I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Orākei Local Board will be held on:

 

Date:                      

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Thursday, 4 December 2014

3.30pm

St Chads Church and Community Centre
38 St Johns Road
Meadowbank

 

Orākei Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Desley Simpson, JP

 

Deputy Chairperson

Colin Davis, JP

 

Members

Ken Baguley

 

 

Troy Churton

 

 

Kate Cooke

 

 

Kit Parkinson

 

 

Mark Thomas

 

 

(Quorum 4 members)

 

 

 

Georgina  Morgan

Democracy Advisor

 

26 November 2014

 

Contact Telephone: 021 302 163

Email: georgina.morgan@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 

 


Orākei Local Board

04 December 2014

 

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                        PAGE

1          Welcome                                                                                                                         5

2          Apologies                                                                                                                        5

3          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   5

4          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               5

5          Leave of Absence                                                                                                          5

6          Acknowledgements                                                                                                       5

7          Petitions                                                                                                                          5

8          Deputations                                                                                                                    5

9          Public Forum                                                                                                                  5

9.1     Jo Kelly-Moore - Auckland Cathedral of the Holy Trinity: Selwyn’s Vision Project Team Update                                                                                                         6

10        Extraordinary Business                                                                                                6

11        Notices of Motion                                                                                                          6

12        Review of local dog access rules                                                                                7

13        Colin Maiden Park Precinct master plan principles                                                21

14        Tāhuna Tōrea Historical Assessment Report Update                                            27

15        Orakei Local Board Local Improvement Projects (SLIPs) programme 2014-2015 update                                                                                                                                       63

16        The Development of Liston Park                                                                               71

17        Orākei Home-based Business Study                                                                        77

18        Grant of New Community Lease at Melanesia Reserve, 30 Melanesia Road, Kohimarama, Kohimarama Bowling Club Incorporated                                                                 99

19        Request for feedback on the draft Local Approved Product Policy                   107

20        Interim Open Space Provision Guidelines                                                             125

21        Auckland Transport Update: December 2014                                                        147

22        Orakei Local Board Achievements Report July 2013 - October 2014                 157

23        Chairperson's Report                                                                                                183

24        Board Member Reports                                                                                            199

25        Resolutions Pending Action                                                                                    259

26        Local Board Workshop Record of Proceedings                                                    265  

27        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

 

 


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 Orākei Local Board:

a)         confirms minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 6 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 Orākei 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.

 

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

 

9          Public Forum

 

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

 

9.1       Jo Kelly-Moore - Auckland Cathedral of the Holy Trinity: Selwyn’s Vision Project Team Update

Purpose

1.       Jo Kelly-Moore – Dean and Charlotte Antonievich – Executive Assistant to the Dean, Auckland Cathedral of the Holy Trinity, will be in attendance to update the Board on the Selwyn’s Vision Project.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Orākei Local Board:

a)      thanks Jo Kelly-Moore – Dean and Charlotte Antonievich – Executive Assistant to the Dean, Auckland Cathedral of the Holy Trinity for their presentation.

 

 

 

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.

 


Orākei Local Board

04 December 2014

 

 

Review of local dog access rules

 

File No.: CP2014/26524

 

  

 

Purpose

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

Executive summary

2.       The Auckland Council Governing Body delegated the review of dog access rules for local parks, beaches and foreshore areas to the relevant local boards in 2012.

3.       The Orakei Local Board (the board) resolved on 25 September 2014 (resolution number OR/2014/43) to review dog access on reserves on Shore Road to investigate protection of the premier cricket wicket, and Wilson’s Beach to investigate more under control off-leash dog access.

4.       At a workshop of the Orakei Local Board on 16 October 2014, members identified the additional desire to review dog access rules in Ladies Bay and Gentlemans Bay to investigate more under control off-leash dog access, Roberta Reserve and foreshore to investigate protection of wildlife, and Churchill Park to investigate areas to better protect public safety and comfort.

5.       The purpose of this report is to assist the board to decide whether to commence the review of dog access rules in the abovementioned areas, and to authorise the relevant portfolio holder to determine pre-consultation and research initiatives.

6.       Staff recommend that the board formally commence the review of dog access rules on reserves on Shore Road, Wilson’s Beach and Churchill Park. Refer Table 1 for more details.

7.       Staff do not recommend commencing a review of dog access on Ladies Bay, Gentlemans Bay, or Roberta Reserve and foreshore. These areas were all subject to a comprehensive review of beach dog access rules by the board that concluded in September 2014. The board decisions are currently being implemented (including installation of new signage). Refer Table 1 for more details.

Recommendations

That the Orākei Local Board:

a)      resolve to review local dog access rules in the following areas:

i)        Reserves on Shore Road

ii)       Wilson’s Beach

iii)      Churchill Park

b)      resolve not to review local dog access rules in the following areas:

i)        Ladies Bay and Gentlemans Bay

ii)       Roberta Reserve and associated foreshore

c)      request staff to respond to correspondence about dog access on Roberta Reserve and the September 2014 decision of the board to continue to allow under control off-leash dog access.

d)      authorise Troy Churton as regulatory portfolio holder to determine pre-consultation and research initiatives.

e)      request that a report be provided by April 2015 to assist the board in deciding whether to propose any changes to the local dog access rules identified in (a).

 

Comments

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

9.       The Orakei Local Board resolved on 25 September 2014 (resolution number OR/2014/43):

·    to review in 2015 dog access rules on reserves on Shore Road. The review is to consider allowing dogs under control off-leash on the periphery of sports fields, and to prohibit dogs within the vicinity of the grass cricket wicket.

·    to review dog access rules on Wilson’s Beach in 2015. The review is to consider allowing dogs under control off-leash at all times (or not).

10.     At a workshop of the Orakei Local Board on 16 October 2014, certain members identified an additional desire to review dog access rules in the following areas:

·    Ladies Bay and Gentlemans Bay. The review would consider allowing dogs under control off-leash at all times. Dogs are currently only allowed under control off-leash at certain times.

·    Roberta Reserve and foreshore. The review would consider prohibiting dogs to protect wildlife. Dogs are currently allowed under control off-leash on the reserve, except on or near the playground.

·    Churchill Park. The review would consider allowing dogs under control on-leash on certain parts of the park. Churchill Park is currently an under control off-leash area.

11.     The purpose of this report is to assist the board to decide whether to commence the review of dog access rules in the abovementioned areas.

12.     Table 1 below provides reasons for and against whether to commence a review of dog access rules in the abovementioned areas.

13.     It is important to note that commencing with a review does not commit the board to adopting proposed changes for residents to have their say (make submissions). The first stage of the review is to undertake research and engagement to enable the board to decide in April 2015 whether or not to adopt any proposed changes. If in April 2015 the board decide that the current rules are considered appropriate, no changes are proposed and the review process finishes at that point.

 

Table 1: Reasons for and against review of local dog access rules

Area

Reasons for and against review

Reserves on Shore Road

Reasons for:

·    The board has already resolved in September 2014 (resolution number OR/2014/43) to review the current rules.

·    Responds to submissions to the 2014 Orakei Local Board review of local dog access rules seeking to prohibit dogs from the premier cricket wicket on Shore Road Reserve.

Reasons against:

·    The board previously resolved in May 2014 to retain the current dog access rules on reserves on Shore Road (resolution number OR/2014/12).

Wilson’s Beach

Reasons for:

·    The board has already resolved in September 2014 (resolution number OR/2014/43) to review the current time and season rule.

·    Responds to submissions to the 2014 Orakei Local Board review of local dog access rules seeking under control off-leash at all times dog access on Wilson’s Beach.

·    Wilson’s Beach and Orakei Basin are the only areas, from Hobson Bay to The Landing, where dogs are allowed under control off-leash due to the need to protect wildlife.

Reasons against:

·    Animal management staff, as part of the 2014 Orakei Local Board review of local dog access rules, considered that a time and season dog access rule is most appropriate because dog owners do seek out places to take their dog and the area is small with narrow access and limited parking.

Ladies Bay and Gentlemans Bay

Reasons for:

·    Investigates potential for more dog access on Ladies Bay and Gentlemans Bay beaches.

Reasons against:

·    The Orakei Local Board has recently completed a comprehensive review of beach dog access rules that concluded in September 2014 and is currently being implemented (including installation of new signage). The September 2014 decision was that a time and season rule is appropriate for Ladies Bay and Gentlemans Bay.

·    None of the 900 plus submissions to the 2014 review specifically related to Ladies Bay or Gentlemans Bay.

·    An on-line survey in March 2014 found that Ladies Bay and Gentlemans Bay are not popular with Orakei dog owners, and comprise less than five percent of all beach visits by Orakei dog owners.

·    Animal management staff, as part of the 2014 Orakei Local Board review of local dog access rules, considered that a time and season dog access rule is most appropriate because dog owners do seek out places to take their dog and the areas are small with narrow access and limited parking.

Roberta Reserve and foreshore

The review of this area has been subsequently raised in response to concerns expressed by a resident to members of the board.

Reasons for:

·    Investigates potential to better protect wildlife. Roberta Reserve and foreshore are identified as significant ecological areas (SEA_T_6187 and SEA_M1_49d in the Auckland Council Unitary Plan).

Reasons against:

·    The Orakei Local Board has recently completed a comprehensive review of beach dog access rules that concluded in September 2014 that is currently being implemented (including installation of new signage). The September 2014 decision was that the then current under control off-leash at all times dog access rule remains appropriate for Roberta Reserve and that an amended time and season dog access rule is appropriate for the Roberta Reserve foreshore.

·    Consultation in 2014 with the Tahuna Torea Rangers and the council’s environmental services identified Roberta Reserve as a roosting area for birds, but not in the numbers to warrant an extension of the prohibition on dogs from Tahuna Torea (from Vista Crescent).

·    Note: The identification of a significant ecological area in the Auckland Council Proposed Unitary Plan is a first step to determining whether dog access should be restricted. In each case an assessment is undertaken to determine where restrictions are most appropriate. For instance, the whole of Waiatarua Reserve is identified as a significant ecological area. On closer assessment however, it was determined that only the wetland areas require dog access restrictions.

Churchill Park

The review of this area has been subsequently raised in response to concerns expressed by residents to a member of the board.

Reasons for:

·    The area has not been subject to a specific review since at least 2009.

·    The concerns relate to public safety and comfort on certain paths and near Churchill Park School.

Reason against:

·    None identified.

 

General considerations

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

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

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

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

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

A more detailed outlined of the requirements is provided in Attachment A.

Process and costs of review

15.     The governing body has established a standard process to assist local boards. The governing body will fund aspects of the standard process, including basic research and engagement and public notification. Local boards will fund any additional research and engagement, alternative forms of public notification, and signage. Attachment B provides an outline of the process and respective responsibilities.

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

17.     The process timeline starts in September 2014 and ends in October 2015. The board will need to adopt a statement of proposal by April 2015, hold hearings and deliberations and make decisions on submissions by August 2015.

Pre-consultation and research

18.     It is recommended that the board authorise the relevant portfolio holder to determine pre-consultation and research initiatives.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

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

Māori impact statement

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

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

Implementation

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

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

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Decison-Making

13

bView

Standard Process

19

      

Signatories

Author

Paul Wilson - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Helgard Wagener - Team leader, Policies and Bylaws

Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

 


Orākei Local Board

04 December 2014

 

 






Orākei Local Board

04 December 2014

 

 



Orākei Local Board

04 December 2014

 

 

Colin Maiden Park Precinct master plan principles

 

File No.: CP2014/26004

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To outline the key findings of the first stage of the Colin Maiden Park master plan, which consists of a needs assessment and proposed guiding principles for the development and management of the park.

Executive summary

2.       Auckland Council purchased Colin Maiden Park from the University of Auckland for sports fields in February of 2014. Budget was also allocated to prepare a master plan for Colin Maiden Park to guide decision making for the management and development of the park.

3.       The master plan development consists of two stages.  The first is now complete and comprises a needs assessment to establish priority users for the park and key principles to guide the management and development of the park.  The process has involved consultation with the local community and key stakeholders.

4.       The guiding principles focus on the development of the park as a regional quality community sports precinct.

5.       The needs assessment confirmed Auckland University Australian Football, Auckland University Cricket Club, Judo, Auckland University Rugby football Club (rugby and touch rugby) as key users of the park and recommends including basketball, gymsports and hockey in the precinct.

6.       The consideration of Colin Maiden Park and adjoining Ngahue Reserve and Tennis Auckland as a whole has benefits to the precinct and the wider community and it is recommended that Ngahue Reserve and the Tennis Auckland site is included in the master plan.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Orākei Local Board:

a)      extends the scope of the Colin Maiden Park master plan to include Ngahue Reserve.

b)      endorses the guiding principles for the development and management of the Colin Maiden Park Precinct master plan.

c)      endorses the vision for the Colin Maiden Park Precinct as a regional quality community sports precinct.

 

Comments

 

Background

7.       Auckland Council purchased Colin Maiden Park from the University of Auckland in February 2014.  The Strategy and Finance Committee resolved to dispose of three other Auckland Council owned properties, Merton Reserve, land in Morrin Road (excluding Purchas Hill) and Donnelly Street to offset the cost of Colin Maiden Park.  The divestment of these properties is linked to the master plan as it is anticipated that Colin Maiden Park will provide for the open space uses which will be displaced from these sites. 

8.       Auckland Council Property Limited are leading on the disposal of these sites and will report progress to the local board as part of their regular quarterly reporting.

9.       Colin Maiden Park contains 8 sports fields, a suite of offices, a gymnasium, sports club rooms and a variety of other buildings including a child care centre and an x-ray practice. 

10.     The park has been developed by the University of Auckland based on specific needs of university departments and students.  Now that the park is in council ownership it is timely to assess and understand the community and open space needs, through the development of a master plan for the park.

Master plan

11.     The facilities within Colin Maiden Park, Ngahue Reserve and the Tennis Auckland site are all of a similar high standard and suitable for regional level sports competition.  The three sites are physically connected as a single precinct and Colin Maiden Park and Ngahue Reserve are owned by Auckland Council and governed by the Orakei Local Board.

12.     Connecting up the three parks and sharing resources such as car parking, buildings and resources has emerged as a strong theme in the consultation.  By looking at the three sites together as part of the master plan process there are a number of benefits to the whole precinct and the wider community. 

13.     It is recommended that the whole precinct be considered as part of the Colin Maiden Park master plan and be given the working title ‘Colin Maiden Park Precinct master plan’ with a vision to develop the precinct as a regional quality community sports precinct.

14.     O’Connor Sinclair were engaged to undertake the research stage to produce key principles to guide the development and management of Colin Maiden Park and prepare a needs assessment.

15.     The Master Plan Guiding Principles were established to address:

·        The purpose or theme of the park and type of users;

·        The design of facilities and features within the park and how they interact with the rest of the park, surrounding open spaces, communities and transport; and,

·        The governance, management and operations of the park users.

16.     The draft Guiding Principles were tested with both the Auckland Council internal project team and representatives of Orākei Local Board. The revised Guiding Principles were then used to develop Decision Criteria, for evaluating organisations based on the extent of their needs and their fit with the Guiding Principles and future use of the park. This enabled identification of the recommended priority user organisations and commercial tenants of Colin Maiden Park.

17.     Master Planning Guiding Principles:

a)      Design of the park, its facilities and related services should primarily complement and amplify the existing theme of formal organised sport where the field of play is of regional level quality and use is primarily club level (or equivalent).

b)      Master planning should consider Colin Maiden Park, Ngahue Reserve and Tennis Auckland land as one cohesive park.

c)      Design Colin Maiden Park facilities and support services in a way that will maximise the utilisation of open space.

d)      Create design solutions that minimise the footprint of built infrastructure (e.g. buildings, roads, car parks).

e)      Create design solutions that encourage shared use of space and efficient operations.

f)       Develop design solutions that incorporate effective access and connectivity within Colin Maiden Park and between Colin Maiden Park, Ngahue Reserve and Tennis Auckland land.

g)      Orakei Local Board, Colin Maiden Park user organisations, master planners and designers should anticipate the establishment of a single entity governance structure at Colin Maiden Park.

h)      All design concepts for Colin Maiden Park need to promote solutions that place importance on serving functional needs and achieving operational and sport delivery efficiency.

18.     O’Connor Sinclair undertook interviews with 27 key stakeholders including sports clubs and organisations, the neighbouring Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board, these groups were identified by staff and groups expressed an interest in using Colin Maiden Park.  Each group was assessed against the guiding principles and the following users were identified as priority users to be considered in the second stage of the master plan.

19.     The following table outlines the groups who have approached the Orakei Local Board to be considered as potential users of Colin Maiden Park. Profiles of each of the recommended users are outlined on page 35 of attachment 1.

User group

Current status

Future

 

Auckland University Australian Rules Football League

Existing Colin Maiden Park user

Key stakeholder

Participate in stage 2 of the master plan

Auckland Basketball Services Limited

New user

Key stakeholder

Progress to stage 2 of the master plan to determine if basketball can be accommodated within the Colin Maiden Park precinct

East City BMX

New user

Key stakeholder

Work with Auckland Council staff to identify a new location

Auckland University Cricket Club

Existing Colin Maiden Park user

Key stakeholders

Participate in stage 2 of the master plan

University Mt Wellington Football Club

Existing Colin Maiden Park user

Key stakeholder

Participate in stage 2 of the master plan

Oceania Football Club

Existing Colin Maiden precinct user

Key stakeholder

Participate in stage 2 of the master plan

Eastern Suburbs Gymnastic Club

New user

Key stakeholder

Progress to stage 2 of the master plan to determine if gym sports can be accommodated within the Colin Maiden Park precinct

Xtreme Rhythmic

New user

Key stakeholder

Progress to stage 2 of the master plan to determine if gym sports can be accommodated within the Colin Maiden Park precinct

Auckland University Hockey Club

New user

Key stakeholder

Progress to stage 2 of the master plan to determine if hockey can be accommodated within the Colin Maiden Park precinct

Judo

Existing Colin Maiden Park user

Key stakeholder

Participate in stage 2 of the master plan

Auckland Netball

Existing Colin Maiden precinct user

Key stakeholder

Participate in stage 2 of the master plan

Auckland University Rugby Football Club

Existing Colin Maiden Park user

Key stakeholder

Participate in stage 2 of the master plan

Auckland University Rugby Football Club - Touch

Existing Colin Maiden Park user

Key stakeholder

Participate in stage 2 of the master plan

Auckland Tennis

Existing Colin Maiden precinct user

Key stakeholder

Participate in stage 2 of the master plan

Ultimate Frisbee

New

Not a good fit for Colin Maiden Park

Work with Auckland Council staff to identify a location in the Auckland Region

Auckland Choral

New

Not a good fit for Colin Maiden Park

Recommend Auckland Choral join the Community Facilities waiting list

 

Commercial Tenancies

20.     The existing buildings at the park contain a number of commercial tenancies including medical suites, offices, a gymnasium, and an x-ray facility.  The commercial tenancies generate income and bring activity to the park during off peak periods.

21.     The following guiding principles are recommended for the commercial tenancies:

·        reuse the existing buildings

·        Avoid unnecessary duplication of commercial facilities/tenants in the precinct

·        Select tenants who have a direct relationship with sport and the park

22.     It is recommended that the following tenants continue to be accommodated at Colin Maiden Park:

·        University of Auckland

·        UniSportsMed

·        Auckland Radiology

23.     The following groups approached Auckland Council to express an interest in the commercial space in Colin Maiden Park.  They should be considered as a future tenants of the commercial space in Colin Maiden Park should space become available:

·        Sport Auckland

·        College Sport

 

Next steps

24.     The second stage of the master plan development will begin this month (December).  This will involve meetings and workshops with key stakeholders, the Orakei Local Board and Auckland Council staff to develop master plan options.  These options will be reported to the March 2015 Orakei Local Board meeting for endorsement for public consultation with the intention of seeking public feedback on the master plan options in March/April 2015.

25.     The precinct will serve both formal and informal recreation opportunities, it is anticipated informal recreation facilities may include a playground, basketball half courts and walking and cycling infrastructure.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

26.     The Orakei Local Board has appointed members Parkinson, Churton and Davis to work with staff on the development of the master plan.  Staff have been working with board members on the development of the guiding principles.

Māori impact statement

27.     Iwi have been approached to participate in the development of the master plan.  Six iwi (Te Kawerau Iwi Authority, Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki, Ngati Maru, Ngati Whatua Orakei, Te Akitai Waiohua and Ngati Te Ata) have indicated an interest in being involved in the master plan.  It is proposed to hold a hui with these iwi to discuss the Colin Maiden Park Precinct master plan, Purchas Hill and the property disposals programme.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Needs Assessment for Colin Maiden Park (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Signatories

Author

Shyrel Burt - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

Anaru Vercoe - Manager, Community Policy & Planning

 


Orākei Local Board

04 December 2014

 

 

Tāhuna Tōrea Historical Assessment Report Update

 

File No.: CP2014/24858

 

  

Purpose

1.       This report provides the Orākei Local Board with an update of progress on the SLIPs funded Tāhuna Tōrea Historical Assessment Report, and sets out the next steps required to complete the document.

Executive summary

2.       The Orākei Local Board funded through their SLIPs 2012/13 OPEX budget an archaeological survey of Tāhuna Tōrea Nature Reserve, which identified twelve new sites of significance. The purpose of this survey was that it would form the basis of the Tāhuna Tōrea Historical Assessment Report (TTAR).

3.       The next step required for the completion of the TTAR is that mana whenua prepare assessments based on these archaeological discoveries, which will enable the work programme to be carried out in a way that is respectful to the cultural heritage of the reserve.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Orākei Local Board:

a)      reviews and receives the attached draft of the Tāhuna Tōrea Archaeological Survey report.

b)      allocates $15,000 from the Stream Improvements (Madills Farm) OPEX budget to complete the Tāhuna Tōrea Historical Assessment Report.

Comments

4.       Established in 1974, Tāhuna Tōrea Nature Reserve is a site of cultural significance to mana whenua. It is also a significant ecological area and is becoming an increasingly popular destination for locals and visitors to the Glendowie area.

5.       The Rangers and Residents Association (RRA) have a long history with the guardianship and maintenance of Tāhuna Tōrea, and carry out much of the weeding and re-vegetation work that is done on the reserve. Representatives from Ngāti Pāoa, Ngā Tai Ki Tāmaki and Ngāti Whātua Orākei regularly attend biannual RRA meetings, and have acknowledged this guardianship.

6.       There have been numerous occasions where middens have been uncovered by the RRA while carrying out weeding or planting work at Tāhuna Tōrea. This has led to concern from iwi and the RRA that there has not been enough investigation into the extent of the archaeological sites in the area, and that no consultation has been done with regards to best practice when working around these sites.

7.       Following up on these concerns, a meeting was held between archaeologist Russell Foster, Chris Barfoot (chairman of the RRA), and afore mentioned Iwi representatives to discuss the issues. It was agreed that a historical assessment report be compiled. This report would identify and map sites of archaeological significance, and accompanied by a cultural assessment would form a guide for best practice when working on the reserve.

8.       The initial archaeological investigation was carried out by Russell Foster, Chris Barfoot and representatives from Ngā Tai Ki Tāmaki and Ngāti Whātua Orākei at the end of June 2014. This investigation uncovered more than a dozen new sites at Tāhuna Tōrea, and Russell Foster has outlined the significance of these discoveries from an archaeological perspective in the attached report.

 

9.       To complete the report, the next step required is for Parks officers to compile a work programme inclusive of all organisations (including Council) with plans to carry out work on the reserve. This information (along with the attached archaeological survey) will then be passed on to iwi with the intention that they will draft assessments outlining the significance of the sites from a cultural perspective, and provide guidelines for best practice when carrying out the work program at Tāhuna Tōrea.

10.     This report will also form the basis for any cultural values assessment required for future resource consent applications necessary when carrying out more major work at Tāhuna Tōrea, including the mangrove removal work on the fish dams.

Budget Allocation

11.     The Stream Works (Madills Farm) budget has been identified as a potential funding source for the completion of this report. The full $40,000 OPEX currently allocated to the stream improvements at Madills Farm will no longer be required as the CAPEX portion of this budget for the path and wetland area was cut in the recent Mayoral proposal.

Local board views and implications

12.     The Orākei Local Board Plan 2011-2014 acknowledges that Tāhuna Tōrea is a significant ecological area and aims to work to ensure that it is managed to enhance its value. In order to carry out this work it is important to identify sites of archaeological and cultural significance so that these sites can be managed in a respectful manner, and their value can also be recognised and enhanced.

Māori impact statement

13.     Tāhuna Tōrea is an area of significance to mana whenua. The gathering of information on these sites and the opportunity for iwi to document the cultural significance of these sites before a project is planned and underway is an approach that has been applauded by iwi involved. Ngā Tai Ki Tāmaki, Ngāti Whātua Orākei and Ngāti Pāoa have expressed an interest in the area and have been consulted and engaged through the conception and initial investigative stages of this report. Iwi will continue to be engaged through the second stage of this report, and their input will play an integral part in its completion. 

Implementation

14.     Work on this report will commence as soon as the board has allocated this funding for it. The report will be completed by the end of the financial year.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Tāhuna Tōrea Archaeological Survey

29

     

Signatories

Author

Pippa Somerville - Parks Advisor

Authorisers

Ian Maxwell - Manager Parks, Sports & Recreation

Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

 


Orākei Local Board

04 December 2014

 

 



































Orākei Local Board

04 December 2014

 

 

Orakei Local Board Local Improvement Projects (SLIPs) programme 2014-2015 update

 

File No.: CP2014/27223

 

  

Purpose

1.       This report provides an overview of the Orakei SLIPs 2014/2015 Combined Programme and recommends projects for approval.

Executive Summary 

2.       The Orakei Local Board has $886,935 discretionary capital funding available in the FY2014/2015 financial year. This is comprised of the final FY2014/2015 SLIPs capital budget funding of $646,935.00 and $240,000.00 from the Local Board Discretionary Fund for FY2014/2015.

3.       The $886,935 discretionary capital funding available in FY2014/2015 is to complete all currently allocated projects and for allocation to new FY2014/2015 capital projects.

4.       Currently there is $75,062.16 discretionary capital funding remaining for allocation to new FY2014/2015 projects.

5.       Approval of the recommendations in this report will allocate 100% of the available discretionary capital funding for new FY2014/2015 projects. 

6.       The proposed recommendations being sought are summarised below:

No

Project description

Capex

Scope

1.

 

Glover Park footpath construction

 

$66,996.54 Capex

Contribution to construction costs to complete 1.5 metre exposed aggregate path following alignment of existing 700mm path. Includes archaeological site and tree root bridging.

2.

Orakei Parks Quick Response Fund (Capex)

 

$8,065.62 Capex

Discretionary budget for minor works within parks for park benches/ seats, rubbish bins and minor improvements to play equipment.  Under Local Board resolution OR/2014/17 the board allocated $20,000.00 to these projects, however, the list of possible projects has now been extended.

 

7.       The Orakei Local Board had $37,930.00 operational funding available to allocate in the 2014/2015 financial year.   100% of the 2014/2015 operational funding has been allocated.

8.       Most projects will need eight months or more to be successfully delivered within the 2014/2015 financial year. 

9.       Projects funded from 2014/2015 SLIPs capital expenditure must be physically complete and fully expended within the 2014/2015 financial year.

10.     Projects funded from 2014/2015 SLIPs operational expenditure must be physically complete and fully expended within the 2014/2015 financial year.

11.     The ability to spend and deliver upon the expected outcomes is dependent on the timely decision making by the Local Board in allocating budget to projects.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Orakei Local Board:

a)      receives the Orakei Local Board Local Improvement Projects (SLIPs) 2014/2015 Combined Programme.

b)      approves the following projects from its 2014/2015 SLIPs Capital expenditure budget:

No

Project description

Capex

Budget value

Project Champion(s)

1.

Glover park footpath

Capex

$66,818.00

 

2.

Orakei Parks Quick Response Fund (Capex)

Capex

$8,065.62

 

 

 

Total

$75,062.16

 

 

c)      notes upon approval of the above recommendations there will be $0 discretionary capital funding remaining to allocate in the 2014/2015 financial year.

 

Discussion

12.     Information regarding current projects is shown in the Orakei Local Board Local Improvement Projects (SLIPs) 2014/2015 combined programme attachment.

13.     The Orakei Local Board has $886,935 discretionary capital funding available in the FY2014/2015 financial year. This is comprised of the final FY2014/2015 SLIPs capital budget funding of $646,935.00 and $240,000.00 from the Local Board Discretionary Fund for FY2014/2015.

14.     The $886,935 discretionary capital funding available in FY2014/2015 is to complete all currently allocated projects and for allocation to new FY2014/2015 capital projects.

15.     The Orakei Local Board has $75,062.16 discretionary capital funding remaining for allocation to new FY2014/2015 projects.

16.     Approval of the recommendations in this report will allocate 100% (percentages rounded) of the available discretionary capital funding for new FY2014/2015 projects. 

17.     The proposed recommendations being sought are summarised below:

No

Project description

Capex

Scope

1.

 

 

Glover Park footpath construction

$66,996.54

Capex

Contribution to construction costs to complete 1.5 metre exposed aggregate path following alignment of existing 700mm path. Includes archaeological site and tree root bridging.

2.

Orakei Parks Quick Response Fund (Capex)

$8,065.62 Capex

Discretionary budget for minor works within parks for park benches/ seats, rubbish bins and minor improvements to play equipment.

 

18.     The Orakei Local Board had $37,930.00 operational funding available to allocate in the 2014/2015 financial year.   100% of the 2014/2015 operational funding has been allocated.

19.     Most projects will need eight months or more to be successfully delivered within the 2014/2015 financial year. 

20.     Projects funded from 2014/2015 SLIPs capital expenditure must be physically complete and fully expended within the 2014/2015 financial year.

21.     Projects funded from 2014/2015 SLIPs operational expenditure must be physically complete and fully expended within the 2014/2015 financial year.

22.     The ability to spend and deliver upon the expected outcomes is dependent on the timely decision making by the Local Board in allocating budget to projects.

Capital Expenditure Projects

23.     Recommendations are being sought in this report to allocate budget to the following capital Expenditure projects:

24.     Glover Park footpath construction. Contribution to construction costs to complete 1.5 metre exposed aggregate path following alignment of existing 700mm path. Includes archaeological site and tree root bridging.

25.     Orakei Parks Quick Response Fund (Capex). This allocation provides a discretionary budget for minor works within parks for park benches/ seats, rubbish bins and minor improvements to play equipment.  Under Local Board resolution OR/2014/17 the board allocated $20,000.00 to these projects, however, the list of possible projects has now been extended.

Consideration

Local Board Views

26.     This report canvasses the views of the Orakei Local Board.

Maori Impact Statement

27.     Parks and open spaces contribute significantly to Maori well-being, values, culture and traditions.  Where any aspects of the proposed work programme are anticipated to have a significant impact on sites of importance to Tangata Whenua, appropriate consultation will follow.

General

28.     Communities are impacted by SLIPs projects. They provide an opportunity for staff and elected representatives to engage with the communities on their specific needs.  SLIPs staff will liaise directly with all residents and stakeholders impacted by any SLIPs or Discretionary funded projects to be delivered.

29.     Funding for the proposed projects within this report would be obtained from the Orakei Local Board’s Small Local Improvement Project budget allocation.  After allocating budget to all the projects listed in this report and elsewhere, the Orakei Local Board will still have SLIPs capital funding remaining unallocated.  Further reporting as part of the monthly work programme reporting will be used to determine what other projects the board may wish to fund.

30.     SLIPs need to comply with all relevant legislation, including the Resource Management Act 1991, the Local Government Act and all Auckland Council policies.


Implementation Issues

31.     Most projects will need eight months or more to be successfully delivered within the current financial year.  Projects that have budget allocated to them with less then six months remaining within the current financial year, will be at risk of not being completed by financial year end. 

32.     Projects funded from 2014/2015 SLIPs capital expenditure must be physically complete and fully expended within the 2014/2015 financial year.

33.     Projects funded from 2014/2015 SLIPs operational expenditure must be physically complete and fully expended within the 2014/2015 financial year.

34.     The ability to spend and deliver upon the expected outcomes is dependent on the timely decision making by the Local Board in allocating budget to projects.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Orakei Local Board SLIPs 2014/2015 Combined Programme

67

     

Signatories

Author

Grant Burke - SLIPs Project Portfolio leader

Authorisers

Katrina Morgan - Team Leaders SLIPs

Ian Maxwell - Manager Parks, Sports & Recreation

Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

 


Orākei Local Board

04 December 2014

 

 


Orākei Local Board

04 December 2014

 

 


Orākei Local Board

04 December 2014

 

 



Orākei Local Board

04 December 2014

 

 

The Development of Liston Park

 

File No.: CP2014/27298

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To inform the Orākei Local Board of the current (as determined by the 2014 Supply and Demand Study) surplus / shortfall of winter sportsfield capacity for the three main winter codes (Football, Rugby and League) around the environs of Liston Park.

Executive Summary

2.       The Orākei Local Board are looking to advertise for expressions of interest regarding the development and use of Liston Park. Before this occurs the board requested up-to-date information on the current sports field supply and demand for the three main winter codes in the Orākei Local Board area.

3.       The report by Longdill and Associates, titled ‘Quantifying the Supply and Demand for Winter Sports Fields in the Auckland Region’ (2014) provides this information with this report on the Development of Liston Park summarising the data for the catchment around Liston Park.

4.       The Longdill and Associates report shows that because significant new capacity has been added in this part of the city through improvements to existing sports fields and through acquisition of additional land, there are now many options available for meeting current and future demand. This provides a level of flexibility around who is given access to Liston park.

5.       Football continues to have the greatest shortfall in capacity, followed by Rugby, with there being no current or future (2025) shortfall for League.  On this basis, it appears that Football and Rugby both have a need for more field time and this need could be accommodated, in part, at  Liston Park. However, a number of factors will come into consideration when the Requests for Proposal (RFP) are considered and which will include:

·        The overall level of investment generated at the site

·        Plans for the clubroom and changing room facilities

·        The level of community access to fields and potentially club room facilities

·        The ability of interested parties to partner and share space.

6.       It is the view of the Parks Sports and Recreation Department that the decision on whether Rugby or Football, or both, are given access to Liston Park, should be based on the nature and quality of their respective proposals made through a Request for Proposal (RFP) process. A successful RFP application could also be made from a sporting code whose activities predominantly occur during the summer and therefore winter use of the field with this scenario remains open to either Football or Rugby.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Orākei Local Board:

a)         advertises for ‘expressions of interest’ regarding the development and use of Liston Park.

b)         recognises that both Football and Rugby have a growing demand for field space which could be accommodated by developments at Liston Park and other sports field sites in, or close to, the Orakei Local Board area.

 

 

Discussion

7.       Auckland City Council purchased Liston Park (71 – 77 Abbotts Way, Ellerslie) from the Marist Brothers Old Boys Rugby Club (Auckland) Inc in 2010/2011 for sports field purposes.

8.       The site is made up of two full size flood lit sports fields, a smaller training area, large clubrooms, associated amenities and car parking. The large club room facility has been vacant since the purchase was made but with the attached changing block being used as and when required by teams and clubs playing/training at the site.

 

9.       The sports fields have since the time of purchase been used to accommodate sports clubs displaced by major sportsfield upgrades delivered at various sites around the central area of the city (Glover Park, Michaels Ave, Ellerslie Domain, Mt Wellington War Memorial). The users have come from the three main winter codes (Rugby, League, Soccer) as well as cricket, Gaelic Football and Touch in the summer. However, no one code or club have been allocated the site as their ‘home ground’ for more than one season.

 

10.   With a view to realizing the full potential of the site and harnessing outside sources of investment, the Orākei Local Board entered into negotiation with the Auckland Rugby Union (ARU) and the Blues Super Rugby Franchise in 2012. This was with a view to developing a high performance training and administration facility at Liston Park and including:

 

·        Upgrading and expanding the former Marist Brothers Rugby Football Club building

·        Developing one sandcarpet field with floodlights

·        Constructing one multifunctional artificial turf area with floodlights.

 

11.   Negotiations were based on the principle of guaranteeing significant community access without charge to council, but the ARU eventually decided the site was not suitable for their development needs and therefore negotiations ceased. 

 

12.   Ellerslie Association Football Club at the same time (2012) expressed an interest in utilizing the playing fields and relocating their club room facility at Michaels Ave Reserve to Liston Park. Their proposal was based on a joint partnership with the Auckland Football Federation who were considering relocating their Mt Smart Stadium administrative headquarters to Liston Park. 

 

13.     Approaches have been made by other clubs and codes regarding formalizing use and development of all, or part of, the site including non-sporting organisations who have an interest in converting the club rooms into an administration/facility centre.

14.     The most recent approach to the Orākei Local Board was made by College Rifles Rugby Football Club in March 2014, when the club confirmed that they were in a position to re-develop the playing fields (sand-slitting of both fields) at Liston Park over a 2 year period ‘upon receiving confirmation that the fields are assigned to them for use over an agreed period’. College Rifles have no interest in the club rooms but would look to partner with Touch New Zealand for a lease over the whole site. Touch New Zealand are looking for a facility where they can base their administrative activities and summer sports programme. A Memorandum of Understanding has recently been signed between the two parties and the partnership is therefore regarded as a sound one.

15.     The Orākei Local Board, before going out to advertise for expressions of interest regarding development and use of Liston Park, requested information from the 2014 Supply and Demand review (Quantifying the Supply and Demand for Winter Sports Fields in the Auckland Region) and any changes this could potentially make to the Sports Field Capacity Development (SFCD) Programme. 

16.     In 2011 Auckland Council commissioned Longdill and Associates to undertake a study looking into the supply and demand for winter sports field across the Auckland Region. This study was based on assumptions from earlier studies undertaken for several of the legacy councils. Since that time Auckland Council has adopted the Auckland Plan that envisages an additional 1 million people living in the Auckland Region within the next 30 years. As a result of these changes Auckland Council has just undertaken a review of the Supply and Demand Study as well as the planned mid-term review of the SFCD Programme. The information gathered in this study will inform the 2015-25 Long Term Plan.

17.    Data and assumptions in the 2014 review have been revised and improved since the 2011 report, again validated by the regional sports organisations and therefore presents an accurate picture of the current situation. It also accounts for:

·        Significant acquisitions (Colin Maiden Park and Sir Woolf Fisher Park) in the catchment around Liston Park

·        Sports field upgrades completed, currently being carried out, or about to be carried out in the Orākei Local Board area (Glover Park, Crossfield Reserve, Michaels Ave Reserve and Shore Rd Reserve)

·        Field upgrades being delivered in the eastern half of the Maungakiekie Tamaki Local Board area (Sir Woolf Fisher Park, Mt Wellington War Memorial Park and Pt England Domain). 

18.     The table below highlights supply shortfalls during the winter for Football and Rugby (when measured against current demand) in the catchment area around Liston Park. The shortfall is presented as hours per week. (Note that there are no shortfalls for League). The figures will be subject to review and it is anticipated they will change slightly. However this is not likely to affect the conclusions of the report.

19.     Football continues to have the greatest shortfall in capacity (currently 37 hrs), closely followed by Rugby (6 hrs). In 2025 the shortfall for football extends to 170 hrs and for rugby the shortfall extends to 84 hrs. There is no current shortfall forecast for League in this part of the city.

 

FOOTBALL - shortfall in hours per week after surpluses in adjacent areas have been offset.  Assumes all 2014/15 projects are delivered as planned.

Local Board

Analysis Area

Current Football Training

Current Football Comp.

Current Football Total

2025 Football Training

2025 Football Comp.

2025 Football Total

Orākei

Eastern Bays

0

0

0

0

6

6

Orākei

Meadowbank St Johns

0

0

0

0

0

0

Orākei

Remuera

24

13

37

86

58

144

M-T

Ellerslie

0

0

0

0

4

4

M-T

Mt Wellington Mt Richmond

0

0

0

0

16

16

M-T

Panmure Glen Innis

0

0

0

0

0

0

37

170

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RUGBY - shortfall in hours per week after surpluses in adjacent areas have been offset.  Assumes all 2014/15 projects are delivered as planned.

Local Board

Analysis Area

Current Rugby Training

Current Rugby Comp.

Current Rugby Total

2025 Rugby Training

2025 Rugby Comp.

2025 Rugby Total

Orākei

Eastern Bays

0

6

6

13

33

46

Orākei

Meadowbank St Johns

0

0

0

13

0

13

Orākei

Remuera

0

0

0

5

2

7

M-T

Ellerslie

0

0

0

0

0

0

M-T

Mt Wellington Mt Richmond

0

0

0

9

0

9

M-T

Panmure Glen Innis

0

0

0

0

9

9

6

84

 

20.     Analysis of the data above, relating to the eastern part of the central isthmus (area to the right of thick red line on map below), shows that all the winter sports codes’ needs through to 2025 can be accommodated reasonably easily and delivered through capacity development projects on existing parks.  These developments, assuming that budget is made available, would involve converting soil fields to sand fields (often with lighting) or adding lighting to  existing sandcarpet fields at the following sites:

·        Shore Rd Reserve

·        Colin Maiden Park

·        Liston Park

·        Orākei Domain

·        Madills Farm Reserve

·        Mt Richmond Reserve

·        Thompson Park

·        Sir Woolf Fisher Park

·        Pt England Reserve

·        McManus Park

·        Mt Wellington War Memorial

21.     Even after these projects are implemented, there will remain a number of options open to further increase capacity for all codes as and when the need arises.  Additional comfort can be drawn from the fact that the above analysis does not take into account any public use of Ngahue Reserve or the inner fields at Ellerslie Racecourse.

 

22.     The red letters superimposed over the circles on the map, show where clubs are based.  R stands for Rugby, S for Soccer, and L for Rugby League clubs. There are five Rugby Clubs in the eastern sector, three Soccer clubs and three League clubs.  Irrespective of the number of clubs, Soccer has the greatest number of players.

23.     The table below shows team and player numbers for the three clubs closest to Liston Park.

 

Club

Midget teams

Jr Teams

Youth Teams

Sr Teams

Master Teams

Total Teams

Total Players

College Rifles

76

 

21

10

1

108

1140

Ellerslie Football

46

33

15

27

0

121

1333

Ellerslie League

4

3

3

2

3

15

350

 

24.     It is the view of the Parks Sports and Recreation Department that the decision on whether Rugby or Football, or both, are given access to Liston Park, should be based on the nature and quality of their respective proposals made through a Request for Proposal (RFP) process rather than have the process driven by shortfalls in sports field capacity for a particular code. Convenience of access to the fields at club level should also be considered and with both College Rifles Rugby Football Club and Ellerslie Association Football Club being in a position to take advantage of their geographic proximity to the site. 

25.     College Rifles Rugby Football Club is a very large club with few fields within reasonable traveling distance, with Ellerslie Association Football Club in a similar situation. There is therefore a strong case for either club to be allocated winter midweek use of Liston Park for training. Early morning weekend use would also be given to the relevant club but with the bulk of play at the weekend being made available to the relevant Regional Sports Organisation (the standard practice for all sports field allocations across the Auckland Region).

26.     The club room facility at Liston Park is currently in poor condition and requires a considerable amount of maintenance to bring it back up to a habitable standard. Work on the building could include reducing the size of the building’s footprint and converting it for use as an administrative or facility centre. This could be under one lease covering the whole of the site or split so that there is a lease agreement covering the building and a separate agreement/agreements covering the fields. With the latter scenario consideration will also need to be given to how access and responsibility for maintenance of the car park is managed.

27.     Any agreement relating to the fields could include guarantees around wider community access and thereby ensure the fields are not for the exclusive use of any one party.

28.     The changing room facilities are key to the sites operation as a sports park and any lease agreement over these would need to also protect access rights for other sporting/community users of the fields.

Consideration

Local Board Views and Implications

29.       The views of the local board are not known.

Maori Impact Statement

30.     The contribution of parks outcomes is of significant importance to tangata whenua, their wellbeing, values, culture and traditions. Sites of significance to tangata te whenua are an important part of their heritage, established through whakapapa. Maori are also major participants in sport and the provision of high quality sporting infrastructure is therefore of great importance to the Maori community.

Implementation Issues

31.     Additional SFCD works taking place over the next year, and which will create future displacement, are occurring at Shore Rd Reserve, Madills Farm and Crossfield Reserve. The Parks Sports and Recreation Department have therefore requested that any lease agreement connected to the sports fields or agreement to provide significant access to the fields at Liston Park not take effect until October 2015.        

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Author

David Barker - Team Leader Parks Specialists and Programmes

Authorisers

Ian Maxwell - Manager Parks, Sports & Recreation

Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

 


Orākei Local Board

04 December 2014

 

 

Orākei Home-based Business Study

 

File No.: CP2014/27884

 

  

 

Purpose

1.      This report presents the results of the Orākei home-based business study and seeks the Orākei Local Board’s agreement to actions the study recommends.

Executive Summary

2.       The board commissioned the Orākei Local Board home-based business study to better understand the opportunities and challenges faced by zero-employee businesses in Orākei and how the local board or other parts of the council can support them.

 

3.       The report recommends four actions to support home-based businesses in Orākei. Officers recommend beginning work on the low-cost action of establishing an Orākei small business network and we will schedule a workshop in the New Year to discuss further actions and their resource implications.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Orākei Local Board:

a)    receives the home-based business study: key findings and business needs report.

b)    requests that officers circulate the report to businesses that took part in the study and thank them for their input.

c)    notes that the report recommends the following actions:

·   provide support to local businesses to establish and maintain a small business network and potentially a small business expo

·   identify and promote all of the available meeting spaces in the area

·   develop and maintain a business directory with listings of local businesses

·   work with the business associations to determine how home-businesses can become members or otherwise benefit from their services.

d)    requests that officers facilitate a further workshop of businesses interested in helping to establish an Orākei small business network and together with the local board, help implement the key suggestions outlined in the report.

e)    notes that officers will schedule a workshop early in 2015 to discuss further potential actions from the study.

 

 

Background

 

4.       In response to data indicating a large number of zero-employee businesses are based in the Orākei Local Board area, the board commissioned a study of the opportunities and constraints faced by home-based businesses in Orākei and the ways in which council can help these businesses grow.

 

5.       The attached report is primarily based on discussions at two workshops, each attended by around 20 home-based businesses, at which participants had opportunities to network and were asked about how they traded in Orākei, what opportunities and challenges they faced and how the local board could assist.

 

Rationale

 

6.       Officers recommend accepting the report’s recommendation to establish and maintain a small business network in Orākei, as this is a relatively low-cost initiative that can be progressed using existing staff resources.

The three remaining report recommendations are:

·   identify and promote all of the available meeting spaces in the area

·   develop and maintain a business directory with listings of local businesses

·   work with the business associations to determine how home-businesses can become members or otherwise benefit from their services

7.       Officers will schedule time at a board workshop in early 2015 to consider these recommendations. We will provide advice about their resourcing implications in the context of local discretionary budgets and make recommendations about the most cost effective way of achieving the objective of supporting home-based business growth. 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Orākei Local Board home-based business study: Key findings and business needs

79

     

Signatories

Authors

Stephen Cavanagh - Local Economic Development Advisor

Kris Munday – Senior Local Board Advisor

Authoriser

Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

 


Orākei Local Board

04 December 2014

 

 




















Orākei Local Board

04 December 2014

 

 

Grant of New Community Lease at Melanesia Reserve, 30 Melanesia Road, Kohimarama, Kohimarama Bowling Club Incorporated

 

File No.: CP2014/25098

 

  

Purpose

1.       This report seeks the Orakei Local Board’s approval to grant a new community lease to the Kohimarama Bowling Club Incorporated over part of Melanesia Reserve, 30 Melanesia Road, Mission Bay.

Executive summary

2.       The Kohimarama Bowling Club Incorporated (the club) occupies part of Lot 2 DP 93072 on Melanesia Reserve, Mission Bay where it owns the clubrooms, green-keepers residence, garage and other small buildings as well as two artificial playing greens (Attachment A).

3.       The club was formerly known as the Mission Bay Womens’ Bowling Club, which held the lease over this area of the reserve from the 1960s until it expired on 31 May 2013. The Mission Bay Women’s Bowling Club recently amended its constitution to include men and changed its name to the Kohimarama Bowling Club Incorporated. The Kohimarama Bowling Club has now applied for a new lease over the occupied area.

4.       Melanesia Reserve is owned and administered by Auckland Council as an unclassified recreation reserve, subject to the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977, but without an approved reserve management plan.

5.       As the community lease application is for an existing activity on the reserve, a new community lease can be granted to the club, subject to one month’s public notification and iwi consultation, provided no objections are received.

6.       A community outcomes plan has been negotiated with the club and will be an attachment to the lease, subject to local board approval (Attachment B).

Recommendation/s

That the Orakei Local Board:

 

a)      approves the grant of a new community lease to the Kohimarama Bowling Club Incorporated for part of Lot 2, DP 93072, Melanesia Reserve, Mission Bay, under Section 54 (1) of the Reserves Act, subject to one month’s public notification and iwi consultation, with no objection, on the following terms and conditions:

ii)       Term – ten years commencing 1 June 2013, with one 10-year right of renewal

iii)      Rent – $1 plus GST per annum if requested

iv)      Kohimarama Bowling Club Incorporated Community Outcomes Plan, as approved, to  be attached to the community lease document.

b)      all other terms and conditions in accordance with Auckland Council’s Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012.

Comments

7.       The Mission Bay Women’s Bowling Club was first incorporated in 1958. The change in name to the Kohimarama Bowling Club was recorded by the Registrar of Incorporated Societies on 29 October 2013.

8.       The club owns the facilities within its occupied area. The presence of a resident green keeper is authorised by way of an independent approval by the Minister of Lands, dated 8 October 1965 (Attachment C).

9.       The inclusion of men in the club will allow it to grow and support the game of bowls. The grounds and clubrooms are extremely well maintained and the greens are used all year round by club members, visiting bowlers and Auckland Bowls for regional competitions.

10.     The club’s main activities include

·    Weekly club days during summer

·    Annual charity and Super Gold tournaments

·    Monthly Twilight Tournaments in summer

·    Wednesday evening fun bowls and Auckland Bowls “Have a Go” sessions

·    All year round coaching

·    Indoor Bowls during winter

·    Collegiate youth bowls run in collaboration with Auckland Bowls

11.     The club does not hold a liquor licence and is not reliant on gaming income. Its annual accounts to 31 March 2014 record a total income $67,851, with greens maintenance and property expenses totalling $43,474 accounting for the largest items of expenditure.

12.     The club is very community focused and its building is available for use by the wider community on a casual basis for general recreational activities.  The club fundraises annually with a local fair which is well patronised by the local community.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

13.     The request for a new community lease was discussed with the Community Lease Portfolio Holders of the Orakei Local Board at the meeting on 26 August 2014 at which time a report was requested for the local board consideration.

Maori impact statement

14.     The grant of a new lease to the club is subject to iwi consultation, under Section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987.

Implementation

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

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

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Aerial View of Kohimarama Bowling Club

101

bView

Kohimarama Bowling Club's Community Outcomes Plan

103

cView

Ministerial Approval of Green-Keepers Residence

105

Signatories

Author

Robyn Campbell - Community Lease Advisor

Authorisers

Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

Graham Bodman - Manager - Community Development, Arts and Culture

 


Orākei Local Board

04 December 2014

 

 


Orākei Local Board

04 December 2014

 

 



Orākei Local Board

04 December 2014

 

 


Orākei Local Board

04 December 2014

 

 

Request for feedback on the draft Local Approved Product Policy

 

File No.: CP2014/25979

 

  

Purpose

1.       The purpose of the report is 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 Orakei Local Board :

a)      provides 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 28th 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.  17 boards provided feedback on the specific options, three requested a complete ban.  Great barrier 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 in a parallel process to the special consultative process.  The local board process will last until the end of December 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

aView

Changes from proposed to draft summary

111

bView

Statement of Proposal - draft LAPP

113

Signatories

Authors

Callum Thorpe - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

 



Orākei Local Board

04 December 2014

 

 



Orākei Local Board

04 December 2014

 

 


 


Contents

Why do we need a Local Approved Product Policy?. 3

The Draft Local Approved Product Policy. 5

Why were these rules chosen?. 8

Why have separate rules for the city centre?. 10

How will the LAPP decide between two licence applications close to each other?. 11

 


Why do we need a Local Approved Product Policy?

 

Why are there approved psychoactive substances?

The Psychoactive Substances Act 2013

The Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 (the Act) sets a regulatory framework for the manufacture and sale of psychoactive substances.  By allowing low risk products to be sold the government wanted to reduce harm from to users of the products and prevent a black market in selling unapproved products.  The government felt that with a black market there would be no control on what was being sold, how it was made or who was buying it.  Without these controls there would be increased harm to people’s health and well-being. 

The Act’s stated purpose is to protect the health of, and minimise the harm to, individuals who use psychoactive substances and regulate the availability of psychoactive products.  It banned psychoactive substances from being sold in dairies, service stations, supermarkets, convenience stores and places where alcohol is sold.  It also restricted the advertising of products and the sale to those under 18. 

The Psychoactive Substances Amendment Act 2014

The Psychoactive Substances Amendment Act 2014 ended all of the interim approvals and licences previously granted under the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013.  This reversal meant that until regulations are developed there would be no psychoactive substances that were legal to sell and no businesses that could legally sell them.  The amendment did not change the intent of the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 to allow the sale of low risk psychoactive substances. 

 

What gives the council the authority to have a Local Approved Product Policy?

Sections 66 to 69 of the Act let Auckland Council develop a Local Approved Product Policy (LAPP).  The LAPP can only make rules about:

·    The location of premises from which approved products may be sold by reference to broad areas. 

·    The location from which approved products may be sold by reference to proximity to other premises from which approved products are sold.

·    The location of premises from which approved products may be sold by reference to proximity to premises or facilities of a particular kind or kinds.

 

 

How does the Local Approved Product Policy fit into Auckland Council’s vision for the future?

Auckland Council has a number of priorities to grow Auckland into the world’s most liveable city.  One of key outcomes is a fair safe and healthy Auckland.  The LAPP will contribute to this priority by reducing the risk of harm that vulnerable people will experience from legal psychoactive substances.  This harm reduction will be achieved by reducing the availability of these substances to vulnerable populations such as high deprivation areas, youth and people with mental health concerns.

As part of Auckland Council’s vision for Auckland, six transformational shifts were identified to help create the world’s most liveable city.  The LAPP contributes to two of these – dramatically accelerate the prospects of Auckland’s young people and significantly lift Māori social and economic well-being.  The LAPP contributes improved prospects for young people through reducing the exposure to these substances to those still at school and in the most socially deprived communities.

In terms of Māori well-being in Auckland there is a higher proportion of Māori in high deprivation communities compared with low deprivation communities.  The goal of the LAPP to stop licences in these high deprivation areas will mean that these communities should experience less harm and consequently Māori should experience less harm. 

In line with the Mayors vision for Auckland Council to deliver value for money the LAPP needs to be practical to implement and cost effective.


Orākei Local Board

04 December 2014

 

 

The Draft Local Approved Product Policy

 

Definitions

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.

 

For Auckland except for the city centre (See attached maps)

1.   For all areas of Auckland apart from the city centre it is proposed that licences to retail legal psychoactive substances will not be granted in:

a)      areas of high deprivation

b)      neighbourhood centers

c)      within 500m of a school teaching students year seven and above

d)      within 200m of a school teaching students between years one and six inclusive

e)      within 500m of the mental health or addiction treatment center

f)       within 500m of an existing psychoactive substances retail licence

g)      areas identified as restricted areas on map 1a and 1b.

 

For the city centre – see map 2

2.   For the city centre it is proposed that licences to retail legal psychoactive substances will not be granted in:

a)      areas of residential deprivation

b)      within 100m of an existing psychoactive substances retail licence.

 

When will the policy be reviewed?

3.   The LAPP will be reviewed in two years from the date it is adopted.  This relatively short review period will allow Auckland Council to assess how effective the policy has been in its intent to reduce harm and to recommend any changes in a timely manner.  At the first review a decision will be made on future review periods.

 

Maps

Map 1a Identified restricted area – Otara Papatoetoe

 

 

 

Map 1b Identified restricted area – Manurewa

 

Map 2 – City centre and restricted area

 


Orākei Local Board

04 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.


Orākei Local Board

04 December 2014

 

 

Interim Open Space Provision Guidelines

File No.: CP2014/26950

 

  

 

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 Orākei Local Board:

a)      provides 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, Metropolitan 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

aView

Interim Open Space Provision Guidelines

131

bView

Examples of provision targets used by former Auckland Council and other NZ and overseas park authorities

145

     

Signatories

Author

Andrew Beer - Principal Policy Analyst

Authoriser

Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

 


Orākei Local Board

04 December 2014

 

 














Orākei Local Board

04 December 2014

 

 



Orākei Local Board

04 December 2014

 

 

Auckland Transport Update: December 2014

 

File No.: CP2014/27880

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report is to update the Board on a range of transport related issues in Orakei area during November 2014

 

Recommendation/s

That the Orākei Local Board:

a)      recieves the December report from Auckland Transport.

b)      approves the construction of carparks within the Stonefields community, (option TBC).

 

 

Monthly Overview

Orakei Local Board Transport Capital Fund

2.       The process for discretionary fund projects

Either a Rough Order of Cost will be provided to the Orakei Local Board for projects, or if a project does not meet the listed criteria it will be declined.

When the Rough Order of Cost is provided the Orakei Local Board must formally authorise the next step in the delivery of these projects, which is detailed investigation, design, and a firm estimate.  The Board then approves or not, the project for construction. The costs incurred for detailed investigation, design, consultation and construction of these projects will be deducted from Orakei Local Board’s Transport Capital Fund. Please see commentary on the progress of current ROC’s.

3.       Canon Park pathway – This currently does not meet the requirement for funding, the intention of opening up transport funds in parks is to allow shared cycle and pedestrian access, this project is for a gravel path that would not be suitable for cyclists.

4.       Churchill Park entranceway – This project has been progressed to the next stage and Auckland Transport are currently reviewing this, with the intention of proceeding to a firm estimate for construction.

5.       Waiatarua Park car park entrance – This project has strong connections to the on road cycle route on Abbotts Way and will provide a useful connection from Ellerslie, there are some questions about the need to pave the entire carpark to achieve the shared path prerequisite for use of the fund in a park.These are being resolved between Auckland Council Parks and Auckland Transport.

6.       Greenway pathway around edge of Liston Park- The project has been accepted by Auckland Transport and the ROC is currently with Auckland Council.

7.       The Landing – Auckland Transport has met with the project manager to establish the relevant approvals for this project to go ahead, this includes meeting with the programme manager for Tamaki Drive and traffic safety engineers.

 

8.       Railway Station Secure Bike Parking

The stands have been replaced at Meadowbank (attachment A).

For Orākei, there is currently a hold on this project as Auckland Transport have been reviewing a new standard cycle facility that is likely to be rolled out at other stations. A stakeholder meeting between Auckland Transport and Cycle action Auckland has reviewed a concept and this will be going forward to detailed design to provide firm costs for fabrication. Along with the Orakei site, Auckland Transport has a number of other sites identified for a trial. The development cost is likely to be covered by Auckland Transport, so AT will need to come back to the board with a new cost for construction early next year, so the Local Board can decide if they want proceed with Orakei. 

9.       Stonefields

As reported previously there is a need in the Stonefields Development for cars to park in a way that does not impede the movement of general traffic (see attachment B). Auckland Transport have proposed the following solutions from the Transport Capital Fund. The board will need to decide which of these options they would like to proceed to construction.

1 The new playground area

The playground is an incredibly popular addition to the community and usage will only increase over the summer, putting more pressure on car parking.

The suggestion is to put in more parking spaces as follows:

·          That can be done immediately

Fynes Ave – 2 spaces outside No. 30.

Papango St – 2 spaces outside the playground.

Papango St – 3 spaces outside No. 29.

Papango St – 2 spaces outside 1 Korere Tce

Korere Terrace – 1 space outside No. 1

 

ROC Estimate for these (Establishment etc $8k, plus 10 carparks at $10k = Total of $108k.

 

·          That would have to wait until the construction of the terrace block opposite the playground is complete

Fynes Ave – 4  spaces outside No. 17-19-21

Fynes Ave – 2 spaces outside the playground.

 

ROC Estimate for these (Establishment etc $8k, plus 6 carparks at $10k = Total of $68k.

 

2             Stonefields Ave  - Stonemason Ave to Tihi St

This is an area with high density terrace blocks that have just been completed.

A total of 14 spaces could be created.

ROC Estimate for these Establishment etc. $8k, plus 14 car parks at $10k = Total of $148k.

 

10.     Benson Road/Upland Road Footpath Improvements

This project is currently undergoing detailed design and investigation of underground services. There is a strong desire from Auckland Transport and the Local Board to begin construction in January, however there are a number of things still to be done to achieve this. Progress on these was  on track at the time of writing this report.

 

 

 

11.     Roberta Road Cycle Racks

The ROC for this project is still being calculated, it is expected to be available for the February 2015 meeting.

 

12.     Mission Bay Streetscape

Construction is still expected to begin in April 2015.

 

13.     Tamaki Drive to Glen Innes Cycleway

Auckland Transport has targeted early 2015 to begin construction on this project. To ensure this stays on track, the project team are continuing to engage with stakeholders, this has been supported by an engagement document drafted with the assistance of Auckland Council’s Local Board Services. An open day and further workshops with key stakeholders have also been planned.

 

14.     Auckland Transport’s Long Term Plan

Recently Auckland Transport ran a series of cluster meetings and individual workshops as pre-engagement on Auckland Transport’s ten year programme,  which is in the process of being drafted for consultation in 2015.

Auckland Council and Auckland Transport will consult the public in 2015 on two transport programmes – a basic programme that can be delivered under current funding and a more ambitious plan, reflecting the Auckland Plan, requiring alternative funding from sources such as increased rates, a petrol tax or road tolling.

The project list that was presented to Local Boards has been prioritised based on a series of benefits identified in the Auckland Plan.  These benefits have been equally weighted in the prioritisation process and have resulted in the current order of priority.

Auckland Transport is requesting feedback from Local Boards as it prepares the draft document for consultation. 

For example, the weighting process – should some benefits be weighted more heavily than others?  If so, which benefits should be more heavily weighted? 

The list of projects – are there any projects that the Local Board feels should be included on the list and is there a case for some projects to move higher up the priority list.

Any feedback that the Local Board would like to give will be fed back into the process and further workshops with Local Boards will be programmed into February 2015.

15.     Public Transport (PT) Update

Train timetables are being updated following the introduction of electric trains on the Eastern and Onehunga Lines.

Whilst improvements are focused in on these Lines, some changes have been made to the Southern and Western Lines. All departure times have changed due to the shared nature of much of the rail network.

 

The Orakei Local Board has successfully lobbied for a feeder bus services for their residents. The first trial, the Stonefields Loop, route number 632, will operate Monday to Friday from 6am to 7.15pm, running between Glen Innes Train Station and a loop around Stonefields. Auckland Transport plans to begin the trial before the end of February 2015. The Stonefields Loop trial is part of the New Network, an Auckland-wide project to create a simpler and more integrated public transport network. Proposed changes for the eastern suburbs’ New Network will be out for consultation in 2015.

 

 

 

16.     Tamaki Drive and Remuera Road Transit Lanes

The objective of a transit lane is to improve the ability to move large numbers of people through key arterial routes. The hierarchy for people movement on a road is, bus, personal vehicle with 3 or more people, personal vehicle with 2 or less people.

Auckland Transport reviews transit lanes annually to ensure that there is optimal people movement. The review period is March and April and assesses the same sections of roads to ensure consistant data collection.  Orakei has two transit lanes, Remuera Road which has a T3 lane and Tamaki Drive which has a T2 lane.

The report shows that Remuera Road continues to be most efficient as a T3 lane. A dedicated bus lane is unlikely to significantly improve the people movement at this point in time, a T2 lane would significantly reduce the number of people able to travel on Remuera Road, as it would congest and slow the movement of all vehicles. Auckland Transport intends retaining the current T3 lane status.

The report also shows that Tamaki Drive is now marginally less efficient as a T2 lane and it suggests that there would be a small improvement if it were to become a T3 lane. At this time Auckland Transport proposes that the the status quo remain, as the gain made in changing the lane is not significant enough at this time to warrant the change.  However, it is important to note, that Auckland Transport will continue to monitor the on-going efficiency of this lane and if it continues to under-perform against a T3 lane, Auckland Transport will move to change it from its current T2 status.

 

17.     Remuera

Auckland Transport is currently investigating an In-pavement Light Warning System, this is a LED based technology and is installed at specific signalised intersections. The intersection of Clonbern Road, Victoria Avenue and Remuera Road is confusing and a high risk intersection for pedestrians.  The study’s objective is to remove the confusion at this type of  intersection and to do this Auckland Transport needs to understand the confusion issue; the factor(s) contributing to driver confusion and to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed device at intersections. The device aims to increase the driver awareness and to make them be extra cautious as they approach the intersection.  The trial is proposed to begin in April until August 2015.

While this trial is underway it is advised that the board delay the implementation of the Capital fund proposal to paint the pedestrian crossing points of the above intersection, and review this project after August. This will allow the data collected from the study to provide a better informed decision.

 

18.     Ellerslie

On the 17th November Auckland Transport Chief Executive David Warburton met with the Ellerslie Residents Association (ERA), along with Senior AT Managers and, Local Board Representatives, Ken Baguley (Orakei) and Simon Randall (Maungakiekie/Tamaki).

This meeting was at the request of the ERA and was to discuss a number of issues including but not limited to:

·    Improving park n ride at the Ellerslie Train Station. Including the possibility of paying a nominal payment ($2), to provide an improved service.

·    Intersection improvement to Leon Leicester Drive following the new development.

·    Gavin Street/Eaglehurst Street issues and improvements.

·    Transport connections from Ellerslie to Panmure.

It was reiterated to the ERA that the local boards were the point of connection to Auckland Transport as they were the Elected Representative of the residents. All issues and concerns will be managed through the local boards.

Implementation Issues

AT Ref #

TPL Ref #

Issue

Discussion 

Action

AT2012/007954

9.8

Suggestions for new Pedestrian Crossing layouts in Ellerslie Town Centre

Auckland Council Urban Design staff has suggested options for improving pedestrian crossings in this town Centre.

June 2014, The road safety team is currently reviewing the implementation of pedestrian crossings suggested by the operations team.

August 2014, there is no update at this point.

 

N/A

N/A

Stonefields Parking

It has been reported that the high density housing units that are currently being built only have one car park for each three bedroom unit and there are no parking bays on the streets.

 

Many of the new units are used as rental properties and have multiple vehicles at each residence.

 

This is resulting in the streets having cars parked down both sides, some partly on the berms and reducing the road width (at times) to one lane only.

 

This issue was discussed at the May 2013, Orakei Local Board Meeting.

 

Auckland Transport was asked to comment on a memo from Auckland Council.

 

Auckland Transport has provided comment and has asked for this matter to be removed from the ‘Issues Register’. 

 

At the July 2013 Orakei Local Board meeting members requested that this item remain on the register.

 

A meeting with Auckland Transport and the Stonefields Residents association was held on 26 March 2014.

June 2014, The board approved a resolution for a ROC to install additional parking bays as part of their Transport Capital Fund.

November 2014, apologies that this has not been completed; this will be available for the December meeting.

December 2015 Proposal is provided in the body of the report for the boards consideration.

N/A

 

Support Orakei Local Board urban design initiatives

Auckland Transport has been requested to work with Auckland Council’s Urban Design Team on the following issues:

 

1.   Creating a boulevard effect by planting further oak trees on the north side of Remuera Rd around the Victoria Ave shops; and

 

2.   Issues relating to the Village Green project in respect of aspects where Auckland Transport has a role.

 

Auckland Transport continues to work with Auckland Council to support development of the Village Green plan on an as required basis. There is no intention for AT to undertake further involvement than as a support and advocate for the Board to deliver these projects.

 

 

 

 

Notes: N/A – A Customer Service Reference Number is not applicable to this item because either it was handled directly by the EMRM or it is a legacy issue or the request was for information that was outside the boundaries of a service request.

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Railway Station Secure Bike Parking - Meadowbank

153

bView

Stonefields Development - Carpark Options

155

     

Signatories

Author

Melanie Dale – Elected Member Relationship Manager

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon – Elected Member Relationship Team Leader

Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

 


Orākei Local Board

04 December 2014

 

 


Orākei Local Board

04 December 2014

 

 



Orākei Local Board

04 December 2014

 

 

Orakei Local Board Achievements Report July 2013 - October 2014

 

File No.: CP2014/27559

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       The report seeks the endorsement of the draft Orakei Local Board Achievements Report for the period 1 July 2013 to 1 October 2014.

Executive Summary

2.       The Orakei Local Board’s draft achievements report is a key communication tool to the residents of the Orakei Local Board area, allowing the Board to inform its community of the key successes the Board has achieved in the last year.

3.       The reporting timeframe for the Orakei Local Board’s draft achievements report for the period 1 July 2013 to 1 October 2014 was extended to allow the full year after the 2013 local body election period to be included.

4.       The attached draft achievements report is set out to match the Board’s new 2014 Local Board Plan key priorities and key advocacy areas to the mayor and governing body.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Orākei Local Board:

a)      endorses the Orakei Local Board Achievements Report for the period 1 July 2013 to1 October 2014.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Achievements Report

159

     

Signatories

Author

Anthony Lewis - Local Board Advisor

Authoriser

Adam Milina - Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

 


Orākei Local Board

04 December 2014

 

 

























Orākei Local Board

04 December 2014

 

 

Chairperson's Report

 

File No.: CP2014/15783

 

  

 

 

Purpose

1.       To provide the Chairperson with an opportunity to update the Orakei Local Board on projects and issues they have been involved with since the last meeting.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Orākei Local Board:

a)      receives the Chairperson’s December 2014 report.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Chairperson Simpson - December 2014 report

185

     

Signatories

Author

Georgina  Morgan - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Adam Milina - Acting Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

 


Orākei Local Board

04 December 2014

 

 














Orākei Local Board

04 December 2014

 

 

Board Member Reports

 

File No.: CP2014/15788

 

  

 

 

Purpose

1.       To provide Board Members the opportunity to update the Orakei Local Board on projects and issues they have been involved with since the last meeting.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Orākei Local Board:

a)      receives the Board Member reports.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Board Member Churton - December 2014 Report

201

bView

Board Member Cooke - December 2014 Report

203

cView

Board Member Parkinson - December 2014 Report

205

dView

Board Member Thomas - December 2014 Report

249

eView

Board Member Davis - December 2014 Report

255

     

Signatories

Author

Georgina  Morgan - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Adam Milina - Acting Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

 


Orākei Local Board

04 December 2014

 

 


Orākei Local Board

04 December 2014

 

 



Orākei Local Board

04 December 2014

 

 












































Orākei Local Board

04 December 2014

 

 






Orākei Local Board

04 December 2014

 

 




Orākei Local Board

04 December 2014

 

 

Resolutions Pending Action

 

File No.: CP2014/15745

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       To provide the Orakei Local Board with an opportunity to track reports that have been requested from officers.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Orākei Local Board:

a)      receives the Resolutions Pending Action report.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Resolutions Pending Action - December 2014

261

     

Signatories

Author

Georgina  Morgan - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Adam Milina - Acting Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

 



Orākei Local Board

04 December 2014

 

 


Orākei Local Board

04 December 2014

 

 


Orākei Local Board

04 December 2014

 

 



Orākei Local Board

04 December 2014

 

 

Local Board Workshop Record of Proceedings

 

File No.: CP2014/15774

 

  

 

 

Purpose

1.       To provide the Board with the record of proceedings for the Orakei local Board workshops held on 13 and 20 November 2014.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Orākei Local Board:

a)      receives the record of proceedings for the Orakei Local Board workshops held on 13 and 20 November 2014.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Workshop Proceedings - 13 November 2014

267

bView

Workshop Proceedings - 20 November 2014

269

     

Signatories

Author

Georgina  Morgan - Democracy Advisor

Authoriser

Adam Milina - Acting Relationship Manager - Albert-Eden & Orakei Local Boards

 


Orākei Local Board

04 December 2014

 

 


Orākei Local Board

04 December 2014

 

 

    

    



[1] Section 10(4) Dog Control Act 1996