm from substances that a lot of people support is that decreasing the availability of a substance will tend to reduce its use.

Why high deprivation?

One impact that stands out from the research is that areas with high levels of deprivation experience more harm from substance use than areas with low levels of deprivation. When this finding is combined with the idea that decreasing the availability of a substance will tend to reduce its use, there is a strong case that preventing the sale of psychoactive substances in high deprivation areas will prevent harm to those who are more vulnerable to harm.

Why schools?

The youth council representatives and a number of treatment providers advised that the use of these substances in high school aged youth was a considerable problem. Similar to the high deprivation restriction a reduction in availability is proposed to reduce harm.

To reduce the availability of these substances to youth, a control on the location of where they can be sold is needed. To achieve this control over access it is proposed that a 500m zone around schools with year 7 and older students and a 200m buffer zone around schools with year six and younger students.

The 200m buffer zone around schools with year six and younger students is considered to be appropriate as these children are less likely to be able to purchase substances due to their age. This has been demonstrated by the low numbers of youth in this age bracket being treated for substance use or coming to the attention of the Police.

Why treatment centres?

As with schools and high deprivation areas; limiting the availability of these substances to vulnerable people is likely to be the most practical approach to minimising harm. Both mental health treatment centres and addiction treatment centres serve people who would be considered particularly vulnerable to the effects of these substances. Many of the treatment providers expressed a strong preference that they should not be for sale close to any mental health treatment centre. To reduce the availability of these substances to this group of people a 500m buffer around treatment centres is proposed.

Why Neighbourhood centres?

It is proposed to not allow psychoactive substances to be sold in neighbourhood centres. These centres are the small groups of shops within residential areas. People who don’t tend to travel large distances like youth and people struggling with addictions or mental health issues find these locations convenient. By removing the sale of these products out of neighbourhood centres there is an increased probability of reducing harm to those most at risk of harm from using psychoactive substances.

Why restrictions on how close a shop can be to another shop?

Research in New Zealand and overseas has established a link between the density of alcohol outlets and the alcohol related harm experienced by the local communities. It is considered reasonable to assume that there is a high likelihood of a similar link for psychoactive substances. It follows then that a density control mechanism will help the other measures to minimise the harm experienced by users of psychoactive substances. To achieve this control it is proposed to not allow a new licence to sell psychoactive substances within 500m of an existing licence.

Why have other identified areas?

Two small areas have been identified that are commercial areas in mainly high deprivation areas and are only partially covered by the high deprivation census areas. These areas are Hunters Corner in Papatoetoe, and the Manurewa commercial area. In both cases a significant portion of the commercial area is in a very high deprivation area. These are also areas where the local boards have advised that the areas experienced high levels of harm related to the sale of psychoactive substances in the past. It is considered that leaving small areas within these commercial zones where a licence could be granted would be contrary to the stated purpose of the LAPP. These areas are indicated on map1a and 1b.

Why not have other types of sensitive sites?

For each area considered for inclusion as a sensitive site there is a trade-off between the restriction that is imposed and the benefit of reduced harm gained from the decision. There were a number of areas considered as possible sensitive sites where it was difficult to match the potential with the restriction required to achieve it. Potential sites that did not meet the criteria for inclusion were early childhood education centres, churches, playgrounds, public spaces, libraries and community centres.

For example it is difficult to determine what harm would be minimised from adding a buffer to early childhood education centres. The restriction would not protect the students as they are far too young to buy the substances and they would not be exposed to the trade occurring in local shops as the centres tend to be enclosed. .

A buffer zone around places of worship was also strongly considered. A number of stakeholders argued that these places provide services to vulnerable populations and thus should be protected. However the services they provide tend to be of a short duration such as a support meeting and are not conducted equally at every place of worship. Also these places may only offer such services for a portion of the year. This lack of consistency makes it impossible for a general restriction to apply to all places of worship. The alternative option of having a different restriction for each place of worship based on the work they do is not practical to develop or maintain.

Why have separate rules for the city centre?

The city centre of Auckland has been clearly set out as a separate and very different urban landscape from the rest of Auckland. Planning and policy documents such as the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan and the Local Alcohol Policy make this distinction very clear. This uniqueness means the rules that work well for the rest of Auckland will not work so well for its centre.

Why not use the deprivation index?

The New Zealand Deprivation Index is calculated by scoring nine items. These items are effective and providing a measure that closely matching social deprivation in New Zealand. However, when the city centre population is considered it is not so effective. The high number of students who share factors with high deprivation households such as low personal income, no access to a car and no home ownership lead to a high deprivation index that is not a good measure of overall social deprivation in the residential population.

Why are there restrictions on areas of high density social housing?

These broad areas replace the deprivation zones used in the other areas of Auckland. These zones more effectively capture the intent of the deprivation restriction. They represent areas of the city centre where the residents with the highest social deprivation live. By targeting these areas it is considered this restriction will have the same effect as the deprivation restrictions outside the city centre.

Why not have buffer zones around schools?

After discussion with the schools and other city centre stakeholders it was decided that the buffer zone around city centre schools did not provide the same level of protection as it does in a suburban environment. This lack of protection is due to the nature and the density of businesses in the city centre. It was also felt that due to the commercial density in the city the buffer zones would be more restrictive than those in other zones. This mix of reduced effectiveness and increased restriction led to the removal of the buffer zones.

Why is there a smaller exclusion zone around retailers

The smaller buffer zone is due to the significantly greater commercial density in the city centre. This reduction has been supported by the Waitemata Local Board, Heart of the City and Auckland City Mission.

Why is there no mention of neighbourhood centres?

There are no neighbourhood centres in the city centre.

How will the LAPP decide between two licence applications close to each other?

The LAPP is not able to make any provision to distinguish between two licences apart from where they are located. Due to the proposed density rules there may be a situation where two people apply for a licence close to each other. In this case both licences cannot be granted because they would be too close to each other. Deciding which licence should be granted is the job of the Psychoactive Substance Regulatory Authority who makes all of the licensing decisions.

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

10 December 2014

Interim Open Space Provision Guidelines

File No.: CP2014/26959

Purpose

1. To seek feedback from local boards on the Interim Open Space Provision Guidelines.

Executive summary

2. The Interim Open Space Provision Guidelines (the guidelines) provide direction on the quantity, distribution and configuration of parks and open space sought by the council in both greenfield developments and the existing urban area.

3. The guidelines were adopted by the Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee in August for interim use and feedback during a six month trial period (Attachment A). An updated version of the guidelines, incorporating amendments based on feedback, will be reported in early 2015 to the Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee and Regional, Strategy and Policy Committee for adoption.

4. The primary focus of the guidelines is ensuring the open space network provides access to a range of high-quality recreation, social and environmental experiences. The guidelines direct how open space should be distributed within both greenfield developments and the existing urban area by establishing triggers in relation to travel distance, resident population or the proximity of other land uses (such as an urban centre) that determine when the open space network should provide for the following experiences:

· Neighbourhood parks

· Suburb parks

· Sub-regional parks

· Civic spaces

· Local sports parks

· Connections

5. For existing urban areas the guidelines focus on improving the quality, accessibility and connectivity of existing open space. The guidelines identity areas of significant and moderate shortfall in the quantity of open space relative to the current and future population within the existing urban area.

6. A target for the quantity of local recreation open space within greenfield developments of 2 hectares per 1000 residents is proposed.

7. The guidelines set out how different types of open space should be laid out and configured in relation to other land uses, such as housing and streets, to ensure that a high quality open space network is achieved.

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) provide feedback on the Interim Open Space Provision Guidelines

Comments

Background and strategic context

8. The Open Space Provision Guidelines (the guidelines) are part of the Parks and Open Spaces Policy Programme and are a key tool to implement the policy direction of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP), the Parks and Open Spaces Strategic Action Plan 2013, the Sport and Recreation Strategic Action Plan 2013 and the Parks and Open Space Acquisition Policy 2013 (the acquisition policy).

9. The guidelines provide direction on the distribution, quantity and configuration of parks and open space sought by the council in both greenfield developments and the existing urban area. They will inform a range of council activities including:

· Assessing open space acquisition opportunities

· Development of spatial plans (area plans, precinct plan and structure plans)

· Identifying strategic infrastructure requirements, including development of a regional open space network plan

· Informing the development of local open space network plans for local board areas

· Providing advice on council’s open space requirements to developers

10. The guidelines were adopted by the Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee in August for interim use and feedback during a six month trial period.

11. A successful open space network responds to the local context and therefore it is expected that variation in the provision of open space will occur across Auckland. The guidelines are intended to set out a framework for assessing open space provision rather than establish strict targets for council or developers to achieve.

12. The guidelines apply to greenfield developments and existing urban areas. They primarily focus on the provision of local parks, rather than sub-regional or region scale open space.

13. The guidelines have three parts, each of which are explained further below:

· Distribution of open space

· Quantity of open space

· Configuration of open space

Distribution of open space (pages 4 to 8 of the guidelines)

14. Ensuring the open space network provides the community with access to a range of high quality recreational, social and environmental experiences is the primary focus of the guidelines.

15. The first part of the guidelines direct how open space should be distributed within both greenfield developments and the existing urban area by describing six experiences the open space network should deliver:

· Neighbourhood parks

· Suburb parks

· Sub-regional parks

· Civic spaces

· Local sports parks

· Connections

16. The guidelines establish triggers in relation to travel distance, size of resident population or the proximity of other land uses (such as an urban centre) that determine when the open space network should provide for each of the experiences. Criteria relating to the size of open space required and key activities provided for are also established for some experiences.

17. Provision targets used by the legacy councils in Auckland as well as other councils in New Zealand and overseas have been considered in establishing the distribution targets (Attachment B).

18. Each of the experiences and the relevant triggers for provision are explained below:

Neighbourhood parks and suburb parks

19. Neighbourhood parks and suburb parks describe open space that provides common informal recreation experiences throughout urban areas. The guidelines establish criteria about the typical area of open space required for a neighbourhood park (0.3ha) and suburb park (3ha) and the activities they should provide for (such as play opportuniites, respite, trail networks).

20. Walking distance targets are proposed for neighbourhood parks and suburb parks relative to PAUP zoning. Shorter walking distance targets are proposed for the PAUP zones that provide for higher density residential development. This assists with providing residents in higher-density housing with easy access to informal recreation open space. The following walking distance targets are proposed:

Neighbourhood Park

Suburb Park

High density areas:

(Terraced Housing and Apartment Zone, Local Centre, Town Centre, Metropolitian Centre and Mixed Use)

400m walk

(approx. 5 mins)

1000m walk

(approx. 12 mins)

Remaining urban residential areas

600m walk

(approx. 7.5 mins)

1500m walk

(approx. 18 mins)

Sub-regional parks

21. Sub-regional parks describe large (typically >30ha) areas of open space that provide for a variety of informal recreation and sport experiences. These parks are usually located within, or on the periphery of, the urban area. Examples include Barry Curtis Park, Western Springs, Auckland Domain.

22. The guidelines propose that Auckland Council will proactively acquire sub-regional parks when opportunities arise and needs are identified through network planning, rather than expect sub-regional parks to be planned for by developers in greenfield areas. The guidelines do not propose a travel distance target for sub-regional parks, but state that residents within each of the northern, central, southern and western areas of urban Auckland should have easy access to a variety of sub-regional parks.

Civic space

23. Civic space describes the squares, plazas, greens, streets and shared spaces within urban centres which provide for social and informal recreation experiences. The provision guidelines propose the quantity and diversity of civic space relate to the scale of the urban centre. A local centre is proposed to be the smallest urban centre to trigger civic space requirements.

Local sports parks

24. Local sports parks describe open space which is used for organised sport, and typically includes facilities such as sports fields, courts and club buildings. Sports parks are also provided for at a sub-regional scale.

25. The guidelines propose that greenfield developments should provide for the local sport park requirements of their residents. Based on existing levels of sports field demand this equates to approximately 3ha of land per 2000 households. A threshold of 2000 households is proposed, as this generates sufficient demand for two sports fields, and results in larger sports parks which have efficiencies in terms of layout, facility use and maintenance. The 3ha minimum size includes allowances for club rooms, car parking and for other facilities such as courts.

26. No target for local sports parks provision is proposed for existing urban areas. The sports park network within the urban area is largely in place, and acquisition opportunities of land suitable for new sports parks are rare.

Connections

27. Creating a connected open space network is one of the areas of focus of the Parks and Open Spaces Strategic Action Plan 2013. The guidelines encourage open space to be distributed to create contiguous networks that have a range of recreational, transport and ecological benefits.

Quantity of open space (pages 9 to 11 of the guidelines)

28. Different policy responses are required for guidance on the quantity of open space between greenfield developments and the existing urban area. In greenfield developments there is generally no existing open space network and there is the ability to determine the amount and distribution of open space. In existing urban areas the open space network is largely in place and there are significant constraints on increasing the amount of open space, including the cost and availability of suitable land.

29. Achieving quantity targets is a secondary focus for the provision of open space.

Quantity of open space in existing urban areas

30. The guidelines do not establish a target for the quantity of open space relative to the population within existing urban areas. Due to the amount of population growth projected within existing urban areas, achieving and maintaining a ratio of open space to population would be unachievable due to financial (the cost of land) and practical constraints (the availability of suitable land).

31. The criteria of the Parks and Open Space Acquisition Policy 2013 (the acquisition policy) establish how the council prioritises acquisition opportunities within the existing urban area in response to population growth. The acquisition policy generally prioritises acquisition opportunities where there is:

· High levels of expected population growth

· Relatively poor access to informal recreation open space

· Low quantity of existing open space relative to the current and future population.

32. For the purpose of informing open space acquisition priorities, the quantity of open space across the region has been assessed in relation to:

· The quantity of open space (all types) within each census area unit

· The quantity of recreational open space within each census area unit

· Projected population growth between 2014 and 2030

· Strategic alignment with the Auckland Plan Development Strategy and PAUP zonings.

33. Draft quantity analysis is included within the interim guidelines (Attachment A, page 10). This map identifies where moderate and significant shortfalls in the quantity of open space relative to the current and future population are located within the existing urban.

Quantity of open space in greenfield developments

34. In greenfield development areas the guidelines set a target for the quantity of local informal recreation open space of 2 hectares per 400 households (approximately 1000 residents). Local informal recreation open space is defined as having an informal recreation, sport or civic open space function and excludes parks considered to serve a sub-regional or regional catchment.

35. Analysis of the existing provision of open space within the urban areas of Auckland, local board areas and ten case study areas has informed recommending a target of 2 hectares per 400 households of informal recreation open space. The target of 2 hectares of local recreation open space per 400 households is relatively consistent with the existing amount of local recreation open space provided in the urban area of Auckland.

36. The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan introduces a green infrastructure corridor zone which is to be applied to land within the 1 in 100 year floodplain in greenfield developments. The integration of green infrastructure and open space land is integral to creating a connected open space network. The guidelines allow for up to 50% of local recreation open space to be provided in the form of green infrastructure where this has demonstrable recreation benefits (such as creating trail networks).

37. No target for the amount of open space required for conservation or green infrastructure corridor purposes is proposed. The values and characteristics of an area determine the need for these open space functions rather than the population of a development. Targets are also not proposed for large sub-regional or regional recreation open space, as it is expected council will identify and acquire land for these functions outside of the greenfield development process (structure planning and subdivision).

Configuration of open space (pages 12 and 13 of the guidelines)

38. The third part of the guidelines sets out how different types of open space should be laid out and configured in relation to other land uses, such as housing and streets, to ensure that a high quality open space network is achieved.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

39. This report seeks the views of local boards on the interim open space provision guidelines. The view of local boards will be reported to the Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee and will inform proposed amendments to the guidelines prior to their adoption.

Maori impact statement

40. Engagement with Maori on the guidelines will occur during the trial period.

Implementation

41. Further development and testing of the provision guidelines is occurring during the period for the remainder of 2014. This involves:

· Assessing open space acquisition opportunities against the guidelines

· Testing the guidelines with developers preparing structure plans for special housing areas and future urban zone land

· Engagement with iwi and property developers

· Refinement of the modelling of provision targets

· Illustration of the concepts within the guidelines.

42. Final guidelines will be report to the Parks, Recreation and Sport Committee in early 2015 following the trial period.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Interim Open Space Provision Guidelines	121
b View	Examples of provision targets used by former Auckland Council and other NZ and overseas park authorities	135
c View	Draft Local Board Feedback	137

Signatories

Authors

Andrew Beer - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit – General Manager - Plans & Places

Rob Cairns - Manager Regionwide

Anaru Vercoe - Manager, Community Policy & Planning

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

10 December 2014

Long-term Plan 2015-2025: Local consultation material

File No.: CP2014/28103

Purpose

1. To seek adoption of local consultation material for the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 (LTP) by the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board.

Executive Summary

2. Over the last twelve months local boards have been involved in many Long-term Plan 2015 - 2025 workshops and meetings as part of their shared governance role.

3. In October 2014, local boards adopted local board plans which help inform draft LTP budget decisions. In addition to this, advocacy discussions were held between local boards and the governing body at the end of October 2014 after which budget decisions for LTP consultation were agreed by the governing body on 6 November 2014.

4. On 18 December 2014, the governing body will meet to adopt the LTP consultation document and supporting information, which includes local consultation material for each local board.

5. Indicative local budgets reflect 6 November 2014 governing body decisions and any minor amendments approved within the same funding envelope.

6. This report seeks adoption of local consultation material for the LTP.

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) adopt the local consultation material including:

i) a one page (2 side) local board insert; and

ii) supporting information, including local funding priorities for 2015/2016, key advocacy areas, indicative local performance targets for 2015/2016 and indicative local budgets for the next 10 years.

b) note:

i) the allocation of projects within Locally Driven Initiative (LDI) budgets are required to balance in every year.

ii) proposed operational savings for asset based services within the parks, community and lifestyle theme are not reflected in draft local budgets, but are instead captured at a regional level and savings will be applied locally to final LTP budgets following consultation.

iii) high level budgets for programmes of work such as renewals, non-growth projects, parks developments, sportsfield developments and land acquisition will be developed prior to adoption of the final LTP.

c) delegate to the Chairperson the authority to make any final minor changes to local consultation material for the Long-term Plan 2015 - 2025 prior to publication including online consultation content.

Discussion

Process

7. Over the last twelve months local boards have been involved in many Long-term Plan 2015 - 2025 workshops and meetings as part of their shared governance role.

8. In October 2014, local boards adopted a local board plan which helps inform draft LTP budget decisions. In addition to this, advocacy discussions were held between local boards and the governing body at the end of October after which budget decisions for LTP consultation were agreed by the governing body on 6 November.

9. On 18 December 2014, the governing body will meet to adopt the LTP consultation document and supporting information, which includes the following local consultation material for each local board:

a) a one page (2 side) local board insert in the LTP consultation document;

b) supporting information, including local funding priorities for 2015/2016, key advocacy areas, indicative local performance targets for 2015/2016, and indicative local budgets for the next 10 years

Draft budgets

10. Indicative local budgets reflect 6 November governing body decisions and any minor amendments approved within the same funding envelope.

11. The allocation of projects within Locally Driven Initiative (LDI) budgets are required to balance in every year.

12. Proposed operational savings for asset based services within the parks, community and lifestyle theme are not reflected in draft local budgets, but are instead captured at a regional level. Savings will be applied locally to final LTP budgets following consultation.

13. High level budgets for programmes of work such as renewals, non-growth projects, parks developments, sportsfield developments and land acquisition will be developed prior to adoption of the final LTP.

14. This report seeks adoption of local consultation material for the LTP and agrees local targeted rate proposals, if any, for consultation.

Next steps

15. Following the governing body meeting on 18 December, information will be provided to local board members on the consultation process and finalising local board agreements.

16. LTP consultation will commence on 23 January 2014 through to mid-March. Through this engagement local boards will seek views on proposals important to the local area to help develop the Local Board Agreement 2015/2016 due for adoption in May 2015. The local board will also seek views on the local impact of LTP proposals to inform advocacy discussions with the governing body.

17. The governing body will make final LTP budget decisions in May 2015 and meet to adopt the final LTP in June 2015, including 21 local board agreements.

Consideration

Local Board Views and Implications

18. This report sets out the decisions local boards need to make in order to finalise local consultation material for the Long-term Plan 2015 - 2025.

19. In October 2014, local boards adopted local board plans which help inform draft LTP budget decisions. In addition to this, advocacy discussions were held between local boards and the governing body at the end of October after which budget decisions for LTP consultation were agreed by the governing body on 6 November 2014.

Maori Impact Statement

20. Many local board decisions are of importance to and impact on Maori. Local board agreements and long-term plans are important tools that enable and can demonstrate council’s responsiveness to Maori. Local board plans, which were developed through engagement with the community including Maori, form the basis of the consultation material of the Long-term Plan 2015-2025.

21. There is a need to continue to build relationships between local boards and iwi, and where relevant the wider Māori community. Ongoing conversations will assist local boards and Māori to understand each other’s priorities and issues. This in turn can influence and encourage Māori participation in council’s decision-making processes. In particular, local board plans and LTP consultation material will influence relevant annual plans and local board agreements for 2015/2016 and beyond.

Implementation Issues

22. Local board financial statements reflect the cost of undertaking local activities within each local board area. Budgets are indicative for consultation purposes and subject to change.

23. Following consultation, proposed initiatives and budgets will be considered and updated to reflect feedback and new information available, prior to adoption of the final LTP.

Attachments

The attachments will be circulated under separate cover.

Signatories

Authors

Kate Marsh - Financial Planning Manager - Local Boards

Authorisers

Matthew Walker - Manager Financial Planning, Policy and Budgeting

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Chairperson	Julia Parfitt, JP
Deputy Chairperson	Greg Sayers
Members	David Cooper
	Janet Fitzgerald, JP
	Gaye Harding-Kirikiri
	Gary Holmes
	Lovisa Rasmussen
	Lisa Whyte

Portfolio	Description	Local Board Members
Local planning, policy and governance	Relationship with governing body, Chairs meeting, protocols, code of conduct, local area plans, structure plans, Unitary Plan, RUB, plan changes	Julia Parfitt –Chairperson Greg Sayers - Deputy Chairperson
Arts and culture	Arts centres, art programmes	Greg Sayers – Lead Julia Parfitt -Alternate
Events	General oversight of events programme music in parks, movies in parks	Greg Sayers and Julia Parfitt
Community services and facilities	Community development and safety, grants and funding, community facilities, community houses, community leases, Youth Connections	Julia Parfitt –Lead Janet Fitzgerald - Alternate
Youth	Local board Youth Forum, Youth Representative	Lovisa Rasmussen – Lead Gaye Harding-Kirkiri - Alternate
Libraries		Lisa Whyte –Lead Gaye Harding-Kirkiri - Alternate
Recreation services	Pools, multi-sport facilities	Gaye Harding-Kirkiri – Lead Lisa Whyte - Alternate
Parks	Reserve management plans, park usage, leasing on parks, liaison with parks staff on land owner approval	David Cooper –Lead Julia Parfitt –Alternate Janet Fitzgerald – Lead Lovisa Rasmussen - Alternate
Built and natural environment	Heritage, infrastructure (including stormwater, wastewater, water), environmental programmes, conservation and biodiversity, biosecurity, waste minimisation	Janet Fitzgerald – Lead Julia Parfitt - Alternate
Economic Development	Economic development plans, developing ATEED relationship, broadband	Gary Holmes – Lead Gaye Harding-Kirkiri -Alternate
Street environment and town centres	Gateways and mainstreet upgrades, Urban design champion	David Cooper and Gary Holmes – Leads Janet Fitzgerald -Alternate
Transport		David Cooper – Lead Gary Holmes – Alternate Janet Fitzgerald – Lead Greg Sayers - Alternate
Regulatory, bylaws and compliance	Bylaw policy feedback	Gaye Harding-Kirkiri -Lead Julia Parfitt -Alternate
Resource consent applications	Input into notification decisions for resource consent applications	Gary Holmes – Lead Janet Fitzgerald - Alternate
Communications and engagement	Media, stakeholder and community engagement including iwi relationships, Hibiscus and Bays Youth Voice and YAP	Julia Parfitt – Lead Lovisa Rasmussen -Alternate
Finance	Budget overview, financial prudence and reporting, local board funding policy	Lisa Whyte – Lead Julia Parfitt - Alternate
Civil defence/ emergency management		David Cooper –Lead Greg Sayers -Alternate
Urban Design Champion		Gary Holmes – Lead Janet Fitzgerald - Alternate

Term	Definition
Distance restriction	Distance restrictions will be measured from the two nearest points on the properties boundaries – that is, the boundary of the property not just the building.
City centre	As defined in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.
Neighbourhood centre	As defined by the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.
Mental health treatment centre	A residential facility where people are treated for mental health issues and has been identified by Auckland Regional Public Health Services as at risk of their clients experiencing harm if they were to have easy access to psychoactive substances.
Addiction treatment centre	A residential facility where people are treated for addiction issues and has been identified by Auckland Regional Public Health Services as at risk of their clients experiencing harm if they were to have easy access to psychoactive substances.
High Deprivation	Census Area Units that have a score on the New Zealand Deprivation Index of 8, 9 or 10. This indicates the area is in the most deprived 30% of New Zealand.
Residential deprivation	An area which has a high proportion of people living in social housing.

Authors	Vivienne Sullivan - Local Board Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager