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

 

Date:                      

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Monday, 8 December 2014

1.00pm

Council Chamber
Orewa Service Centre
50 Centreway Road
Orewa

 

Rodney Local Board

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Brenda Steele

 

Deputy Chairperson

Steven Garner

 

Members

James Colville

 

 

Warren Flaunty, QSM

 

 

Thomas Grace

 

 

Beth Houlbrooke

 

 

John McLean

 

 

Phelan Pirrie

 

 

Greg Sayers

 

 

(Quorum 5 members)

 

 

 

Raewyn Morrison

Local Board Democracy Advisor

 

3 December 2014

 

Contact Telephone: (09) 427 3399

Email: raewyn.morrison@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 

 


 

 


Rodney Local Board

08 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

8.1     Proposal for a playground within the Kaukapakapa Memorial Reserve       6

8.2     Kawau Island and related matters                                                                      6

9          Public Forum                                                                                                                  6

9.1     Dog access rules                                                                                                  6

10        Extraordinary Business                                                                                                7

11        Notices of Motion                                                                                                          7

12        Local Event Support Fund - Round Two 2014/2015                                                  9

13        Report Name: Swimming Pool Fencing Exemption – Special Exemption (Section 6) Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987                                                                      13

14        Finance & Performance report to end of October 2014                                          17

15        Auckland Transport Update to Rodney Local Board, December 2014                 81

16        New Road Names - Ara Kakara Avenue, Malbec Place, Huarahi Pai Road and Aro Mato Place                                                                                                                              89

17        Long-term Plan 2015-2025: Local consultation material                                         95

18        Interim Open Space Provision Guidelines                                                             107

19        Request for feedback on the draft Local Approved Product Policy                   129

20        Business Surveys - Wellsford and Snells Beach                                                   147

21        Update on Progress of Warkworth BID Establishment                                        215

22        Update on Kaipara Moana event at Te Hana                                                          219

23        Ward Councillor Update                                                                                           221

24        Deputation/Public Forum Update                                                                            223

25        Rodney Local Board Workshop Records                                                               227  

26        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

27        Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public                                                               233

13        Report Name: Swimming Pool Fencing Exemption – Special Exemption (Section 6) Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987

a.      267 Riverhead Road, Riverhead                                                                     233

b.      627B Upper Waiwera Road, Tahekeroa                                                         233

c.      11 Piper Lane, Snells Beach                                                                           233

 

 


1          Welcome

 

 

2          Apologies

 

An apology from Member JG Colville has 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 Rodney Local Board:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Monday, 10 November 2014, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

b)         Confirm the ordinary minutes of the Rodney Local Board Swimming Pool Exemptions Committee meeting of Monday, 13 October 2014, as a true and correct record.

 

Secretarial Note: Following the disestablishment of the Rodney Local Board Swimming Pool Fencing Exemptions Committee at the meeting of 13 October 2014 (resolution RD/2014/230), the minutes of the last meeting of that committee will be confirmed as a true and correct record by the full local board on 8 December 2014.

 

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 Rodney Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

 

8.1       Proposal for a playground within the Kaukapakapa Memorial Reserve

Purpose

1.       Danielle Hancock has requested a deputation with the Rodney Local Board to discuss a proposal for a playground to be constructed within the Kaukapakapa Memorial Reserve. The playground would require landowner approval from the local board.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      thank Danielle Hancock for her presentation on a proposal to construct a playground in the Kaukapakapa Memorial Reserve.

 

 

 

8.2       Kawau Island and related matters

Purpose

1.       Lin Pardey of Kawau Island will be in attendance to address the Rodney Local Board on matters relating to Kawau Island including carparking issues at Sandspit.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      thank Lin Pardey for her presentation on matters relating to Kawau Island including carparking issues at Sandspit.

 

 

 

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       Dog access rules

Purpose

1.       Janice Fanning and Karen Windross will be in attendance to address the Rodney Local Board on dog access time on beaches in the Rodney Local Board area.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      thank Janice Fanning and Karen Windross for their presentation on dog access times on beaches in the Rodney Local Board area.

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 


Rodney Local Board

08 December 2014

 

 

Local Event Support Fund - Round Two 2014/2015

 

File No.: CP2014/24573

 

  

Purpose

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

Executive summary

2.       A contestable local events support fund of $51,245 is available to the Rodney Local Board for distribution over two funding rounds in the 2014/2015 financial year.

 

3.       In round one the local board distributed $37,335, leaving $13,910 for allocation in round two.

 

4.       In round two 11 applications totalling $130,625 have been received and reviewed at a workshop with the local board on 1 December 2014.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      agree to fund, part-fund or not fund the round two 2014-2015 contestable local event support fund applications as follows:

 

 

Applicant

Event

Date

Officer recommendation

Kaipara Memorial RSA Inc

 

ANZAC Day 2015 Commemorations

25 April 2015

$1,500.00

Helensville Community Christmas Lunch Committee

Helensville Community Christmas Lunch

25 December 2014

$1,000.00

Total Sport Limited

 

Coastal Challenge – Tawharanui

25 April 2015

$0

Helensville A&P Association

 

Helensville A&P Show

28 February 2015

$5,410.00

HIPPY South Kaipara Charitable Trust

HIPPY South Kaipara 10 Year Celebrations

14 March 2015

$1,000.00

Auckland Live – Regional Facilities Auckland

Morning Melodies 2015

2 March 2015 –

14 September 2015

$0

Muriwai Lifeguard Service Amenities Trust

Tunes in the Dunes (Muriwai)

8 March 2015

$2,000.00

Wellsford Districts Sports & Recreation Collective Inc.

Children’s Day

1 March 2015

$3,000.00

Muscular Dystrophy Assn of NZ Inc.

Life Without Limits Conference

16 April 2015 –

18 April 2015

$0

Auckland Live – Regional Facilities Auckland

School Holiday Programme 2015

13 April 2015 –

18 July 2015

$0

Getin2Life Youth Development Trust

In2it Winter Fun – Rodney

1 March 2015 –

31 July 2015

$0

TOTAL

 

 

$13,910.00

 

 

 

Comments

 

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

 

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

 

 

Round

Applications Close

Assessment

Decision Making

1

31 May 2014

June 2014

July/August 2014

2

31 October 2014

November 2014

December 2014/February 2015

 

7.       Round two of the 2014/2015 contestable local events fund received 11 applications.  A summary of these is as follows:         

 

Applicant

Event

Date

Amount Requested

Kaipara Memorial RSA Inc

 

ANZAC Day 2015 Commemorations

25 April 2015

$3,000.00

Helensville Community Christmas Lunch Committee

 

Helensville Community Christmas Lunch

25 December 2014

$2,000.00

Total Sport Limited

 

Coastal Challenge – Tawharanui

25 April 2015

$8,000.00

Helensville A&P Association

 

Helensville A&P Show

28 February 2015

$12,000.00

HIPPY South Kaipara Charitable Trust

HIPPY South Kaipara 10 Year Celebrations

14 March 2015

$6,000.00

Auckland Live – Regional Facilities Auckland

 

Morning Melodies 2015

2 March 2015 –

14 September 2015

$5,000.00

Muriwai Lifeguard Service Amenities Trust

 

Tunes in the Dunes (Muriwai)

8 March 2015

$16,000.00

Wellsford Sports & Recreation Collective

 

Children’s Day

1 March 2015

$14,130.00

Muscular Dystrophy Assn of NZ Inc.

Life Without Limits Conference

16 April 2015 –

18 April 2015

$55,000.00

Auckland Live – Regional Facilities Auckland

School Holiday Programme 2015

13 April 2015 –

18 July 2015

$5,000.00

Getin2Life Youth Development Trust

In2it Winter Fun – Rodney

1 March 2015 –

31 July 2015

$4,495.00

TOTAL

 

 

$130.625.00

 

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

 

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

Consideration

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

 

11.     The Rodney Local Board seeks to engage with their diverse communities and provide for their social and cultural needs by ensuring that their town centres are attractive and bustling places that provide employment and reasons to visit and socialise, and that local arts and culture flourish and are celebrated.

Local board views and implications

12.     A local board workshop was held on 1 December 2014 to consider the applications to the local event support fund round two. This report reflects the views of local board members expressed at the workshop.

 

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

 

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

Māori impact statement

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

Implementation

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

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Signatories

Authors

Barbara Cade - Team Leader Events North/West

Authorisers

Graham Bodman - Manager - Community Development, Arts and Culture

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

 


Rodney Local Board

08 December 2014

 

 

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

 

File No.: CP2014/27397

 

  

Purpose

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

Executive summary

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

 

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)         receive the applications by:

i)          Edwin van Zuilen, 267 Riverhead Road, Riverhead

ii)         Paul van Bruggen, 627B Upper Waiwera Road, Tahekeroa

iii)         Michael and Pamela Judd, 11 Piper Lane, Snells Beach

 

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

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

ii)         grant the application subject to conditions, or

iii)         decline the application for special exemption sought.

 

Comments

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

b.   Will the exemption be granted for a fixed term and irrespective of changes of ownership so that the exemption runs with the property?

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

 

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

Consideration

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Local board views and implications

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

Māori impact statement

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

General

20.     Compliance with the Act is a mandatory requirement for all pool owners unless exempt.

21.     Council’s pools inspectors have consulted with the applicants in each case.  Applicants have been made aware of the council’s requirements to ensure fencing is compliant with the Act.  The applicants have elected to seek a special exemption for individual reasons.

Implementation

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

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

267 Riverhead Road, Riverhead (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential

 

bView

627B Upper Waiwera Road, Tahekeroa (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential

 

c

11 Piper Lane, Snells Beach (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential

 

     

Signatories

Authors

Phillip Curtis - Senior Swimming Pool Specialist

Authorisers

Barry Smedts - Manager Compliance

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

 


Rodney Local Board

08 December 2014

 

 

Finance & Performance report to end of October 2014

 

File No.: CP2014/24269

 

  

Purpose

1.       To update the Rodney Local Board on progress towards their objectives for the year from 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015 as set out in the local board agreement.

Executive summary

2.       The net cost of service for the period to October 2014 shows a positive variance of $640k against budget. This is made up of revenue received $7k favourable and operating expenses of $633k favourable against budget year to date. 

3.       Revenue reflects $5k received from wharves which has been accounted for in error and should be a regional receipt and Mahurangi Community Centre which is showing increased revenue to budget reflecting annual billing to regular users of these facilities.

4.       Operating expenditure is showing a positive variance particularly in discretionary budgets which either has yet to be invoiced after the allocation has been resolved or yet to be allocated. To date the local board has still to resolve on $255k of its discretionary budgets which could lead to budgets not being able to be spent before year end and projects not completed.

5.       Capital expenditure to date is showing an unfavourable variance of $1,696k against phased budget some of this is due to the budget year to date not matching the expenditure on projects which have continued from the previous financial year. The capital budget for Warkworth showgrounds for this financial year is also insufficient and will show a $1.3m shortfall by year end which will have to be found from elsewhere within the Parks, Sports and Recreation budgets. To date a total capital spend of $2,283 reflects a 23% spend of its total capital budget, the local board need to ensure that key projects are monitored and reported back to the local board on their progress to ensure all expenditure is completed within this financial year with the exception of Warkworth Town Hall and Warkworth Showgrounds there is no funding in next financial year for those projects and this year’s funding cannot be carried forward.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      receive the Performance Report for the Rodney Local Board for the period ended October 2014.

 

Consideration

Local board views and implications

6.       This report informs the Rodney Local Board of the performance to date for the period ending October 2014.

Māori impact statement

7.       Maori as stakeholders of the council are affected and have an interest in any report on financial results. However this report does not impact specific outcomes or activities. As such the content of this report has no particular benefit to, or adverse effect on Maori.

Implementation

8.       This is the first financial report for the Rodney Local Board for the financial year ending 30th June 2015; the next report will be presented to the board in February 2015.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Performance Report for Period to October 2014

19

     

Signatories

Authors

Jane Koch - Business Performance Advisor

Authorisers

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Christine Watson - Manager Financial Advisory Services - Local Boards

 


Rodney Local Board

08 December 2014

 

 






























































Rodney Local Board

08 December 2014

 

 

Auckland Transport Update to Rodney Local Board, December 2014

 

File No.: CP2014/27716

 

  

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report is to respond to local board requests on transport-related matters and to provide information to elected members about Auckland Transport (AT) activities.

Executive Summary

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

 

 

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)         request that detailed designs and firm cost estimates for the following Local Board Transport Capital Fund projects, for which rough order costs have been provided as indicated, be prepared:

i)    Project 397 – Footpath on Domain Crescent, Muriwai, from 26 – 40 Domain Crescent: Rough order of cost $267,000.

ii)   Project 398 – Footpath on Maude Street, Riverhead: Rough order of cost $145,000.

iii)   Project 399 – Footpath on Great North Road, Riverhead: $321,000.

 

Discussion

Consultation for the Redesign of West Auckland Bus Services

3.       Consultation on proposed changes to bus services for Western areas, including Helensville, Huapai and Kumeu, began on Tuesday, 21 October and closed on 1 December 2014.

4.       Over 1100 submissions and comments had been received on the proposals by mid-November. Analysis of all feedback received is expected early in 2015 and the final bus route decisions will be confirmed by mid-2015.

5.       The Western New Network will be implemented in 2016 following a competitive tendering process and changes to infrastructure such as bus stops and interchanges required.

6.       For more events and to give feedback on the proposals visit:  www.at.govt.nz/NewNetwork or phone 09 366 6400.     


Footpath projects

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

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

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

Proposed Speed Reduction on Waitakere Road

10.     Waitakere Road has been identified as a high risk rural road, with crash data indicating that, of the 44 crashes reported over the past 5 years, 15 of these occurred on the 100km/h section (six of these crashes resulted in a fatal or serious injury). The current derestricted 100km/h zone on Waitakere Road applies from Access Road to #556 Waitakere Road.  A derestricted zone has no posted speed limit and the maximum of 100 km/h applies but motorists must drive to the conditions.

11.     AT consulted the Rodney and Waitakere Ranges Local Boards, residents and other key stakeholders over late October to mid-November on a proposal to post a speed limit of 80km/h on the currently desrestricted area of Waitakere Road. The designated speed limits applying for the balance of Waitakere Road will remain unchanged.

12.     Local board Chairperson Brenda Steele advised that Rodney Local Board members have been receiving complaints on the speed and shoulder parking along this road for several years so the speed limit change will be well supported by residents and local board members on their behalf.

13.     Feedback received is now being considered and, subject to the outcome of the consultation, the speed limit changes will be implemented in late 2014/early 2015. 

Installation of electronic 'school zone' signage for Huapai School

14.     AT is proposing to install electronic ‘School Zone’ signs in the vicinity of Huapai District School, on Station Road, Huapai.  The signs, which are equipped with alternating flashing beacons, will be installed on the main roads approaching the school and operate for a period of 35 minutes prior to school commencing and 20 minutes at the close of the school day. They are designed to increase driver awareness and reinforce driver expectation of the presence of children.

15.     An assessment was undertaken using criteria set down by NZTA which requires certain conditions to be met in terms of child numbers, vehicle speeds, crash history and road type and Huapai District School was selected for implementation, with the signage expected to be installed by July 2015. 

16.     Consultation on the proposal closed on Monday, 1 December 2014 and local board Chairperson Brenda Steele advised that parents and the school community will be very pleased to see the signage and school zone area finally identified.

Love Your Local Campaign - Puhoi

17.     The Puhoi community with support from AT and the NZ Police are working together to raise awareness of speeding issues in Puhoi.

18.     Speed is the single biggest road safety issue in NZ today; the faster you drive, the more likely you are to crash and the more severe any injuries from that crash will be. This is basic physics and is relevant to all drivers, no matter how skilled they are.

19.     Puhoi has been selected for the campaign due to the high number of tourists who visit the area on a daily basis. The walking trail this is also increasing the amount of traffic in the area.  

20.     The campaign is designed to be short term, running until the end of March, and will feature billboards similar to that depicted below, together with direct mail (letters/postcards) to all residents in the Puhoi area. 

21.     The campaign was launched at the Puhoi Famers Market on Sunday, 30 November.

 

Share the Road Marketing Campaign

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

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

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

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

Update on the Rodney Local Board’s LBTCF Projects

26.     Construction of the following LBTCF projects identified by the Rodney Local Board has been completed:

·    Mountable kerb outside 336 Mahurangi East Road, Snells Beach (Project 118);

·    Footpath extension on Fordyce Road, Parakai (Project 174);

·    Extending the loose metal bridle trail on the northern side of Coatesville-Riverhead Highway from east of Glenmore Road to 264 Coatesville-Riverhead Highway (Project 179);

·    New footpath on Mahoenui Valley Road opposite the school to its intersection with Coatesville-Riverhead Highway (Project 180);

·    New footpath on Rodney Street, Wellsford (Project 190);

·    Construction of local access road improvements, 338 – 382 Main Road, Huapai (Project 175);

·    New footpath on the eastern side of Coatesville-Riverhead Highway Elliot Street to the bridge (Project 177).

27.     The design, consents and contract schedule for Project 113, Puhoi Pedestrian Bridge, are currently being finalised and AT staff will discuss the engineer’s estimate and request the local board’s approval to proceed to construction on completion of the detailed design.

28.     Construction of a footpath on the eastern side of Puhoi Road from Puhoi Library to Krippner Road Bridge (Project 162) will be carried out in conjunction with construction of the Puhoi Pedestrian Bridge (Project 113), commencing during the 2014/2015 summer construction period. The local board’s Transport Portfolio Leads (TPLs) approved the final design for a footpath with edge beam and parking bays at a meeting with AT staff on 13 October.

29.     Discussions are continuing with AC stormwater staff regarding possible stormwater improvements to be addressed as part of Project 163, a 1.8 m wide footpath on the western side of Oaia Road from Waitea Road to the distance that $95,000 will allow (estimated at 225m). The physical works will be tendered when these matters have been resolved.

30.     At the time this report was written confirmation of informal consultation with residents affected by the construction of a 1.8m wide from 30 Point Wells Road to the Point Wells General Store at 14 Point Wells Road, Point Wells, (Project 205) was still to be provided by Member Garner.

31.     Project 116, construction of a footpath on Mahurangi East Road, Snells Beach, from Arabella Lane to the existing footpath, is on hold pending slip repair works in this vicinity. AT staff met with the Transport, Planning and Infrastructure Committee (TPI) on 13 November to discuss timing of this work and how safety improvements, funded by the local board, may be combined with these repairs. A further update will be provided to the local board on completion of the design for the slip repair works so that a decision can be made whether to proceed further with the footpath project. At the meeting with the TPI Committee, a speed reduction in the area of the slip was also discussed.  As a result, existing 50kph signage will be relocated to just south of 75 Mahurangi East Road as a matter of urgency, with ‘Temporary’ supplementary signage in place until the formal process for the speed reduction has been completed.

32.     Detailed design and preparation of a firm cost estimate for Project 161, a new 200m long footpath on Waitoki Road, Waitoki, are progressing and discussions are being held with AC stormwater staff regarding possible stormwater improvements, without which it may be impractical to build the footpath. An update on this project will be provided to the local board when this comes to hand. Email to Steve Burris/Yasenko 19/11

33.     Rough order costs have been provided to Board Chair Member Steele, and to Members Pirrie and Garner, Chair and Deputy Chair of the Transport, Planning and Infrastructure Committee for the following projects. A decision as to which of these are to proceed to detailed design so that  firm cost estimates can be provided is now requested:

iv.  Project 397 – Footpath on Domain Crescent, Muriwai, from 26 – 40 Domain Crescent: Rough order of cost $267,000.

v.   Project 398 – Footpath on Maude Street, Riverhead: Rough order of cost $145,000.

vi.  Project 399 – Footpath on Great North Road, Riverhead: $321,000.

34.     Member Garner has advised that the seat made available by AT from surplus stock is to be installed in front of the property at 6 Alexander Road, Algies Bay (Project 294).This work has been programmed by the contractor for completion prior to Christmas 2014.

 

Issues Update

35.     The following Issues Update comprises issues raised by Elected Members and Local Board Services staff to 21 November 2014:

 

Location

Issue

Status

1

Valley Road, Kaukapakapa

Request for enhancement of barrier preventing vehicles access to the paper road portion of Valley Road, Kaukapakapa.

Member McLean asked on 6 June 2014 for the implementation of additional measures, such as heavy duty lockable gates, concrete barriers and/or signage, to prevent vehicle access to the paper road portion of Valley Road, Kaukapakapa. A decision on the request will be made following adoption of guidelines on the management of unformed legal roads which will set guidelines for dealing with such queries, expected early in 2015.

2

Waitea Road, Muriwai

Request for safety improvements on Waitea Road, Muriwai.

Member Pirrie requested an investigation into the installation of NSAAT restrictions and cautionary signage on Waitea Road, Muriwai. Following a subsequent investigation, Member Pirrie was advised on 17 November that whilst contractors' vehicles were parked on Waitea Road during on-site renovations, these were parked in a considerate manner. It was noted that some of the driveways on Waitea Road are steep with little off-site parking, therefore on-street parking is considered a valuable amenity for residents. On-street parking can also be helpful for regulating traffic speeds on local roads, and removing extended lengths of parking is likely to result in a marked increase in speeds. Existing signage is in place from the Oaia Road approach indicating that the road narrows. In light of the length of restrictions that would be needed, the impact on amenity for residents and the likelihood of this leading to higher speeds, the request for NSAAT restrictions was declined. However, road markings at the intersections of Waitea, Oaia, Ngatira and Edwin Mitchelson Roads will be improved, with these improvements expected to be completed by the end of December 2014. Vegetation will also be trimmed where this encroaches into the road to improve forward visibility and assist with overtaking of parked vehicles.

3

Austin /Kahikatea Flat Roads, Dairy Flat

Request for road marking and signage at the intersection of Austin/Kahikatea Flat Roads, Dairy Flat.

Member McLean asked on 13 August 2014 that road marking and signage be provided at the corner of Austin/Kahikatea Flat Roads, Dairy Flat, where the absence of these makes the school bus drop-off/pick-up dangerous for children. Following detailed investigation, on 17 November Rodney Local Board members were advised that the cost of widening the seal in the area of the bus stop, to realign the road markings so that the children can be dropped off and the bus can exit the bus stop on the correct side of the road, will be added to the prioritisation list for future consideration and ranking against other minor safety projects across the region. Staff have also spoken with the bus company with regards to dropping children off and they are happy to instruct their drivers to keep the bus door closed until a parent is waiting to uplift or assist the children to the opposite side of the road where vehicles park.

4

Warkworth /Matakana /Snells Beach areas

Request for repairs /maintenance in the Warkworth /Matakana /Snells Beach areas.

Local Board staff forwarded a list of repairs/maintenance required in the Warkworth/Matakana/Snells Beach areas (specifically Morpeth and Elizabeth Streets, Sandspit, Mahurangi East, Matakana and Sharp Roads) submitted by Bryan Jackson of the Snells Beach Residents' and Ratepayers' Association in support of the Association's Local Board Plan submission. Previous responses noted that the area on Mahurangi East Road programmed for resealing during this 2014/2015 financial year is the section from James Street to Muncaster Road, with an additional area at the end near Martins Bay Road; that the section adjacent to Lawrie Road had been water cut late in 2013/2014; and that a flushed area of seal on Sandpit Road had been programmed for water cutting to improve the texture/traction. Further concerns being investigated by Road Corridor Maintenance staff.

5

Wharf Road, Leigh

Request for reinstatement of parking sign at the bottom of Wharf Road, Leigh.

Local Board staff requested reinstatement of a parking sign at the bottom of Wharf Road, Leigh, on 25 September on behalf of a resident. On 17 November members were advised that contractors had identified three signs missing from this location which have been ordered and should be installed by the end of November/early December.

6

Tamahunga Drive /Matakana Road, Matakana

Request for an update on work requested to improve pedestrian safety on Tamahunga Drive and Matakana Road, Matakana.

In response to a request for an update on work requested to improve pedestrian safety on Tamahunga Drive and Matakana Road, Matakana, on 24 October 2014 the local board Chair and Members Garner, Houlbrooke and Pirrie were advised that the installation of a 1.8m footpath with kerb and channel and new stormwater pipe, work which would have linked the existing footpath outside 951 Matakana Road to the Tamahunga Drive bridge, has been considered in the past and discussed with the school’s BOT. However, the cost estimate for the project was found to be high so it wasn’t able to be delivered under the Minor Safety Improvement programme without a contribution from Auckland Council’s Stormwater Team. There was also a significant complication with the footbridge purchased by the community group to cross the stream as this was found not to be up to the safety standards currently required. There was therefore no budget available for this work and, given the substantial budget constraints imposed on AT by AC, it is no longer being pursued. A section of footpath, from 936 to 948 Matakana Road, is however included as one of the schemes currently being reconsidered by AT’s walking and cycling team, but funding for the new footpath construction programme has been severely compromised by the recent constraints. The options available to the local board now are to advocate to the governing body for funding this work through the long term plan, or to AT through the regional land transport programme; both these documents will be consulted on in 2015. Alternatively, the local board may consider funding all or a portion of the work through its LBTCF. With regard to the Matakana School Gala, as with any other special event, the management of any resulting traffic effects is the responsibility of the event organiser.

7

Dairy Flat Highway, Dairy Flat

Request for speed reduction on Dairy Flat Highway, Dairy Flat.

Member McLean requested a reduction in speed from 100km/h to 80km/h on Diary Flat Highway, Dairy Flat, on 22 October 2014. On 18 November members were advised that AT is working on a proposal to change the speed limit on Dairy Flat Highway, with the extent of the proposal to extend the existing 80km/h zone in the vicinity of Dairy Flat School northward to just north of Kahikatea Flats Road, and southward to the bridge near Green Road, encompassing the commercial area at Kahikatea Flats Road and a number of side road intersections which have been identified as crash issues. The proposal will be discussed with stakeholders, including the Police, NZTA and the Automobile Association in late November and, subject to their responses, is likely to be progressed to public consultation in the New Year.

8

Dairy Flat Highway, Dairy Flat

Request for two bus stops on Dairy Flat Highway, Dairy Flat.

Member John McLean requested the provision of a bus shelter on both sides of Dairy Flat Highway in the vicinity of Dairy Flat School on 22 October 2014 for the use of primary school students who attend the school. Under consideration by Public Transport Facilities staff.

9

134 Parkhurst Road, Parakai

Request for improved lighting at 134 Parkhurst Road, Parakai.

Rodney Local Board Chair Brenda Steel advised on 31 October that lighting at the pedestrian crossing on the shop side at 134 Parkhurst Road, Parakai, is very poor so quite dangerous, asking that this be improved. Referred to Street Lighting Maintenance.

10

Access Road, Kumeu

Phasing of lights and congestion at Access Road/SH16, Kumeu.

Board Chair Brenda Steele forwarded a request on 17 November 2014 for an investigation into phasing of the lights at the intersection of Access Road/SH16 following complaints about congestion in Access Road/Grivelle Street and access onto SH16 from Access Road, Kumeu. Referred to Road Corridor Operations staff.

 

Consideration

Local Board Views and Implications

36.     This report is for the Local Board’s information.

Maori Impact Statement

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

General

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

Implementation Issues

39.     There are no implementation issues.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Authors

Ellen Barrett – Elected Member Relationship Manager, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon – Elected Member Relationship Team Manager, Auckland Transport

 


Rodney Local Board

08 December 2014

 

 

New Road Names - Ara Kakara Avenue, Malbec Place, Huarahi Pai Road and Aro Mato Place

 

File No.: CP2014/27984

 

  

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report is to seek the Rodney Local Board’s approval for four new road names in the Universal Homes Limited Huapai Crest subdivision at 69 Matua Road, Huapai.

Executive Summary

2.       A condition of the subdivision consent required the applicant to suggest to council names for the new roads within the subdivision which will vest in council.

3.       The applicant wishes to name the four roads within the 101 lot subdivision as Ara Kakara Avenue, Malbec Place, Huarahi Pai Road and Aro Mato Place (see Attachment A).

 

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      approve the new road names under section 319(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 of Ara Kakara Avenue, Malbec Place, Huarahi Pai Road and Aro Mato Place for the Universal Homes Limited Huapai Crest subdivision at 69 Matua Place, Haupai, council reference SLC-60248.

 

Discussion

4.       The applicant is Universal Homes Limited and the site address is 69 Matua Road, Huapai. The council reference is SLC-60248.

5.       This 101 residential lot development was consented in 2013. As required by the resource consent, following consultation with the Te Kahui-iti Morehu of Ngati Whatua o Kaipara, the applicant company has suggested the new roads be named Ara Kakara Avenue, Malbec Place, Huarahi Pai Road and Aro Mato Place. ‘Malbec’ refers to a local wine produced by the original settlers from Dalamtia, recognising the contribution wine making has made to the community. In Te Reo Maori ‘Ara Kakara’ translates to ‘bouquet trail’ meaning ‘the wine has a sweet bouquet.’ ‘Huarahi Pai’ translates to ‘good long road of fruit’ to reflect long rows of grape vines and ‘Aro Mato’ translates to ‘crisp trail’ to mean ‘the wine is crisp like a new dawn.’ These names were recommended by Ngati Whatua o Kaipara on the basis that they reflect the wine growing history of the area.

Consideration

Local Board Views and Implications

6.       A decision is sought from the Rodney Local Board to approve the new road names under section 319(j) of the Local Government Act 1974.

Maori Impact Statement

7.       The applicant has consulted with Te Kahui-iti Morehu of Ngati Whatua o Kaipara. Te Kahui-iti Morehu consulted with members of the marae and community, suggesting the proposed road names Ara Kakara Avenue, Huarahi Pai Road and Aro Mato Place.

General

8.       The Land Information database confirms that there are no similar road names in the area.

Implementation Issues

9.       If and when the name is approved the developer will be advised and they are responsible for erecting the new road name sign.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Scheme Plan

91

bView

Locality Map

93

     

Signatories

Authors

Frank Lovering – Land Surveyor/Senior Subdivision Advisor

Authorisers

Bonnie Lees – Team Manager, Northern Resource Consents

 


Rodney Local Board

08 December 2014

 

 


Rodney Local Board

08 December 2014

 

 


Rodney Local Board

08 December 2014

 

 

Long-term Plan 2015-2025: Local consultation material

 

File No.: CP2014/28105

 

  

Purpose

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

Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

 

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      adopts local consultation material including:

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

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

b)      notes:

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

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

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

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

 

Discussion

Process

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

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

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

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

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

 

Draft budgets

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

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

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

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

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

 

Next steps

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

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

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

Consideration

Local Board Views and Implications

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

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

Maori Impact Statement

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

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

Implementation Issues

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

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

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Draft Local Board Insert

99

bView

Draft Local Board Supporting Information

101

     

Signatories

Authors

Kate Marsh - Financial Planning Manager - Local Boards

Authorisers

Matthew Walker - Manager Financial Planning, Policy and Budgeting

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

 


Rodney Local Board

08 December 2014

 

 



Rodney Local Board

08 December 2014

 

 







Rodney Local Board

08 December 2014

 

 

Interim Open Space Provision Guidelines

 

File No.: CP2014/26960

 

  

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 Rodney Local Board:

a)      provide feedback on the Interim Open Space Provision Guidelines.

 

 

Comments

Background and strategic context

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

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

·    Assessing open space acquisition opportunities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

·        Distribution of open space

·        Quantity of open space

·        Configuration of open space

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

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

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

·        Neighbourhood parks

·        Suburb parks

·        Sub-regional parks

·        Civic spaces

·        Local sports parks

·        Connections

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

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

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

Neighbourhood parks and suburb parks

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

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

 

 

Neighbourhood Park

 

 

Suburb Park

 

High density areas:

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

 

400m walk

(approx. 5 mins)

 

1000m walk

(approx. 12 mins)

Remaining urban residential areas

 

600m walk

(approx. 7.5 mins)

 

 

1500m walk

(approx. 18 mins)

 

Sub-regional parks

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

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

Civic space

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

Local sports parks

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

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

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

Connections

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

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

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

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

Quantity of open space in existing urban areas

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

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

·        High levels of expected population growth

·        Relatively poor access to informal recreation open space

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

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

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

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

·        Projected  population growth between 2014 and  2030

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

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

Quantity of open space in greenfield developments

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consideration

Local board views and implications

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

Maori impact statement

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

Implementation

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

·        Assessing open space acquisition opportunities against the guidelines

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

·        Engagement with iwi and property developers

·        Refinement of the modelling of provision targets

·        Illustration of the concepts within the guidelines

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

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Interim Open Space Provision Guidelines

113

bView

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

127

     

Signatories

Authors

Andrew Beer - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Rob Cairns - Manager Regionwide

Anaru Vercoe - Manager, Community Policy & Planning

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

 


Rodney Local Board

08 December 2014

 

 














Rodney Local Board

08 December 2014

 

 



Rodney Local Board

08 December 2014

 

 

Request for feedback on the draft Local Approved Product Policy

 

File No.: CP2014/27035

 

  

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 Rodney Local Board :

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

Comments

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

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

6.       The draft LAPP will prevent licences being granted in areas of high deprivation, near high schools and near addiction and mental health treatment centres.  It would also limit how close to an existing shop a new shop could open.  The policy also has a separate set of rules for the city centre where licences won’t be granted in areas of high residential deprivation and new shops would have to be a certain distance from existing shops.  This draft would reduce the availability of these substances in areas where their presence is likely to have the greatest potential for harm. 

7.       Public consultation on the draft LAPP will be conducted via a special consultative procedure.  The consultation will begin on 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

133

bView

Statement of Proposal - draft LAPP

135

 

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Callum Thorpe - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

 



Rodney Local Board

08 December 2014

 

 



Rodney Local Board

08 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.


Rodney Local Board

08 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

 


Rodney Local Board

08 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.


Rodney Local Board

08 December 2014

 

 

Business Surveys - Wellsford and Snells Beach

 

File No.: CP2014/27078

 

  

Purpose

1.       The purpose of this report is to provide information to the Rodney Local Board on the results of the surveys of the business communities of Wellsford and Snells Beach undertaken in July and August 2014. 

Executive Summary

2.       Local board funding provided the opportunity to undertake business community surveys in Wellsford and Snells Beach.

3.       Findings indicate a positive business environment with businesses keen to work collaboratively on local economic development initiatives.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      receive the Business Surveys – Wellsford and Snells Beach reports dated August 2014.

 

Discussion

4.       In May 2014 the Rodney Local Board asked council officers to undertake a business survey in Wellsford and Snells Beach. The results of these surveys were meant to provide input to the Rodney Local Board Local Economic Development Plan under development. The same service provider undertook both surveys, which were conducted through face-to-face interviews, email and on-line, with follow-up phone calls. 

Wellsford

5.       Results from 115 Wellsford respondents indicated that the advantages were considered to be its location on SH1 and passing traffic, local farming base, and a supportive community. Concerns were to do with low customer numbers, locals shopping out of town, and increasing competition from the internet and other businesses. Additional concerns included poor condition of roads, lack of growth, and a poor image of the town.

6.       Businesses felt that priorities for improvement should focus on promoting Wellsford, advocacy on behalf of local business, events, and business networking. There was strong interest – 64% - in forming a business network.  An additional 25% were neutral.  The Wellsford Business Survey Report by Ben Parsons and Associates dated August 2014 is Attachment A to this report.

Snells Beach

7.       Results from 59 survey respondents indicated that Snells Beach showed that businesses saw the primary attractions as the beaches and countryside, small community feel, and the town’s popularity with tourists and holidaymakers. Concerns included low customer numbers and lack of a large permanent population, and difficulty and cost of doing business in a relatively isolated location.

8.       Businesses felt that priorities for improvement should focus on improved infrastructure (roads, public transport, broadband), and marketing and promotion of the area.  There was strong interest – 67% - in forming a business network.  An additional 14% were neutral.  The Snells Beach Business Survey Report by Ben Parsons and Associates dated August 2014 is Attachment B of this report. The results of both surveys show that businesses have an interest in working together and have similar priorities. 

Consideration

Local Board Views and Implications

9.       Council officers provided an update to the Transport, Planning and Infrastructure Committee in November 2014.

Maori Impact Statement

10.     Rodney has a similar proportion of residents of Maori ethnicity, 10% (2013 Census), as the Auckland region.  Maori business owners would have been surveyed in the same manner as other business owners in both areas.

Implementation Issues

11.     There are no items for implementation at this point.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Wellsford Business Survey Report - final

149

bView

Snells Beach Business Survey Report Final

185

     

Signatories

Authors

Steven Branca - BID Partnership Advisor  

Authorisers

John Dunshea – Manager City Transformation Projects

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

 


Rodney Local Board

08 December 2014

 

 





































Rodney Local Board

08 December 2014

 

 






























Rodney Local Board

08 December 2014

 

 

Update on Progress of Warkworth BID Establishment

 

File No.: CP2014/27131

 

  

Purpose

1.       This report updates the Rodney Local Board (RLB) on progress towards establishing a Business Improvement District in Warkworth, as per council’s Business Improvement District (BID) Partnership Programme Policy. 

Executive Summary

2.       Rodney Local Board approved funding of $53,500 at their meeting of 11 August 2014, for costs associated with establishing a Business Improvement District. Warkworth Area Business Association (WABA) voted to undertake the establishment process at their committee meeting of 17 June 2014.  The date of establishment was anticipated to be 1 July 2015.

3.       A series of factors now make it necessary to extend the time frame for BID establishment, culminating in a 1 July 2016 establishment.

4.       This report requests that funding allocated for spending to be split over the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 financial years.   

 

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      reallocate funding for the Warkworth Business Improvement District establishment process, with $30,000 in the 2014-2015 financial year and $23,500 allocated for the 2015-2016 financial year. 

 

Discussion

5.       At the meeting of 11 August 2014 the Rodney Local Board approved funding of $53,500 for costs for the establishment of a BID with the Warkworth Area Business Association (WABA) (resolution RD/2014/173):

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)   approve funds of $53,500 towards the establishment of a Warkworth Area Business Improvement District from the budget line item “Business Improvement Strategies for Key Towns” for the year 2014/2015. 

b)   request that the Local Economic Development unit of Council’s Economic Development department distribute the approved fund to Warkworth Area Business Association in a staged approach to cover costs through the establishment process in the 2014/2015 financial year.

6.       Council’s BID policy is well-tested and has been employed to establish many BIDs. The steps and processes outlined in the policy need to be adhered to for the establishment of a new BID.

7.       Council officers had been working with WABA on the tasks, schedule, and budget guidelines of the process since January 2014. The original goal was commencement of the BID on 1 July 2014 if balloting was successful. 

8.       Alongside council officers’ support, work has been undertaken to identify an experienced contractor to work  alongside WABA during the establishment process . His role is to work directly with the WABA committee and business community with council oversight.  RLB funds cover the costs of the consultant. 

9.       A successful BID establishment is a mixture of process, people and tasks.  There have been ongoing discussions between WABA and council officers regarding the process, and activities to be undertaken. The business association has concerns relating to the two previous attempts at establishment and some steps in the process. 

10.     The WABA committee has submitted a proposal to council officers detailing their own process, actions, and alternative budget.  Officers are scheduled to meet with WABA to discuss the proposal and BID policy requirements.  At the time of writing this report, this meeting had not taken place and further information will be provided to the local board at the meeting of 8 December 2014.

11.     While a strong BID could be a useful tool for Warkworth, timing of the process has to coincide with the business community’s readiness to undertake the responsibilities necessary for an effective engagement process.

12.     Council officers have considered the implications for the suggested schedule and believe that a longer establishment period, culminating in a ballot in April or May 2016, is appropriate following discussions with WABA.

13.     An extended time frame has budget implications. Rodney Local Board funds are from their 2014-2015 economic development budgets and were expected to be used by the end of this fiscal year.  An extended schedule will require a new allocation from the 2015-2016 budget.

14.     It is estimated that the portion of the original $53,500 that is needed for 2014-2015 is $30,000.  These funds will be used to:

·               Refine the database of businesses and property owners to include all those eligible to vote in the balloting process.

·       Assist WABA in preparing a plan of programmes and events that their targeted rates would be used for, and estimate costs of those programmes.

·       Develop alternative scenarios for BID budgets and formulae for collecting rates, and confirm a preferred rate.

·       Develop the communications plan including public events, collateral materials, electronic media, and programme schedule for implementation in the 2015-2016 year.

·       Hold preliminary community workshops for information on the process and feedback to the BID committee and council. 

15.     These activities will provide the information base for more extensive community engagement in the 2015-2016 year, leading up to balloting in April/May of 2016. 

16.     A decision on this year’s budget needs to made shortly so RLB can reprogramme funds for other needs.  Consideration must also be given to the availability of funds in 2015-2016.

17.     This approach will require the remaining funds ($23,500) to be available in the 2015-2016 budget. 

Consideration

Local Board Views and Implications

18.     Rodney Local Board approved funding in the amount of $53,500 at their 11 August 2014 meeting for costs of the BID establishment process. 

19.     Council officers briefed the local board’s Transport, Planning and Infrastructure Committee on the process at their November 2014 meeting. 

20.     The local board will need to approve a revision to their 2014-2015 budget to reflect the need for reduced costs of the establishment process. 

Maori Impact Statement

21.     The Rodney Local Board area has a similar proportion of residents of Maori ethnicity, 10% (2013 Census), as the Auckland region.  Maori will be impacted as business and property owners, employees, and customers of the Warkworth area.

Implementation Issues

22.     Action by the local board to adjust funding for the Warkworth BID Establishment process to reflect costs of a two year process, with reduced funding in the current fiscal year.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Authors

Steven Branca - BID Partnership Advisor  

Authorisers

John Dunshea – Manager City Transformation Projects

Penny Pirrit - Regional & Local Planning Manager

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

 


Rodney Local Board

08 December 2014

 

 

Update on Kaipara Moana event at Te Hana

 

File No.: CP2014/27208

 

  

Purpose

1.       To update the Rodney Local Board on the Kaipara Moana event that was held at Te Hana Te Ao Marama Marae on 15 and 16 November 2014.

Executive Summary

2.       The Rodney Local Board at its September meeting resolved that the following members would attend the Kaipara Moana event being organised by the Kaipara Harbour Integrated Management Group at Te Hana; Member Steele (one day), Member Colville (two days) and Member Garner (one day) (resolution RD/2014/206).

3.       Subsequently Members Colville and Garner advised that they would not be able to attend the event and they were not registered. Member Steele registered for the event at a cost of $128 ($80 for one day plus $48 for the evening event) but due to illness on the day was unable to attend the event on 15 November 2014.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      approve the registration of one day’s attendance of Member Steele to the Kaipara Moana event held at Te Hana Te Ao Marama Marae on 15 November 2014 at a cost of $128 but acknowledge that due to illness on the day, Member Steele was unable to attend the event.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.     

Signatories

Authors

Raewyn Morrison - Local Board Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

 


Rodney Local Board

08 December 2014

 

 

Ward Councillor Update

 

File No.: CP2014/27803

 

   Purpose

1.       The Rodney Local Board allocates a period of time for the Ward Councillor, Cr Penny Webster, to update them on the activities of the governing body.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      thank Cr Webster for her update to the Rodney Local Board on the activities of the governing body.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.    

Signatories

Authors

Raewyn Morrison - Local Board Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

 


Rodney Local Board

08 December 2014

 

 

Deputation/Public Forum Update

 

File No.: CP2014/27805

 

   Purpose

1.       As part of its business meetings Rodney Local Board has a period of time set aside for Deputations/Presentations and Public Forum during which time members of the public can address the Local Board on matters within its delegated authority.

Executive Summary

2.       Under Standing Orders there is provision for Deputations/Presentations to the local board. Applications for Deputations/Presentations must be in writing setting forth the subject and be received by the Relationship Manager at least seven working days before the meeting concerned, and subsequently have been approved by the Chairperson.  Unless the meeting determines otherwise in any particular case, a limit of ten minutes is placed on the speaker making the presentation.

3.       Standing Orders allows three minutes for speakers in Public Forum.

4.       Requests, matters arising and actions from the Deputations/Presentations and Public Forum are recorded and updated accordingly.  The Rodney Local Board Deputations/Presentations and Public Forum Update is attached as Attachment A.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      receive the Deputation/Public Forum Update.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Deputation/Public Forum Update

225

    

Signatories

Authors

Raewyn Morrison - Local Board Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

 


Rodney Local Board

08 December 2014

 

 



Rodney Local Board

08 December 2014

 

 

Rodney Local Board Workshop Records

 

File No.: CP2014/27804

 

  

 

Purpose

1.       Attached are the Rodney Local Board workshop records of 3 and 17 November 2014.

Executive Summary

2.       The Rodney Local Board holds regular workshops.  Attached for information is the record of the most recent workshop meetings.

 

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      Workshop record for 3 and 17 November 2014 be accepted.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

aView

Workshop Record 3 November 2014

229

bView

Workshop Record 17 November 2014

231

    

Signatories

Authors

Raewyn Morrison - Local Board Democracy Advisor

Authorisers

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

 


Rodney Local Board

08 December 2014

 

 



Rodney Local Board

08 December 2014

 

 


    

 


Rodney Local Board

08 December 2014

 

 

Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

 

That the Rodney Local Board:

a)      exclude the public from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting.

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution follows.

 

13        Report Name: Swimming Pool Fencing Exemption – Special Exemption (Section 6) Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 - Attachments a - C

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(a) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person.

In particular, the report contains personal details of the applicants.

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.