Agenda of Rodney Local Board

1 Welcome

2 Apologies

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

3 Declaration of Interest

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

Board Member

Organisation

Position

James Colville

St Marys Church Wellsford, Parish Council

Federated Farmers Auckland

Wellsford Drama Club

Wellsford Promotions

Landowners and Contractors Protection Assn.

Member

Warren Flaunty, QSM

Westgate Pharmacy Ltd

NorSGA Properties Ltd

The Trust Community Foundation Ltd

Henderson-Massey Local Board

Waitemata District Health Board

Taupaki Residents and Ratepayers Assn.

Contractor and Director

Director

Member

Elected Member

Member

Steven Garner

(Deputy Chairperson)

Mahurangi College Board of Trustee

Warkworth Tennis and Squash Club

Trustee

Member

Thomas Grace

Kumeu Rotary

South Kaipara Community Patrol

Rally New Zealand

Targa New Zealand

Waimauku Lions

Auckland Conservation Board

Federated Farmers

Northern Sports Car Club

Graceland Properties

Kumeu Community Patrol

President

Member

Director

Member

Beth Houlbrooke

Greater Auckland Chorus (Charitable Trust)

Sweet Adelines New Zealand (Charitable Trust)

ACT NZ
ACT NZ

Baddeleys and Campbells Beach Residents and Ratepayers Assn.

Member

Vice President

Employee

Member

John McLean

Albany CoCo

De Paul House

Furniture for Schools Charitable Trust

Newpark Financial

Coatesville Residents and Ratepayers Association

Member

Donor

Trustee

Shareholder

Member

Phelan Pirrie

Muriwai Environmental Action Community Trust

North West District Business Association

Muriwai Community Association

Muriwai Volunteer Fire Brigade

Best Berries (NZ) Ltd

Trustee

Member

Officer in Charge

Director/Shareholder

Greg Sayers

Rotary Club of Auckland

Neighbourhood Support Rodney

Member

Brenda Steele

(Chairperson)

Te Uri o Hau

Ngati Whatua o Kaipara

Woodhill School Board of Trustees

Beneficiary

Trustee

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Monday, 20 April 2015, as a true and correct record.

5 Leave of Absence

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

6 Acknowledgements

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

7 Petitions

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

8 Deputations

Standing Order 3.20 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are required to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications are approved by the Chairperson of the 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 Matakana Coast Trail Trust

Purpose

1. Allison Roe will be in attendance to address the Rodney Local Board on the proposal for the Matakana walking/cycling bridge which is due to be delivered this year as a result of a Memorandum of Understanding and partnership agreement between the Matakana Coast Trail Trust and Auckland Transport, with Rodney Local Board and community support.

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) Allison Roe of the Matakana Coast Trail Trust on the presentation regarding the Matakana walking/cycling bridge proposal.

8.2 Kumeu - Huapai Ratepayers Association

Purpose

1. Pete Sinton and representatives of the Kumeu-Huapai Ratepayers Association will be in attendance to address the Rodney Local Board on;

· A concept/masterplan for Kumeu-Huapai –Riverhead

· Special Housing Area in Kumeu-Huapai

· Unitary Plan

· A development group to proceed with a structure plan

· Funding

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) thank the representatives of Kumeu-Huapai Ratepayers Association for the presentation.

9 Public Forum

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

9.1 Helensville War Memorial Hall Basement Refurbishment

Purpose

1. Holly Ryan has requested that she address the Rodney Local Board in public forum on the Helensville War Memorial Hall refurbishment.

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) thank Holly Ryan for her presentation on the Helensville War Memorial Hall refurbishment.

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

18 May 2015

Dog access rules review

File No.: CP2015/04260

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to confirm the statement of proposal for dog access rules in the Rodney Local Board area.

Executive Summary

2. The local board resolved at its 10 November 2014 business meeting to undertake a review of local dog access rules on selected park, beach and foreshore areas.

3. As part of the review process, the local board must adopt a statement of proposal of any proposed changes to local dog access rules for public consultation, and consider submissions to the proposal before making a final decision.

4. To assist the local board decision on proposed changes to include in the statement of proposal, staff have identified a range of options that the local board may select from.

5. Staff recommend adopting options that would:

· retain a time and season rule on 11 of the 13 existing time and season beaches and to allow dogs under control off-leash on Buckletons Beach and Jamieson Bay at any time

· change the current time and season rule to:

Summer (Labour Weekend to 31 March)
10am to 6pm	Before 10am and after 6pm
Prohibited	Off-leash
Winter (April 1 to Friday before Labour Weekend)
Off-leash at all times

· change the current off-leash or time and season rule, and replace the general rules for wildlife and Gulf Island areas to protect wildlife, by applying either an under control on-leash rule or prohibit of dogs on seven beach areas and parks at:

o Omaha (2 areas)	o Point Wells	o Sandspit
o Riverhead	o Birds Beach	o Port Albert

· apply an under control on-leash rule to Highfield Garden Reserve to better provide for public safety and comfort

· reclassify the current ‘dog exercise areas’ at Warkworth Showgrounds and Centennial Park as ‘designated dog exercise areas’, and reclassify the 11 remaining ‘dog exercise areas’ as ‘under control off-leash’ areas. This is largely a technical change that does not reduce the amount of under control off-leash dog access

· revoke the general rules for picnic and fitness areas.

6. Following the decision on proposed changes, staff will update the statement of proposal to reflect the option selected by the local board.

Recommendations

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) considers the following options in relation to the review of the dog access rules:

Topic	Option
Time and season beaches – which beaches to be identified	EITHER Option 1: retain a current time and season rule on 13 beach and foreshore areas, OR Option 2: retain a time and season rule on 11 beaches (staff recommended option).
Time and season beaches– what times, dates, and type of dog access to be identified	EITHER Option 1: retain the current time and season rules, OR Option 2: change the time and season rules to Saturday of Labour Weekend to 31 March and from 10am to 6pm (staff recommended option), OR Option 3: amend the time and season rules to include a winter rule, OR Option 4: adopt the region-wide standard summer beach times and season rule.
Clarification of confusing and ambiguous dog access rules – protected wildlife areas and Gulf Island areas	EITHER Option 1: retain the current rules, OR Option 2: replace the general rule with location specific on-leash and prohibited rules (staff recommended option).
Clarification of confusing and ambiguous dog access rules - dog exercise areas	EITHER Option 1: retain the current rules, OR Option 2: reclassify 11 dog exercise areas as under control off-leash areas and reclassify two dog exercise areas as ‘designated dog exercise areas’ (staff recommended option).
Clarification of confusing and ambiguous dog access rules –picnic areas and bushwalks	EITHER Option 1: retain the current rules, OR Option 2: revoke the general rules for picnic area and bushwalks (staff recommended option).
Highfield Garden Reserve	EITHER Option 1: retain the current under control off-leash rule, OR Option 2: replace the current off-leash rule with an on-leash rule (staff recommended option).

b) confirm its intention to amend the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 pursuant to section 10(8) of the Dog Control Act 1996.

c) subject to any amendments to reflect the local board decision in (a):

i) adopt the statement of proposal titled ‘Statement of Proposal Amendments to Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 – Rodney Local Board Area May 2015’ in Attachment A for public consultation using the special consultative procedure.

ii) confirm that the proposed amendments contained in the Statement of Proposal:

a. are consistent with the policy, principles and criteria for making dog access rules contained in the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012

b. are not inconsistent with any decision in relation to region-wide dog access rules contained in the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012

c. are in accordance with relevant legislative requirements in particular the Local Government Act 2002 and Dog Control Act 1996.

iii) authorise the Manager Social Policy and Bylaws to make any minor edits or amendments to the Statement of Proposal to correct any identified errors or typographical edits.

iv) authorise the Manager Social Policy and Bylaws, in consultation with the local board Chairperson, to make any amendments to the Statement of Proposal to reflect decisions made by the local board.

v) appoints Greg Sayers (as Chairperson), Steven Garner and James Colville as a panel to receive, hear and deliberate on submissions and other relevant information and recommend changes to the Board.

vi) delegates to the Chairperson the ability to make changes to the panel appointed under v) where this becomes necessary because of the withdrawal or unavailability of any of those persons.

Background

7. Local boards have the delegated responsibility to review dog access rules for local park, beach and foreshore areas. This does not include the review of regional parks.

8. The governing body has established a standard annual process to assist local boards with the review of local dog access rules as follows:

· the local board will need to adopt a Statement of Proposal by May of proposed changes to local dog access rules (the topic of this report). It is noted here that where no changes are proposed, the review process for that location ends at this point

· the proposal (together with proposals from other local boards) will be publicly notified for submissions as part of the dog registration process in June

· the local board will hold hearings, deliberations and make decisions on submissions by August

· the governing body will review a report to update the bylaw on dogs in September

· changes to dog access rules will commence in October.

9. The local board resolved at its 10 November 2014 business meeting (CP2014/256) to undertake a review of local dog access rules on selected park, beach and foreshore areas in 2015 using this process.

10. To assist the development of the Statement of Proposal information and community views were obtained from:

· council staff involved in parks, animal management, biodiversity and biosecurity

· selected dog interest and environmental groups by direct contact or at a workshop in March 2015

· Maori at two hui in March 2015

· residents and visitors through an on-line survey in March 2015

11. The survey had 696 responses. The analysis focusses on the 521 responses from persons living in the Rodney Local Board area, of which 314 were dog owners and 207 were non-dog owners.

12. The decision required of the local board is to decide whether or not to propose any changes, and where necessary to adopt a statement of proposal for public consultation and to appoint a hearing panel.

13. Subject to the local board’s decisions, the statement of proposal will be consulted on with the community, which will include inviting members of the public to make submissions and attend hearings. The submissions period is scheduled for 12 June to 17 July. The local board will then deliberate and, if changes are confirmed, make recommendations to the governing body for those changes to be made through amendments to the Policy on Dogs 2012 and the Dog Management Bylaw 2012.

Decision-making requirements

14. In making a decision on the statement of proposal, the local board must be satisfied that any proposed changes comply with a range of statutory, policy and delegated authority requirements.

15. The most important statutory requirement is to ensure decisions on dog access provide for public safety and comfort and the needs of dogs and their owners. This means having regard to:

· the need to minimise danger, distress, and nuisance to the community generally

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

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

· the exercise and recreational needs of dogs and their owners.

Section 10(4) Dog Control Act 1996

16. The most important practical requirement is to make dog access rules easy to understand ‘on the ground’.

17. Further detail of the decision-making requirements is provided in Attachment B.

Comments

18. Dog access rules are an effective way to provide for public safety and comfort, protection of animals, property and habitat, and the needs of dogs and their owners.

19. How this is to be achieved is guided by the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012. The policy seeks to manage requests for changes to dog access rules by ensuring all (and often polarised) views are considered in a way to achieve a fair and reasonable decision.

20. The following is an analysis to assist the local board in determining whether or not to propose any changes.

Time and season beaches– which beaches and adjacent parks

21. A time and season rule currently applies to 13 local beach and foreshore areas in the Rodney Local Board area.

22. The 13 beach areas currently subject to a time and season rule reflect the majority of easily accessed beach and foreshore areas in the Rodney Local Board area. Much of the remaining coastline of the board area is either inaccessible to the public, defined by mangroves and mudflats, or in a regional park.

23. All local parks adjacent to time and season beaches are currently subject to the default under control off-leash rule.

24. Some current signage contradicts the current rules and in some instances has done so for many years.

25. The appropriateness of rules in relation to protected wildlife on beaches is discussed in the section titled ‘Clarification of confusing and ambiguous dog access rules - Protected wildlife areas and Gulf Island areas’.

26. Scotts Beach is now incorporated into the Mahurangi Regional Park and as such is excluded from this review.

Community and staff views

27. Community and staff views were sought in relation to when and how people use the beaches under review and what sort of rules they consider should be in place for dogs.

28. Key results of the up to 521 locals responding to the questions in the on-line survey are:

· Omaha and Snells Beach are the busiest beaches throughout the year, with a significant gap in visitation in comparison to all other beaches listed

· Jamieson Bay has relatively low usage year round

· Baddeleys Beach and Buckletons Beach have very low visitation in summer.

29. Feedback received from Auckland Council parks and animal management staff was that:

· a time and season rule should be retained on 11 of the 13 beach and foreshore areas

· Buckletons Beach and Jamieson Bay should become under control off-leash areas due to their location and type and volume of usage

· the time and season rule applies to two areas at Omaha, the rule on the western part of Omaha is discussed in the section titled ‘Clarification of confusing and ambiguous dog access rules - Protected wildlife areas and Gulf Island areas’.

· the time and season rules for Omaha (eastern coastline), Point Wells and Sandspit require clarification for the areas they apply to

· the default off-leash rule for all parks adjacent to the time and season beaches is appropriate.

Options in relation to time and season beaches – which beaches

Option	Advantages and Disadvantages
Option 1 retain a current time and season rule on 13 beach and foreshore areas. Effect of change No change to rules.	Advantages · broader provision for public safety and comfort. Disadvantages · may unnecessarily restrict dog owners from meeting their needs.
Option 2 retain a time and season rule on 11 beaches (staff recommended option). Effect of change Would retain the following beaches as time and season beaches: · Algies Bay headland to headland · Baddeleys Beach headland to headland · Brick Bay headland to headland · Campbells Beach headland to headland · Martins Bay headland to headland · Matheson Bay headland to headland · Omaha Beach (eastern coastline) southwards from access track to beach at northern end of Rita Way (Ida Way - Rita Way Reserve) to southern headland. · Point Wells beach and foreshore area adjacent to Point Wells Foreshore Reserve from Boatramp off Riverside Drive to entrance at 36 Harbour View Road. · Sandspit (eastern coastline) from the wharf to the area adjacent to the eastern end of the campground. · Shelly Beach headland to headland · Snells Beach headland to headland Applies the default under control off-leash rule to the two other easily accessed beaches at Buckletons Beach and Jamieson Bay.	Advantages · retains public safety and comfort on high use summer beaches · better provides for the needs of dogs and their owners. Disadvantages · may not provide for public safety and comfort on proposed off-leash beaches.

Option

Advantages and Disadvantages

Option 1 retain a current time and season rule on 13 beach and foreshore areas.

Effect of change

No change to rules.

Advantages

· broader provision for public safety and comfort.

Disadvantages

· may unnecessarily restrict dog owners from meeting their needs.

Option 2 retain a time and season rule on 11 beaches (staff recommended option).

Effect of change

Would retain the following beaches as time and season beaches:

· Algies Bay headland to headland

· Baddeleys Beach headland to headland

· Brick Bay headland to headland

· Campbells Beach headland to headland

· Martins Bay headland to headland

· Matheson Bay headland to headland

· Omaha Beach (eastern coastline) southwards from access track to beach at northern end of Rita Way (Ida Way - Rita Way Reserve) to southern headland.

· Point Wells beach and foreshore area adjacent to Point Wells Foreshore Reserve from Boatramp off Riverside Drive to entrance at 36 Harbour View Road.

· Sandspit (eastern coastline) from the wharf to the area adjacent to the eastern end of the campground.

· Shelly Beach headland to headland

· Snells Beach headland to headland

Applies the default under control off-leash rule to the two other easily accessed beaches at Buckletons Beach and Jamieson Bay.

Advantages

· retains public safety and comfort on high use summer beaches

· better provides for the needs of dogs and their owners.

Disadvantages

· may not provide for public safety and comfort on proposed off-leash beaches.

Staff recommendation

30. Staff recommend retaining a time and season rule on the 11 listed beaches and allow dogs under control off-leash at any time on the two other beaches currently subject to the time and season rule (Option 2).

31. The reasons for this recommendation are that this option:

· better provides for the needs of dogs and their owners

· aligns the application of a time and season rule to higher use beaches.

Time and season beaches– what period and times

32. The current time and season rule prohibit dogs on beaches between 9 am and 7pm from the 1st Sunday in October and the 3rd Sunday in March. Dog are allowed under control off-leash at all times on beaches outside these hours and dates.

33. The Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 introduced a region-wide standard summer beach time and season of 10am and 5pm, Labour Weekend to 1 March.

34. The local board must decide whether or not using the standard times and season is appropriate on local beaches as part of its review.

35. Where using the standard times and season would contravene the local board’s statutory obligation to provide for public safety and comfort, the local board must decide on an alternative. For instance, if there are continued high levels of use of beaches beyond the times and dates specified in the standard, local boards should extend the summer times and dates to reflect this.

36. Where an alternative time and season is adopted, approval is required from the Auckland Council Governing Body. In 2014, approval was provided to the Orakei and Kaipatiki local board areas to use different times and dates to ensure public safety and comfort.

37. It is important to note that the standard only provides a definition of daytime hours and a summer season. Local boards determine where the rule applies, the type of dog access (off-leash, on-leash or prohibited) and any rule outside of the summer seasons (e.g. winter).

Summer (Labour Weekend to 1 March)
10am to 5pm	Before 10am and After 5pm
Local board to decide appropriate level of access	Local board to decide appropriate level of access
Other seasons (Local board to determine)
Local board to decide times	Local board to decide times
Local board to decide appropriate level of access	Local board to decide appropriate level of access

Community and staff views

38. Community and staff views were sought in relation to when and how people use the beaches under review and what sort of rules they consider should be in place for dogs.

39. Key results of the 521 locals responding to the questions in the on-line survey are:

· the largest proportion of dog owners use the beach for ‘summer’ activities starting in December, followed by year round, and ending in March

· the largest proportion of non-dog owners use the beach for ‘summer’ activities year round, followed by between November and April

· the highest proportion of non-dog owners visiting a beach on a summer weekend is between 10am and 5pm, with a third also using the beach up to 7pm

· 74 per cent of dog owners and 22 per cent of non-dog owners considered beaches are not busy between 9am and 10am on a summer weekend

· 96 per cent of dog owners and 61 per cent of non-dog owners considered beaches are not busy between 9am and 10am on a winter weekend

· 66 per cent of dog owners did not consider that beaches are busy between 6pm and 7pm on a summer weekend, conversely 77 per cent of non-dog owners considered beaches are moderate to very busy between 6pm and 7pm on a summer weekend

· 91 per cent of dog owners and 65 per cent of non-dog owners did not consider that beaches are busy between 6pm and 7pm on a winter weekend

· the table below shows a summary of the preferred rules from the online survey:

Dog owners		Non-dog owners
Summer (1 December – 1 March)		Summer (daylight savings – last Sunday in September to first Sunday in April)
10am to 5pm	Before 10am and after 5pm	10am to 6pm	Before 10am and after 6pm
Under control on-leash	Under control off-leash	Prohibited	Under control on-leash
Winter (2 March – 30 November)		Winter (non-daylight saving)
10am to 5pm	Before 9am and after 5pm	9am to 7pm	Before 9am and after 7pm
Under control off-leash	Under control off-leash	Under control on-leash	Under control off-leash

40. Feedback from representatives of Residents and Ratepayer groups was that the current time and season is too restrictive, particularly the finishing time of 7pm.

41. Feedback received from Auckland Council parks and animal management staff was that:

· that adopting the region-wide summer beach time and season standard would compromise public safety and comfort

· that the peak busy period for Rodney Local Board beaches runs from early November to late March

· that the beaches during that period are sufficiently busy between 9 am and 6pm that dogs off-leash would raise concerns regarding public safety and comfort.

Options in relation to time and season beaches – what period and times

Option

Advantages and Disadvantages

Option 1 retain the current time and season rules.

Effect of change

No change to rules.

Advantages

· provides some opportunity for dog access (but not to the level sought by dog owners)

· provides for the level of public safety and comfort sought by non-dog owners in summer (but not winter).

Disadvantages

· does not provide for the needs of dogs and their owners to the level sought by dog owners in summer or winter

· does not provide for the levels of public safety and comfort sought by non-dog owners in winter during the day.

Option 2 change the time and season rules to Saturday of Labour Weekend to 31 March and from 10am to 6pm (staff recommended option).

Effect of change

Would shorten the season at the beginning of summer by around 3 weeks and lengthen it by up to two weeks at the end of summer and reduce the prohibition times in the morning from 9am to 10am and in the evening from 7pm to 6pm

*Labour Weekend to 31 March*
10am to 6pm	Before 10am and after 6 pm
Prohibited	Off-leash
*April 1 to Friday before Labour Weekend*
Off-leash at all times

Advantages

· provides a balance between the needs of dog owners and the protection of public safety and comfort

· better provides for dog owners needs by providing under control off-leash dog access on beaches before 10am in summer

· continues to provide for public safety and comfort during the main part of the day in summer

· provides for public safety and comfort later in summer (identified as busy by parks staff)

· fixed closing date of 31 March provides for greater certainty.

Disadvantages

· does not provide for the levels of public safety and comfort sought by non-dog owners in summer or winter

· does not provide for the level of dog access preferred by dog owners in summer.

Option

Advantages and Disadvantages

Option 3 amend the time and season rules to include a winter rule.

Effect of change

Would maintain the summer provisions as per Option 2 and introduce a winter rule.

*Summer (Labour Weekend until 31 March)*
10am to 6pm	Before 10am and after 6pm
*Prohibited*	Under control off-leash
*Winter (1 April until Friday before Labour Weekend)*
10am to 4pm	Before 10am and after 4pm
Under control on-leash	Under control off-leash

Note, the winter times in this option reflect those in other local board areas.

Advantages

· provides for public safety and comfort in general alignment with non-dog owner preferences.

Disadvantages

· does not provide for the needs of dogs and their owners to the level desired.

Option 4 adopt the region-wide standard summer beach times and season rule.

Effect of change

Would apply the region-wide standard summer beach times and seasons.

*Summer (Labour Weekend to 1 March)*
10am to 5pm	Before 10am and After 5pm
*Prohibited*	Under control off-leash

Advantages

· provides for the level of access preferred by dog owners.

Disadvantages

· does not provide for public safety and comfort to the level required by non-dog owners.

Staff recommendation

42. Staff recommend to change the time and season rule to prohibit dogs between 10am and 6pm from Labour Weekend to 31 March, and to allow dogs under control off-leash at all other times and seasons.

43. The reasons for this recommendation are that this option:

· provides a balance between the needs of dog owners and the protection of public safety and comfort

· extends the summer time and season period to the end of March to accommodate the identified busy period.

Clarification of confusing and ambiguous dog access rules - protected wildlife areas and Gulf Island areas

44. There are currently two general rules related to wildlife:

· a general rule that prohibits dogs from habitats of protected wildlife species. No specific habitat locations are identified

· a general rule that requires dogs to be under control on a leash on Gulf Islands where dogs may be a threat to any native fauna and are not already prohibited. Most islands in the Hauraki Gulf are either administered by the Department of Conservation (where dogs are prohibited) or are privately owned. Again, no specific habitat locations are identified.

45. Six local parks or beaches in the Omaha, Point Wells, Whangateau and Okahukura Peninsula are adjacent to, or within a Department of Conservation ‘Controlled Dog Area (No Access) Foreshore Area’.

Community and staff views

46. Community and staff views were sought in relation to the current rules’ relevance and appropriateness.

47. The views of local environmental groups are:

· key areas of concern are Snells Beach and Sandspit

· concerns about protected wildlife on Sandspit which largely reflected the issues identified by the parks and biodiversity team

· concerns about protected wildlife at Snells Beach was mixed. Some representatives advocated for on leash at all times rules as a minimum, including the adjacent reserve. Others, including the local Forest and Bird representative, did not consider that such restrictions were necessary in relation to wildlife concerns. Council biodiversity staff do not consider Snells Beach is a particular area of concern with regards to protected wildlife

· requests were made for clear, descriptive and appropriate signage where dogs are restricted for the purposes of protecting wildlife to increase voluntary compliance.

48. Feedback received from Auckland Council parks and biodiversity staff was that:

· protected bird species particularly vulnerable to dogs are those that nest, roost, breed or feed in wetland or inter-tidal areas. The presence of dogs can cause ground-nesting and other birds to leave their nests, resulting in loss of clutches and broods. It can also disrupt feeding which is particularly important for migratory birds, and ground-nesting species are particularly vulnerable to attack by dogs

· the significant ecological areas in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (Appendices 6.6 ‘Significant wading bird areas’ and 6.1 ‘Schedule of Significant Ecological Areas – Marine’) are useful to identify protected wildlife vulnerable to dogs

· dog access rules should where possible complement existing Department of Conservation dog access rules

· the table below contains areas identified by Auckland Council as habitats of protected wildlife species (currently subject to the general prohibition rule) where location specific prohibitions are recommended:

Area	Proposed restriction	Comments
Omaha -western coastline north of boatramp	On-leash	Provides a ‘buffer zone’ prior to the dog prohibited area at Omaha Point as below.
Omaha -western coastline from carpark at 267 Omaha Drive northwards) and on the eastern coastline from the access track at Rita Way northwards)	Prohibited	Complements adjacent DoC dog prohibition. New Zealand Dotterel and Variable Oyster Catcher breeding site.
Omaha – western coastline south of Broadlands Drive	Prohibited	Complements adjacent DoC dog prohibition. Important saltmarsh birds habitat.
Point Wells, from park entrance at Harbour View Road southwards to the end of the reserve.	On-leash	Complements adjacent DoC dog prohibition.
Point Wells, south of Omaha Flats Road. Omaha Estuary Causeway Reserve and Omaha Estuary Reserve	Prohibited	Complements adjacent DoC dog prohibition. Important saltmarsh birds habitat.
Whangateau - Horseshoe Island	Prohibited	Complements adjacent DoC dog prohibition. Important shorebird habitat.
Sandspit – western coastline including Dean’s Island	Prohibited	Extensive intertidal feeding habitat for waders, including banded rail.
Beach and foreshore - Birds Beach Reserve (Okahukura Peninsula)	Prohibited	Immediately adjacent to DoC ‘Controlled Dog Area (No Access) Foreshore Area’. Habitat of vulnerable shorebird species. (SEA-M1-2a -Unitary Plan)
Beach and foreshore -Port Albert Wharf Reserve	Prohibited	Significant bird roosting area. (SEA – M2w - Unitary Plan)
Riverhead Historic Mill Esplanade Reserve	On-leash	Intertidal area adjacent to park is as an important habitat for saltmarsh species, including North Island fernbird and banded rail(SEA M2-57b – Unitary Plan).
Omaha South Quarry Reserve	On-leash and prohibited	Threatened bird species present in the wetlands area of park include North Island fernbird and banded rail.

49. For completeness, it is noted that consideration was given to the issue of kauri dieback and dog access. Information provided by biosecurity staff has not identified any issues in the Rodney Local Board area.

Options in relation to protected wildlife areas and Gulf Island areas

Option	Advantages and Disadvantages
Option 1 retain the current rule. Effect of change No change to rules	Advantages · none. Disadvantages · the rules remain confusing and ambiguous.
Option 2 replace the general rule with location specific on-leash and prohibited (staff recommended option). Effect of change Would apply an under control on-leash dog access rule within the following beach and foreshore areas and parks: · Omaha: Whangateau Harbour Esplanade Reserve and adjacent beach and foreshore area: From boat ramp at 223 Omaha Drive to car park at 267 Omaha Drive. · Omaha South Quarry Reserve: All tracks and open grass areas. · Point Wells Foreshore Reserve and adjacent beach and foreshore area: From the entrance at Harbour View Road southwards to the end of the reserve. (Complements adjacent DoC dog prohibition) · Riverhead Historic Mill Esplanade Reserve. Would prohibit dogs at all times from the following beach and foreshore areas and parks to protect identified wildlife: · Omaha South Quarry Reserve: All wetland areas. · Port Albert: Beach and foreshore area adjacent to Port Albert Wharf Reserve. · Sandspit: All areas of Sandspit Reserve from the footbridge access point at the eastern edge of the grass area opposite the intersection of Sandspit Road and Brick Bay Drive including the part of the reserve known as Dean’s Island and all of the western beach and foreshore area to the wharf at the end of the spit. Would prohibit dogs at all times from the following beach and foreshore areas and parks to complement adjacent Department of Conservation prohibitions: · Birds Beach, Okahukura Peninsula: Beach and foreshore area adjacent to Birds Beach Reserve · Omaha (west): Whangateau Harbour Esplanade Reserve and adjacent beach and foreshore area: Northwards from access point and car park at 267 Omaha Drive. · Omaha (east): Omaha Beach Reserve and adjacent beach and foreshore areas: Northwards of the access track to beach at northern end of Rita Way (Ida Way - Rita Way Reserve) · Omaha (west): Whangateau Harbour Esplanade Reserve: from Broadlands Drive to southern end of Omaha estuary. · Point Wells, south of Omaha Flats Road: Omaha Estuary Causeway Reserve and Omaha Estuary Reserve · Whangateau/Horseshoe Island: Whangateau Recreation Reserve Islands and adjacent beach and foreshore areas. Technically all areas above are covered by the current general rule and dogs are prohibited. In practice for Omaha and Point Wells most proposed rules are either already signed or the parks have limited or no public access and the general effect would be negligible, for the other areas the change may be perceived as a reduction in dog access.	Advantages · replaces uncertain general wildlife rule and generic Gulf Island rule with place-specific rules improve clarity and support the protection of vulnerable bird species. Disadvantages · perceived reduction in off-leash dog access.

Option

Advantages and Disadvantages

Option 1 retain the current rule.

Effect of change

No change to rules

Advantages

· none.

Disadvantages

· the rules remain confusing and ambiguous.

Option 2 replace the general rule with location specific on-leash and prohibited (staff recommended option).

Effect of change

Would apply an under control on-leash dog access rule within the following beach and foreshore areas and parks:

· Omaha: Whangateau Harbour Esplanade Reserve and adjacent beach and foreshore area: From boat ramp at 223 Omaha Drive to car park at 267 Omaha Drive.

· Omaha South Quarry Reserve: All tracks and open grass areas.

· Point Wells Foreshore Reserve and adjacent beach and foreshore area: From the entrance at Harbour View Road southwards to the end of the reserve. (Complements adjacent DoC dog prohibition)

· Riverhead Historic Mill Esplanade Reserve.

Would prohibit dogs at all times from the following beach and foreshore areas and parks to protect identified wildlife:

· Omaha South Quarry Reserve: All wetland areas.

· Port Albert: Beach and foreshore area adjacent to Port Albert Wharf Reserve.

· Sandspit: All areas of Sandspit Reserve from the footbridge access point at the eastern edge of the grass area opposite the intersection of Sandspit Road and Brick Bay Drive including the part of the reserve known as Dean’s Island and all of the western beach and foreshore area to the wharf at the end of the spit.

Would prohibit dogs at all times from the following beach and foreshore areas and parks to complement adjacent Department of Conservation prohibitions:

· Birds Beach, Okahukura Peninsula: Beach and foreshore area adjacent to Birds Beach Reserve

· Omaha (west): Whangateau Harbour Esplanade Reserve and adjacent beach and foreshore area: Northwards from access point and car park at 267 Omaha Drive.

· Omaha (east): Omaha Beach Reserve and adjacent beach and foreshore areas: Northwards of the access track to beach at northern end of Rita Way (Ida Way - Rita Way Reserve)

· Omaha (west): Whangateau Harbour Esplanade Reserve: from Broadlands Drive to southern end of Omaha estuary.

· Point Wells, south of Omaha Flats Road: Omaha Estuary Causeway Reserve and Omaha Estuary Reserve

· Whangateau/Horseshoe Island: Whangateau Recreation Reserve Islands and adjacent beach and foreshore areas.

Technically all areas above are covered by the current general rule and dogs are prohibited. In practice for Omaha and Point Wells most proposed rules are either already signed or the parks have limited or no public access and the general effect would be negligible, for the other areas the change may be perceived as a reduction in dog access.

Advantages

· replaces uncertain general wildlife rule and generic Gulf Island rule with place-specific rules improve clarity and support the protection of vulnerable bird species.

Disadvantages

· perceived reduction in off-leash dog access.

Staff recommendation

50. Staff recommend replacing the general rules with location specific on-leash and prohibited rules (Option 2).

51. The reasons for this recommendation are that this option:

· supports the protection of wildlife through the application of location specific rules

· removes the current confusing and ambiguous rules.

Clarification of confusing and ambiguous dog access rules - dog exercise areas

52. The term ‘dog exercise area’ is used to describe 13 places where dogs are able to be taken under control off a leash. However, in general dogs can be taken under control off a leash in all parks in the Rodney Local Board area and not only the 13 places described.

53. The policy on dogs provides Auckland-wide definitions for consistency. ‘Under control off-leash areas’ refer to a place shared with other users while ‘designated dog exercise areas’ refer to a place where dog owners are the priority user (e.g. what is often also referred to as a ‘dog park’).

54. The policy on dogs provides criteria for assessing the suitability of a location as a ‘designated dog exercise area’.

55. It is important to note that regardless of the name, dog owners will still be able to take their dogs to these places under control off a leash, unless a dog has been classified by council as a ‘dangerous dog’.

56. A dangerous dog is an individual dog known to be a threat to the safety of people or animals. There were eight classified dangerous dogs in Rodney Local Board area in 2014. Classified dangerous dogs must be muzzled in public at all times and under control on a leash in any public place that is not a designated dog exercise area.

Community and staff views

57. Community and staff views were sought in relation to the current rules’ relevance and appropriateness.

58. The Warkworth and Districts Dog Training Club, Warkworth Branch Pony Club and the Wellsford District Sports and Recreation Collective confirmed they wish to retain the Wellsford Centennial Park and Warkworth Showgrounds dog exercise areas as ‘designated dog exercise areas’.

59. Feedback received from Auckland Council parks and animal management staff was that:

· two of the current ‘dog exercise areas’ should be reclassified as ‘designated dog exercise areas’ (fenced areas at Warkworth Showgrounds and Centennial Park, Wellsford)

· the remainder are considered to be shared spaces and should be reclassified as ‘under control off-leash areas’.

Options in relation to dog exercise areas

Option

Advantages and Disadvantages

Option 1 retain the current rules.

Effect of change

No change to rules

Advantages

· none.

Disadvantages

· inconsistent with the policy on dogs, 11 of the 13 areas are more appropriately classified as ‘shared spaces’.

Option 2 reclassify 11 dog exercise areas as under control off-leash areas and reclassify two dog exercise areas as ‘designated dog exercise areas’ (staff recommended option).

Effect of change

Change would be primarily technical in nature. Dog owners will still be able to take their dogs to these places under control off a leash, unless a dog has been classified by council as a ‘dangerous dog’.

Dangerous dogs would be required to be on-leash on all parks except for:

· Centennial Park, Wellsford: The fenced area of Centennial Park bordered by Centennial Park Road to the south and west and by the athletics area to the east

· Warkworth Showgrounds: The fenced paddock at the end of the car park area accessed via State Highway 1 entrance and east of the marked sports fields and rodeo sites that is also utilised by the pony club.

Advantages

· consistent with the policy on dogs

· removes confusion regarding the classifications of ‘dog exercise area’ and ‘under control off-leash area’

· incurs no ‘on the ground’ change for dog owners and non-dog owners.

Disadvantages

· none.

Staff recommendation

60. Staff recommend reclassifying 11 dog exercise areas as under control off-leash areas and reclassify the Warkworth Showgrounds and Centennial Park Wellsford dog exercise areas as designated dog exercise areas (Option 2).

61. The reasons for this recommendation are that this option:

· is consistent with the policy on dogs

· removes confusion regarding the classifications of ‘dog exercise area’ and ‘under control off-leash area’

· incurs no ‘on the ground’ change for dog owners and non-dog owners.

Clarification of confusing and ambiguous dog access rules - picnic areas and bushwalks

62. Currently the Rodney Local Board area has general rules that require dogs to be under control on-leash in ‘picnic areas’ and on ‘bushwalks’. Neither of these terms are defined.

Staff views

63. Feedback received from Auckland Council parks and animal management staff was that:

· there are no local picnic areas that have easily identified boundaries or are of a meaningful size that justifies a specific dog access rule

· the existence of picnic areas should inform decisions on dog access on the whole or more meaningful part of a park

· no specific parks were considered to warrant further restrictions due to the existence of picnic facilities

· there are not bushwalks within a park in the Rodney local board area where the track is so enclosed that the only access is at a track entrance and where a dog access restriction would be appropriate.

Options in relation to picnic areas and bushwalks

Option

Advantages and Disadvantages

Option 1 retain the current rule.

Effect of change

No change to rules

Advantages

· none.

Disadvantages

· it is not easy to know where picnic areas or bushwalks are.

Option 2 revoke the general rules for picnic area and bushwalks (staff recommended option).

Effect of change

Would have minimal practical effect.

Advantages

· removes the confusing and ambiguous rules.

Disadvantages

· none.

Staff recommendation

64. Staff recommend revoking the general picnic area and bushwalk rules (Option 2).

65. The reason for this recommendation is that this option removes the current confusing and ambiguous rules.

Highfield Garden Reserve

66. During the review of beaches and parks, staff raised an additional concern at Highfield Garden Reserve. Dogs are currently allowed under control off-leash on the reserve.

Staff views

67. Feedback received from Auckland Council parks staff was that:

· due to the location of the donkey sanctuary on the reserve it is not appropriate for the reserve to remain as an under control off-leash reserve and an under control on-leash rule should be applied

· there are alternative off-leash parks and beaches nearby.

Options in relation to Highfield Garden Reserve

Option

Advantages and Disadvantages

Option 1 retain current under control off-leash rule.

Effect of change

No change to rules.

Advantages

· better provides for the needs of dogs and their owners.

Disadvantages

· possible conflict with donkeys and associated potential impact on public safety and comfort.

Option 2 replace current off-leash rule with an on-leash rule (staff recommended option).

Effect of change

Dog access would be retained on Highfield Garden Reserve but would be reduced from off-leash to on-leash.

Advantages

· better provides for public safety and comfort

· the needs of dogs and their owners still provided for with on-leash access, alternative off-leash parks and beaches nearby, including Goodall Park, Snells Beach and Algies Bay.

Disadvantages

· reduces the level of under control off-leash dog access which is likely to be preferred by dog owners.

Staff recommendation

68. Staff recommend changing the rule for Highfield Garden Reserve to on-leash (Option 2).

69. The reason for this recommendation is that this option supports identified public safety and comfort issues.

Next steps

70. Following the decision on proposed changes, staff will update the statement of proposal to reflect the option selected by the local board.

71. The statement of proposal (together with proposals from other local boards) will be publicly notified for submissions as part of the dog registration process in June 2015.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

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

Māori impact statement

73. Managing dog access in areas of significance to Maori can help achieve outcomes of the Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau. In this instance, no impacts have been identified.

74. Feedback from Mana Whenua representatives at a Hui held in March 2015 related to the ability of iwi to determine dog access on Marae, a focus on control, responsible dog ownership, and ensuring the protection of sensitive ecological areas.

Implementation

75. There are no implementation issues associated with this decision to adopt a statement of proposal.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Statement of Proposal	27
b View	Decision-making framework and considerations	49

Signatories

Authors

Shireen Munday - Policy Analyst

Paul Wilson - Team Leader Bylaws

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Rodney Local Board

18 May 2015

Alcohol ban review 2015

File No.: CP2015/04110

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to decide which existing alcohol bans are to be retained after 31 October 2015.

Executive Summary

2. The Rodney Local Board has undertaken to review 14 existing local alcohol bans in its local board area using a targeted community engagement process.

3. The purpose of the review is to identify which existing local alcohol bans meet the new higher statutory threshold to enable them to be retained. Alcohol bans that do not meet the new threshold will lapse on 31 October 2015.

4. To assist the local board, staff have undertaken an analysis of legacy council information and recent police data. This information has been presented at local board workshops in early 2015. During these workshops the local board expressed a preference to use a targeted community engagement process to complete the review. Staff have used this process to obtain and analyse evidence from selected local community groups and organisations.

5. Staff recommend to retain 12 alcohol ban areas with amendments to the area or times of eight (Attachment A), to lapse the one alcohol ban (Attachment B) and to obtain further evidence from the Parakai Recreation Reserve Board on another.

6. Following the decision, staff will update the register of local alcohol bans to commence on 31 October 2015.

Recommendations

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) approve the alcohol bans contained in Attachment A (dated 18 May 2015) pursuant to the Auckland Council Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014, with a commencement date of 31 October 2015.

b) allow the alcohol ban contained in Attachment B (as attached to the agenda report) to lapse on 31 October 2015.

c) request that staff obtain the views of Parakai Recreation Reserve Board on the Parakai alcohol ban and report back to the local board in June 2015.

d) confirm that the decisions in (a) and (b) are in accordance with relevant requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 and Auckland Council Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014.

e) authorise the Manager Social Policy and Bylaws to make any minor edits or amendments to Attachment A to correct any identified errors or typographical edits.

Background

7. Alcohol bans are an accepted and effective way of helping to reduce alcohol-related harm. They reduce the amount of alcohol consumed in public places. This helps to reduce harm including levels of intoxication, noise, litter, harm and disorder.

8. Recent changes to legislation to require a review of existing alcohol bans against the new higher threshold is intended to ensure that alcohol bans are only retained in areas of high alcohol-related crime or disorder.

9. Alcohol bans are made under the Auckland Council Alcohol Control Bylaw 2014. Alcohol bans prohibit the consumption of alcohol in public places and are enforced by the New Zealand Police using powers of search, seizure, and arrest. Penalties include an infringement fee of $250.

10. Local boards have the delegated responsibility to review existing local alcohol bans in their local board areas by 31 October 2015. This does not include a review of existing alcohol bans in areas of regional significance which is the responsibility of the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee, nor consideration of new alcohol bans which will be subject to a separate process to commence after 31 October 2015.

11. The local board has expressed a preference to use a targeted community engagement process to complete the review. This process involves the gathering and consideration of:

· the area and times of each alcohol ban

· legacy council information (where available) on the level of alcohol-related crime or disorder that was evident when the alcohol ban was initially made

· crime and disorder data provided by the New Zealand Police for the period 1 September 2013 – 30 September 2014 by alcohol ban area

· evidence from local community groups and organisations in March 2015 for alcohol bans with limited evidence in legacy council information and police data.

12. The decision required of the local board is to decide which existing alcohol bans should be retained after 31 October 2015.

Decision-making requirements

13. In making decisions, the local board must be satisfied that any existing alcohol bans to be retained comply with a range of new statutory and bylaw requirements.

14. Changes to the Local Government Act 2002 introduced a higher threshold to be met to allow an existing alcohol ban to be retained. Alcohol bans that do not meet the higher threshold will lapse on 31 October 2015.

15. The most important requirements as outlined in the bylaw are:

· evidence that the alcohol ban area has experienced a high level of crime or disorder that can be shown to have been caused or made worse by alcohol consumption in the area

· that the alcohol ban is appropriate and proportionate in the light of the evidence and can be justified as a reasonable limitation on people's rights and freedoms

· consideration of community-focused solutions as an alternative or complement to an alcohol ban consideration of the views of owners, occupiers, or persons that council has reason to believe are representative of the interests of owners or occupiers, of premises within the area to which the alcohol ban will apply

· consideration to using one of the following times for consistency:

1. 24 hours, 7 days a week (at all times alcohol ban);

2. 7pm to 7am daily (evening alcohol ban)

3. 10pm to 7am daylight saving and 7pm to 7am outside daylight saving (night time alcohol ban)

4. 7pm on the day before to 7am on the day after any weekend, public holiday or Christmas/New Year holiday period (weekend and holiday alcohol ban).

16. Further detail of the decision-making requirements is appended to the proposal in Attachment D.

Comments

Current local alcohol bans

17. There are currently 14 local alcohol bans in the Rodney Local Board area summarised in the table below. Thirteen alcohol bans have been independently assessed and evidence is included in Attachments A and B.

18. An assessment of the Parakai alcohol ban will be completed once the views of the Parakai Recreation Reserve Board have been obtained.

Type of alcohol ban area (number)	Alcohol ban time
Town centre (1)	24 hours, 7 days a week
Park (2)	24 hours, 7 days a week
Town centre (2)	3pm to 6am each day throughout the year
Town centre (1)	Seven days a week, 5pm to 6am the following day
Park (1)	6pm to 6am each day throughout the year
Beach/foreshore reserve (1)	6pm to 6am each day throughout the year
General area (2)	For the twelve hour period from 6pm to 6am during the period of daylight saving in effect each year
General area (3)	From 9pm to 6am the following day during the period of daylight saving in effect in each year
Event (1)	At all hours of the day on the Market Days of the annual Kowhai Festival each year

Evidence

19. Evidence of alcohol-related crime or disorder for each alcohol ban indicates that:

· legacy council information and data from the New Zealand Police for the period 1 September 2013 – 30 September 2014 supports the retention of nine existing alcohol bans

· additional evidence from the police and local community groups and organisations supported the retention and amendment to area or times of eight alcohol ban areas. This included support to extend the current Muriwai daylight saving evening alcohol ban to an all year round evening alcohol ban.

· there is insufficient evidence of alcohol-related crime or disorder to retain one alcohol ban

· no new community-focused solutions have been identified as an alternative or complement any existing alcohol ban whether retained or lapsed.

Options

20. For each of these areas the local board has two options. To retain the alcohol ban (with or without the amendments to areas or times) or to allow the ban to lapse.

21. In terms of which alcohol bans to retain or lapse, the local board can review the summary of evidence provided for individual alcohol bans in Attachments A and B and choose to:

· confirm the list of alcohol bans proposed to retain (Attachment A)

· confirm the list of alcohol bans proposed to lapse (Attachment B)

· identify any changes to the list of alcohol bans proposed to retain (Attachment A)

· identify any changes to the list of alcohol bans proposed to lapse (Attachment B).

22. It is important to note that the statutory requirements of this review means the retention of alcohol bans must be determined on evidence of high levels of alcohol-related crime or disorder.

Recommendation

23. Staff recommend to:

· retain the following 12 existing alcohol ban areas with amendments to the area or times of four (Attachment A):

1. Wellsford Centennial Park

2. Old Cement Works and Wilson Road, Warkworth

3. Wellsford Central Business District

4. Helensville Central Business District

5. Lake Tomarata

6. Muriwai

7. Te Arai Point

8. Warkworth Town Centre

9. Omaha

10. Algies Bay

11. Snells Beach

12. Annual Kowhai Festival, Warkworth

· allow one remaining alcohol ban to lapse (Attachment B).

· obtain the views of the Parakai Recreation Reserve Board on the Parakai alcohol ban before making a decision on whether to retain that alcohol ban.

24. The reasons for this recommendation are:

· there is sufficient evidence of a high level of alcohol-related crime or disorder to retain 12 existing alcohol bans (with amendments to area and times)

· the alcohol bans retained are appropriate, proportionate, and reasonable

· the times of alcohol bans retained are aligned to those contained in the bylaw in order to provide greater regional consistency.

Next steps

25. Staff will update the register of local alcohol bans to commence on 31 October 2015.

26. Implementation of the local board decision (e.g. updating signage) will be coordinated through the Integrated Bylaw Review and Implementation programme.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

27. Since the commencement of the review in November 2014 the local board at workshops has been presented with the statutory decision making requirements, review process options, legacy council information, recent police data, and evidence from local community groups and organisations.

Māori impact statement

28. Managing alcohol related harm associated with people consuming alcohol in public places increases opportunities for health and wellbeing, which is consistent with the outcomes of the Māori Plan for Tāmaki Makaurau.

29. Feedback from mana whenua representatives at a Hui held in March 2015 supported alcohol bans in principle, and believe that non-regulatory approaches should be considered to help reduce alcohol-related harm.

Implementation Issues

30. None.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Alcohol bans proposed to retain	61
b View	Alcohol bans proposed to lapse	65
c View	Maps of alcohol bans proposed to retain	67
d View	Decision-making requirements	81

Signatories

Authors

Mike Dance - Policy Analyst

Kylie Hill - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Rodney Local Board

18 May 2015

Update report on set net controls

File No.: CP2015/01612

Purpose

1. To update the Rodney Local Board on the effectiveness of the first annual seasonal set net control at Shakespear Regional Park and the monitoring of set net activities at Omaha Beach over the summer period.

Executive Summary

2. Auckland Council’s Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 enables the council to make controls to prohibit or restrict set netting for specified times or seasons to ensure public safety and prevent nuisance.

3. In December 2014, the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee resolved to implement an annual set net control from 20 December to 31 March at Army Bay and Te Haruhi Bay within Shakespear Regional Park (RBC/2014/55).

4. Following a request from the Rodney and Hibiscus and Bays local boards to also impose controls on Browns Bay, Hatfields and Omaha beaches, the committee also directed staff to monitor at these three beaches over the summer period (20 December 2014 to 31 March 2015). The purpose of monitoring these beaches was to gather information on the public safety and nuisance issues associated with set netting.

5. During this period, the council’s local parks staff did not observe any set netting activities that were causing a public safety concern. However, Ministry for Primary Industry officers did observe illegal set nets in Omaha over the summer period.

6. In addition to monitoring, the council set up an email address for the public to direct queries about set netting. Thirteen emails were received about set nets and crab pots at Omaha Beach. Most of the issues concerned unattended nets and pots, remains of animal carcasses used as bait on the beach and proximity of nets to swimmers.

7. Staff propose that the Rodney Local Board recommend that the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee initiate a process for making annual seasonal controls for set nets and crab pots under the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 before 31 October 2015 for Omaha Beach. Investigation of such controls will involve consultation with affected stakeholders, consideration of legal implications, investigation of resource implications, and possible impacts on other beaches as a result of displacement, as was undertaken for the control at Shakespear Regional Park.

Recommendation

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) recommend to the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee that staff initiate the process of investigating the making of annual seasonal controls under the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013, before 31st of October 2015, for set net and crab pot activities on Omaha Beach.

Background

8. In 2010 Auckland Council inherited the Prohibition of Set Netting at Arkles Bay Bylaw 2007 from the former Rodney District Council. Sections 62 and 63 of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 requires this bylaw to be reviewed by 31 October 2015 after which time the bylaw lapses. The review of this bylaw forms part of the council’s wider bylaw review programme of 158 legacy bylaws.

9. The Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013 was adopted in August 2013 as part of this process and replaced 11 bylaws related to activities in public places. Clause 9(3) of the bylaw enables the council to make seasonal controls to restrict or prohibit a recreational activity, such as set netting, on a beach if this is causing a nuisance or impacting on public safety.

10. In December 2014, the council implemented an annual set control from 20 December to 31 March at Army Bay and Te Haruhi Bay within Shakespear Regional Park. The control was made due to concerns over a number of years from both council staff and the community about the impact of activity on public safety. The control was intended to minimise potential risk to public safety and nuisance such as:

· swimmers getting entangled in nets

· obstruction for windsurfers, kayakers and kitesurfers accessing the beach

· animal carcasses or fish offal that had been used as bait left on beaches.

11. During the process of developing this control concerns were also raised by the community and the Rodney and Hibiscus and Bays local boards about the impact of set netting on three other beaches. As a result, in November 2014 the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee directed staff to monitor set net activities at Omaha, Hatfield and Browns Bay beaches between 20 December 2014 to 31 March 2015. The purpose of monitoring was to gather information that would be used to support a decision on whether or not to create controls restricting, limiting or prohibiting set netting from those beaches on the grounds of public safety.

Comments

Controls under the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013

12. Public concerns about set netting were highlighted during the course of the development of the Auckland Council Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw, through submissions to the draft bylaw, and in council surveys. The Omaha Beach Community (Inc) submission commented that there had been an increase in set nets at Omaha Beach usually early evening until next morning.

13. The submissions requested that set netting be banned, particularly at Omaha Beach, due to safety risks to swimmers and other beach users. As a result, a provision was included in the bylaw to enable the council to make controls where the activity is impacting on public safety.

14. A control for a recreational activity can be made if it is deemed to be the most appropriate way to protect the public from nuisance, promote and maintain public health and safety and minimise the potential for offensive behaviour.

15. The process for making a control can be initiated as a result of proactive investigation by council staff or as a result of complaints received from a local board or the public.

16. Controls made under the bylaw need to be:

· enforceable – it can be effectively implemented due to sufficient resources

17. A control cannot be made under the bylaw to protect fisheries resources or to protect wildlife such as the Maui dolphin, as these policy reasons do not relate to the relevant bylaw making powers under the Local Government Act 2002. These issues are managed by national set net regulations.

18. Fisheries regulations that control set netting practices are specifically for the protection of fisheries resources. The Fisheries (Amateur Fishing) Regulations 2013, made under the Fisheries Act 1996, prohibits the use or possession of more than one set net, a set net that exceeds 60 metres in length and a baited set net. The regulations also require personal identification of surface floats at either ends of nets and prohibit the use of stakes and poles to set nets.

19. The coastal waters of Auckland are subject to the Auckland and Kermadec Fishery Management Area Recreational fishing rules including minimum fish size restrictions. A person must not use a set net for fishing in the Auckland and Kermadec set net prohibition area. Prohibited areas include the Auckland West Coast and Manukau Harbour entrance. Set netting regulations along the east coast govern matters such as the net length, mesh size and how it can be set.

20. The Fisheries (Amateur Fishing) Regulations 2013 also require that nets must not extend more than a quarter of a way across any bay, channel, river, stream or sound, nets must not be set in any way that causes fish to be stranded by the falling tide.

Review of the seasonal set net control at Shakespear Regional Park

21. In November 2014, the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee approved implementing an annual set net control at Army Bay and Te Haruhi Bay within Shakespear Regional Park to protect public safety and prevent nuisance (RBC/2014/55). This was the first set net control to be developed under the Public Safety and Nuisance Bylaw 2013.

22. The control was publicly notified in the New Zealand Herald on 11 December 2014 and on the Auckland Council website. Five signs were erected on the site and staff handed out brochures to parks users informing them of the control. The council’s park rangers enforced the control.

23. From the outset, regional parks staff were proactive in communicating the rules to set netters who generally responded well to the control with a noticeable reduction in the activity within the first week of the control coming into effect. There was also a corresponding decline in illegal camping or overnight stays in the area and late night vehicle activities in parks. One seizure notice was issued and there was one security guard call-out.

24. Staff working at these beaches report that the control worked well with positive comments from the general public. The effectiveness of the control was contingent on having dedicated enforcement staff on-site throughout that period. Many of these activities take place on the weekends or after hours and a basic tenet for making any control (as with a bylaw) is that sufficient staff resources are required in order for it to be effective. In effect, staff report that the temporary control resolved recreational conflict over use of the shallow water

Monitoring of additional beaches

25. Council staff monitored set net activities at three beaches over the summer period (to 31 March 2015). This included Omaha Beach as well as Hatfield and Browns Bay. These beaches were identified due to public concerns about the impact of set netting activities on other beach users. The purpose of monitoring these beaches was to gather robust reliable information on the public safety and nuisance issues associated with set netting.

26. During this period, council local parks staff observed no set netting activities at Omaha Beach. This was based on random spot checking by council staff at these beaches and does not indicate set netting was never undertaken. Incidents observed by the public should be seen as complementing (rather than contradicting) the evidence gathered by staff.

27. If the council is to consider investigating the establishment of any control consideration will need to be given to staff resources required for enforcement at local beaches.

28. The Ministry for Primary Industries indicated that while on routine patrols, Auckland District Fisheries Officers observed illegal set net activities over the summer including a number of staked set nets in the Whangateau Harbour near Omaha. The outcome was that offenders were spoken to and offence files were opened. A warning letter was issued to each offender for using a staked net and using a net with incorrect markings. In one instance, an offender was fined, as this was their second offence.

29. In December 2014, the council set up an email address specifically to receive complaints or queries about set netting activities. The address is published on the council website and advises people to either email or contact the call centre for more information or to make a complaint.

30. By the end of April the council had received 36 emails, of which 13 were specific to Omaha Beach.

31. Issues raised in the emails included:

· abandoned set nets and crab pots

· illegal set nets

· animal carcasses or fish offal that had been used as bait left on beaches

· proximity of nets and crab pots to other beach users

· safety of set netters following a near drowning incident

· litter.

32. Staff have provided an update on the temporary controls and monitoring of beaches to the media and this was reported in Mahurangi Matters on 13 April 2015.

Next steps

33. Council staff propose that the Rodney Local Board recommend to the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee that staff undertake further investigation to make annual seasonal controls at Omaha Beach for set nets and crab pots.

34. If the Rodney Local Board recommend to the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee that staff investigate making annual seasonal controls at Omaha Beach, this would include:

· consultation with affected stakeholders

· consideration of legal implications

· investigation of resource implications

· investigation of possible impacts on other beaches as a result of displacement.

35. This was the same process that was undertaken to implement the control at Shakespear Regional Park.

36. The council email address will continue to remain active to receive complaints from members of the public. Monitoring will continue at specific beaches and staff recommend investigating alternative tools to manage potential conflict between recreational beach users. This includes providing education and clear communications around water safety, littering and Fisheries (Amateur Fishing) Regulations 2013.

Consideration

Local Board Views and Implications

37. This report seeks the views of the Rodney Local Board. A separate report is also being presented to the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board to receive their input in relation to beaches in their area. No other Local Board areas have raised any issues in relation to set netting in their areas.

Māori Impact Statement

38. Māori views have not been specifically sought in relation to this report. The views of Māori will be obtained during the development of any proposed control. Local iwi were invited to provide their feedback on the seasonal control at Shakespear Regional Park and council staff met with a representative from mana whenua and mataawaka. Feedback from representatives was that any control put in place for public safety reasons should not be designed to impose restrictions on Māori customary fishing rights or fishing for sustenance.

Implementation Issues

39. Implementation issues will be considered as part of the process for investigating the application of annual seasonal controls. This includes considering staff resources to enforce the control. As mentioned, the success of the seasonal control at Shakespear Regional Park over the summer period was due to the on-going presence of staff during that time. Conversely, local beaches do not have the same level of staff resources.

40. Estimated costs to implement the first seasonal control at Omaha Beach are approximately $3000. This only includes signage, brochures and the public notice in the New Zealand Herald. These figures are based on the costs for establishing the initial seasonal control at Shakespear Regional Park in December 2014. It should be noted that this does not include the costs for staff resources as the control at Shakespear Regional Park was enforced by existing parks staff. It is therefore reasonable to expect that costs for a control at Omaha Beach could be considerably increased due to additional resources required to actively monitor and enforce this area.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Emma Pilkington - Policy Analyst

Rebekah Stuart-Wilson - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Rodney Local Board

18 May 2015

Auckland Council Property Limited Local Board Six-Monthly Update 1 July to 31 December 2014

File No.: CP2015/05490

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to give the Rodney Local Board an overview of Auckland Council Property Limited’s (ACPL) activities for the six months 1 July to 31 December 2014.

Executive Summary

2. ACPL’s vision centres on “creating value from property assets” by providing commercial expertise and value for money to Auckland Council in managing its property portfolio, and acquisition and disposal activities. The concept of “value” includes but is not limited to financial value. In addition to financial value, a growing aspect of ACPL’s work has been to use surplus council property to help achieve the council’s housing supply and urban regeneration objectives. We will also identify opportunities to add value by improving the use of council service property such as redevelopment of under-utilised sites.

3. This report sets out a summary of ACPL activities for the past six months that contribute to our seven key outcomes as outlined in our Statement of Intent (SOI) 2014 to 2017 and noted below. Activity detail is broken down by business unit or work-stream, with a focus on local board specific activities where applicable.

4. ACPL’s seven key outcomes:

§ Properties managed for the council and Auckland Transport (AT) are maintained to be fit for purpose and achieve optimum net returns.

§ Redevelopment/regeneration projects involving other sector partners are efficiently planned and managed to help achieve a quality compact Auckland.

§ ACPL contributes exemplar housing developments to increase the supply of housing in Auckland, particularly in the more affordable spectrum of the market, working with partners.

§ Council business interests are managed to protect long term value and achieve budgeted net income.

§ Property acquisitions are undertaken in a commercially robust manner and in accordance with the council and AT agreed requirements and relevant legislation.

§ Properties are disposed of for the council in a commercially robust manner once declared surplus.

§ The council is provided with a commercial perspective on planning and development initiatives to support effective implementation of those initiatives.

5. Local board specific supporting detail is included in Attachments A, B, and C.

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) receive the Auckland Council Property Limited Local Board Six-Monthly update 1 July to 31 December 2014.

Comments

Workshops and Meetings

6. A schedule of Rodney Local Board workshops and meetings attended by ACPL representatives from July to December is included as Attachment A. The list includes property specific meetings and workshops relating to general property management and the ongoing portfolio Rationalisation Process.

Property Portfolio Management

7. ACPL manages property owned by the council and AT that are not currently required for service or infrastructure purposes. These are properties that are not immediately required for service delivery or infrastructure development but are being held for use in a planned future project such as road construction/widening or the expansion of parks.

8. The property portfolio continued to grow during the last six months and now totals 1306 properties, an increase of 121 since our January-June 2014 update. The current property portfolio includes industrial sites and buildings, retail tenancies, cafés, restaurants, offices and a substantial portfolio of residential properties.

9. ACPL’s specialist property knowledge and understanding enables us to optimise revenue streams and identify future opportunities. ACPL’s return on the property portfolio for the six months ending 31 December 2014 provides the shareholder a net surplus of $2.9m ahead of budget, with an actual surplus of $11.8m against budget of $23m. The average monthly vacancy rate for the period is 1.68% which is under the SOI targets of 5%.

10. A Properties Managed schedule is included as Attachment B of this report. The schedule details:

§ Current ACPL-managed commercial and residential property within the Rodney Local Board

§ Each property’s classification or reason for retention

§ The nature of the property, such as a café within a library, or a residential property with a tenancy in place

§ The budget under which operating expenditure and lease revenue for the property is reported eg regional or local board.

11. A report indicating portfolio movement in the local board area is attached as Attachment C. The report details all new acquisitions including the reason for acquisition, any transfers and the reason for transfer, and any disposals.

Portfolio Review and Rationalisation

Overview

12. ACPL is required to undertake ongoing rationalisation of the council’s non-service assets. This includes identifying properties from within council’s portfolio that may be suitable for potential sale and development if appropriate. ACPL has a particular focus on achieving housing outcomes. Identifying potential sale properties contributes to the Auckland Plan focus of accommodating the significant growth projected for the region over the coming decades, by providing the council with an efficient use of capital and prioritisation of funds to achieve its activities and projects.

Performance

July 2014 to June 2015 Target

UNIT	TARGET	ACHIEVED	COMMENTS
Portfolio Review	$30m disposal recommendations	$36.4m	These recommendations include $33.2m of sites that are identified for development projects.

13. In setting future disposal targets ACPL is working closely with the council and AT to identify potentially surplus properties.

2014/2015 Targets

UNIT	TARGET	COMMENTS
Portfolio Review	$30m gross value recommended for sale	These targets include disposal recommendations and sales for sites that are identified for place-shaping and housing development projects
Development & Disposals	$30 net value of unconditional sales

Process

14. Once identified as a potential sale candidate a property is taken through a multi-stage Rationalisation Process. The agreed process includes engagement with: the council, CCOs, local board and mana whenua. This is followed by ACPL Board approval, engagement with local ward and the Independent Māori Statutory Board and finally a governing body decision.

Under review

15. Properties currently under review for future use opportunities via the Rationalisation Process in the Rodney area are listed below. The list includes any properties that may have recently been approved for sale or development and sale by the governing body. Further details are included in Attachment B.

PROPERTY	DETAILS
118 Rodney Street	Former Wellsford Library. Transferred to ACPL as non-service in July 14. Progressed through the Rationalisation Process to evaluate all potential future use options. A business case was received from CDAC and Community Facilities for site to be retained for community use. The Rodney Local Board supported the business case. The case for the retention of this site was approved by the governing body in February 2015.
35 Mill Road	Legacy approved sale of site currently leased to Downers. The Rodney Local Board explored retaining this property for use for a housing refit and training scheme project with local iwi. However further review of the site has indicated it is not suitable for the project. The Solid Waste team have now confirmed that it only requires the section of the site where a resource recovery facility is currently located, not the entire site. Report presented to Rodney Local Board in March 2015 to enable local board decision making. Decision deferred pending further investigation.
55A Alnwick Street, Warkworth	Released from Auckland Council as non-service. The rationalisation process commenced in June 2014. Possible alternative service uses were identified during the internal consultation. ACPL is currently exploring these with relevant parties.
139 Tapu Road - Huapai	Preparing for sale.
12 Waimauku Station Road Waimauku	Vacant strip of land transferred to ACPL from Auckland Council as non-service in June 14. Acquired by Rodney District Council for roading purposes in 2006. Partially vested as road in February 2007. Subject to a drainage easement in favour of the Waitematā County Council. ACPL commenced the Rationalisation Process in September 2014. EOI received from Auckland Transport identifying that road and footpath runs through part of this site. Engagement with Rodney Local Board to occur in early 2015.

Redevelopment/Regeneration and Housing Supply Initiatives

Overview

16. ACPL is contributing commercial input into approximately 54 region wide council-driven regeneration and housing supply initiatives. Involvement extends from provision of initial feasibility advice through to implementation, with projects ranging in size from $415k to in excess of $100million. ACPL works closely with the local boards on ACPL-led developments to ensure we give effect to the local boards’ place-shaping role.

17. ACPL is working with the wider council group to formulate a process or approach for identifying and realising optimisation opportunities that exist for service assets. This will provide opportunities to work with local boards on development opportunities that deliver wider strategic benefit consistent with the Auckland plan such as intensification, town centre regeneration and affordable housing. It will also improve service outcomes through obtaining more effective use of property assets.

18. ACPL is also actively contributing to the Housing Strategy Action Plan, which is a council initiative focusing on non-regulatory efforts to encourage and increase affordable residential development. We have an SOI target to undertake five housing development projects over three years that will improve housing affordability and the supply of affordable housing encompassing CHO involvement. We are currently actively working on 13 such projects.

Local Activities

19. There are currently no regeneration and housing initiative proposal activities in the Rodney Local Board area.

Acquisitions

Overview

20. ACPL continues to support council and AT programmes and projects by negotiating required property acquisitions. All such acquisitions are funded through approved council or AT budgets. We also provide advice to assist with budgets, business cases and strategy to support an acquisition.

21. From the commencement of the 2015 financial year, 1 July 2014 to 31 January 2015, 73 property purchases were completed for the council and AT to the value of $56m. All of the property acquisitions met independent valuation thresholds agreed with AT, the council and Public Works Act 1981 requirements.

Council Acquisitions

22. Over the past six months 15 properties were acquired to meet council legal, open space and storm water requirements and to contribute to City Transformation projects. These included the following acquisitions in or neighbouring the Rodney Local Board area.

PROPERTY	STAKEHOLDER	PURPOSE	LOCAL BOARD
Lot 1 DP 28362 Martins Bay Road, Martins Bay	Community Policy & Planning	Open Space	Rodney
895 State Highway 16, Waimauku	Community Policy & Planning	Open Space	Rodney
179 Matua Road, Huapai	Community Policy & Planning	Open Space	Rodney
218 Matua Road, Huapai	Stormwater	Stormwater	Rodney
2001 Beach Road (Lot 302), Long Bay	Stormwater	Stormwater	Hibiscus and Bays

Auckland Transport Acquisitions

23. 58 properties were also acquired over the past six months on behalf of AT. The focus was on acquisitions to support major transport projects including AMETI (17 acquisitions) City Rail Link Property Acquisition (23 acquisitions) and Northern Strategic Growth Area (4 acquisitions). Full details of relevant AT projects and associated acquisitions will come to the local board directly from AT.

Business Interests

24. ACPL also optimises the commercial return from assets it manages on council’s behalf. This comprises two forestry enterprises, two landfills and four quarries. A high level update on business interests in the Rodney Local Board area is outlined below.

Araparera Forest

25. Ararapera Forest is joint venture between Te Tumu Paeroa (the new Māori Trustee) on behalf of the landowners and council having started approximately 26 years ago.

26. The harvesting operation was completed in October 2014 and the winding down of the joint venture is progressing. ACPL and Te Tumu Paeroa have agreed the ratio to be used for distribution of net proceeds to the joint venture partners.

27. The council’s share is to be spent on roads within the Northern ridings of the ex-Rodney Council. A formal pōwhiri will appropriately mark the conclusion of the joint venture following a final meeting of owners.

Ti Point

28. Ti Point Forest is 14 ha of mature pinus radiata trees located on a site in Whangateau which also includes an ex-quarry and landfill.

29. A tender process was instigated. The tendering parties were allowed to bid to acquire either the lump sum harvesting rights or manage the harvest through a harvesting and marketing agreement. Complying tenders were received. As a result of that process, ACPL has entered into discussions with a preferred party.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

30. This report is for the Rodney Local Board’s information.

Māori impact statement

31. Whatungarongaro te tangata, toitū te whenua. The importance of effective communication and engagement with Māori on the subject of land is understood. ACPL has accordingly developed robust engagement with the 19 mana whenua groups for our core business activities.

32. Key engagement activities include: identifying cultural significance concerns regarding disposal properties, flagging commercial interests, development partnering discussions and issues relating to property management such as protection of wāhi tapu or joint management arising from the resolution of Treaty Settlements. ACPL also engages with relevant mana whenua in respect of development outcomes for ACPL lead projects where appropriate. ACPL will advise the Rodney Local Board as appropriate of any discussions that arise in the local board’s area.

33. When required, ACPL’s property management team attend relevant meetings and provide written advice to the Parakai Recreation Reserve Board, being the co-management committee established by the Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara Claims Settlement Act 2013.

34. ACPL undertook to be part of council’s Māori Responsiveness Plan (MRP) pilot programme. The project’s key output is an operational document outlining ACPL’s contribution to council’s strategic and operational commitments to Māori. The MRP was finalised and approved by the ACPL Board in December 2014 and the focus will move to identifying priority areas for implementation. A copy of this is available on the ACPL website.

Implementation

35. There are no implementation issues.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Schedule of meetings and workshops	153
b View	Properties Managed by ACPL in the Local Board area	155
c View	Property movement in the Local Board area	161

Signatories

Authors

Ebony Duff - Local Board Liaison, Portfolio Review, Auckland Council Property Limited

Authorisers

David Rankin - Chief Executive, Auckland Council Property Limited

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Rodney Local Board

18 May 2015

Site proposed for divestment - 35 Mill Road, Helensville

File No.: CP2015/08500

Purpose

1. This report seeks the Rodney Local Board’s endorsement for Auckland Council Property Limited (ACPL) to recommend for disposal the site at 35 Mill Road, Helensville.

Executive Summary

2. This subject site is a 2.3932 hectare industrial site that was acquired by the Rodney County Council in 1978 for the Rodney Council Work Depot. Part of the site (predominately being 31 Mill Road) is currently being used as a resource recovery facility, and balance of the site (predominately being 35 Mill Road) is commercially leased.

3. The Rodney District Council resolved to dispose of 31-35 Mill Road, Helensville site in 2009. The subject property was not subsequently sold and upon transition, it was transferred to ACPL. ACPL became aware of outstanding issues that required resolution before any potential sale based on the legacy resolution to dispose of the site could proceed. ACPL commenced the rationalisation process for this site to ensure it had all relevant information from council and its CCOs.

4. ACPL commenced the rationalisation process for this property in 2012. Consultation with council and its CCOs, Iwi authorities and the Rodney Local Board has now taken place. Several alternative service uses for this site were explored during the rationalisation process. Based on the results of the rationalisation process, ACPL recommend that this site be subdivided, with part of the site being retained by council for esplanade reserve and the resource recovery facility, and the balance of the site be disposed of.

5. ACPL’s recommendation to retain part of this site for service purposes varies from the legacy resolution to dispose of the entire site. As such, a resolution is required from the Finance and Performance Committee modifying the original resolution before any proposed disposal can be progressed.

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) endorses Auckland Council Property Limited’s recommendation to the Finance and Performance Committee to subdivide 31-35 Mill Road, Helensville and:

i) retain approximately 20m² as esplanade reserve;

ii) retain approximately 5,500m² as a resource recovery facility;

iii) dispose of the balance of the site.

Comments

6. ACPL and Auckland Council Property Department work jointly on a comprehensive review of council’s property portfolio. One of the outcomes of the review process is to identify properties in the council portfolio that are potentially surplus to requirements and that may be suitable to sell. The Rodney District Council resolved to dispose of this site in 2009, but it was not sold. Upon amalgamation of the legacy councils, this site was identified as potentially saleable through the review process.

7. Once a property has been identified as potentially surplus, ACPL engages with council and its CCO’s through an Expression of Interest (EOI) process, to establish whether the property must be retained for a strategic purpose or is required for a future funded project. Once a property has been internally cleared of any service requirements, ACPL then consults with local boards, ward councillors, mana whenua and the Independent Maori Statutory Board. All sale recommendations must be approved by the ACPL Board before it makes a final recommendation to the Finance and Performance Committee.

8. The subject site is a 2.3932 hectare, industrial site located at 31-35 Mill Road, Helensville. The site has a 2014 rating valuation of $1,385,000 and the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan zoning is Business – Light Industry. The entire site was acquired by the Rodney County Council in 1978 for the purpose of a works depot. It was used as the Rodney Council Work Depot for approximately 30 years.

9. The subject site is currently used for both service and non-service purposes. The service component entails a resource recovery facility that is managed by the Solid Waste team. This resource recovery facility is operated by the Helensville Enterprises Trust (HET) and is subject to a peppercorn lease. The balance of the site is non-service, and is subject to a commercial lease to Downers EDI Works Limited.

10. The Rodney District Council resolved to dispose of 31-35 Mill Road, Helensville on 26 February 2009. Upon transition, this property was transferred to ACPL. Given the legacy resolution to dispose of this site, ACPL investigated the potential sale of this site. In doing so, ACPL became aware of issues such as an indicative road on part of this site in the operative Rodney District Plan, that part of the site was required for esplanade reserve, and that the resource recovery facility was in operation on the site and that Solid Waste and HET wished for this facility to remain in operation at this site. To ensure that ACPL had all of the relevant information from council and all CCOs about this site before progressing any potential sale, ACPL commenced the rationalisation process for this site.

11. The rationalisation process for this property commenced in 2012. EOIs were sought from council and its CCOs. The following EOIs were received:

i. North West Planning team – The North West Planning team submitted an EOI and subsequent business case stating that part of this site is noted in the Helensville – Parakai Structure Plan and in the operative Rodney District Plan as an indicative road (see Attachment B). It was also noted that an esplanade reserve should be subdivided off this site for access purposes and to incorporate flood protection works.

ii. Community Policy and Planning – This EOI identified that an esplanade reserve should be subdivided off this site to ensure council retains coastal linkage.

iii. Heritage Unit – This EOI noted that the property is in an archaeological survey priority area. Although this does not hinder disposal from a historic heritage point of view, it would be prudent to advise potential purchasers that they have may have obligations under the Historic Places Act 1993 if they are considering any works involving ground disturbance.

iv. Stormwater Unit (IES) – This EOI noted that this site has some stormwater reticulation and open drain discharges to the Kaipara River via floodgate. Maintenance access to this would need to be protected by an easement. The EOI also noted that this site is low lying and subject to flood risks.

v. Solid Waste Business Unit (IES) – Solid Waste submitted an EOI and subsequent business case stating that the resource recovery facility operated by the HET is currently operating from this site and that the HET wished to continue operating from this site, either in full or in part.

12. These EOIs and business cases were investigated and assessed by a senior, cross council steering group. This group decided that:

i. the sale of this site would not prevent the indicative road being built in the future, should this project receive funding. A condition of sale would need to be that no development could occur on the proposed road area;

ii. the site should be subdivided, with the area where the resource recovery facility is located remaining in council ownership to ensure the continued operation of this facility. This subdivided portion would not impact on the proposed road area; and

iii. a 20m² esplanade reserve land is to be subdivided off the site to mitigate the flood risk, allow maintenance access to the flood gate, provide a stormwater setback and ensure coastal linkages.

13. The EOI process also provided the Maori and Strategy Relations team the opportunity to flag any issue that is of particular relevance to Maori. No relevant issues were raised.

14. Following the conclusion of the internal consultation phase, ACPL undertook local board and Iwi engagement.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

15. ACPL first engaged with the Rodney Local Board in October 2012 regarding this property. The Rodney Local Board expressed an interest in using this site to support local Iwi Ngāti Whātua O Kaipara with a housing regeneration project. This project focused on retrofitting and repairing existing housing, and incorporated trade training. Options were explored in conjunction with the Solid Waste team, which investigated if this entire site could accommodate the resource recovery facility, the commercial business which is currently in operation, and the housing regeneration project. The findings of these investigations were:

i. That the site was not a suitable size for incorporating all three proposed uses;

ii. The Solid Waste team only required the section of the site where the existing resource recovery facility is located;

iii. The site was not suitable for the housing regeneration project due to the narrow access to the site, the surrounding industrial activities and the shape and size of the site.

16. Following this, the Rodney Local Board provided ACPL with informal feedback that it no longer wished to retain the subject property.

17. A report was submitted to the Rodney Local Board’s March 2015 meeting to provide the Rodney Local Board an opportunity for formal decision making regarding this site. Decision making on this report was deferred by the Rodney Local Board subject to a request from the board that the Manager of Solid Waste attend a local board to provide more information about the proposal and the current and future needs of the recycle centre based at 31-35 Mill Road, Helensville. This workshop was held with the Rodney Local Board in May 2015.

18. Following this workshop, this report is being re-presented to provide the Rodney Local Board an opportunity for formal decision making regarding this site.

Māori impact statement

19. Fourteen iwi authorities were contacted regarding the potential sale of 35 Mill Road, Helensville. The following feedback was received.

i. Ngāti Wai

No site specific feedback.

ii. Ngāti Manuhiri

General cultural significance. Submission of first rights of refusal to iwi, at a negotiated rate in accordance with current market rates. Council has statutory obligations to iwi and can assist with the iwi aspirations to become owners of their ancestral lands once more.

iii. Ngāti Whatua

Registers specific cultural significance of the site. Will facilitate a joint and agreed Ngāti Whātua Whānui position. Seeking adoption of a commitment arrangement which includes a period of exclusive negotiation.

iv. Te Uri o Hau

In this instance Te Uri o Hau directed us to Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara.

v. Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara

Expression of interest to use site as a possible site for storage and retrofit of ex-military houses prior to use for social housing. As discussed in 15 and 16 above, this was investigated with the RLB and relevant council departments, and it was found that this site was not suitable for the housing project.

vi. Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei

No site specific feedback received however see (iii).

vii. Te Kawerau-ā-Maki

General cultural significance. Will work directly with Auckland Council’s Māori Strategy and Relations Department.

viii. Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua

No site specific feedback received.

ix. Ngai Tai ki Tāmaki

Ngai Tai have generally instructed that if no feedback is received then there is no site specific interest.

x. Ngāti Paoa

Ngāti Paoa has expressed potential commercial interest in any council owned properties that may become available for sale.

xi. Ngāti Whanaunga

No site specific feedback received.

xii. Ngāti Maru

Acknowledgement of receipt of information.

xiii. Ngāti Tamaterā

No site specific feedback received.

Implementation

20. The results of the rationalisation process to date indicate that:

i. approximately 20m² of this site needs to be retained as esplanade reserve;

ii. approximately 5,500m² of this site needs to be retained as service property for the existing resource recovery facility;

iii. the balance of this property is not required for current or future service requirements.

21. ACPL recommend that this site be subdivided, with the area housing the resource recovery centre and esplanade reserve remaining in council ownership and the balance of the site not required for service purposes be disposed of.

22. This property is exempt from Public Works Act 1981 offer back requirements.

23. The subject property is not one of council’s strategic assets to which the Significance Policy applies.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Images of 31-35 Mill Road, Helensville	169

Signatories

Authors	Letitia McColl - Senior Engagement Advisor
Authorisers	Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Rodney Local Board

18 May 2015

Developing the Empowered Communities Approach - Next Steps

File No.: CP2015/08273

Purpose

1. This report provides an update on the Empowered Communities Approach (ECA), and enables the Rodney Local Board to provide formal feedback. Resolutions will be reported to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee on 4 June 2015.

Executive Summary

2. The Mayor’s Proposal for the Long Term Plan 2015-2025 (LTP) includes developing a more empowered community approach to the work of Auckland Council.

3. The Community Development, Arts and Culture Department of the Operations Division is leading the development of ECA, with support from Local Board Services and others.

4. The purpose of the ECA is to develop a new, more effective and empowering approach to the way council delivers services and supports community activities. The ECA will establish a new operating model for the Community Development and Safety (CDS) unit which will shift its service delivery to have a greater focus on local and community empowerment, with a view to embedding this way of working across the council family.

5. The proposed approach builds on the Thriving Communities Action Plan Ngā Hapori Momoho (April 2014).

6. The proposed approach is guided by the principle of Empowered Communities: Enabling Council resulting in improved outcomes for Aucklanders. The approach identifies what will change, what council will do and enabling ways of working.

7. The proposed approach was reported to local boards and the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee in April 2015.

8. The key functions of the new operating model are to support local boards, build community capacity and capability, increase diverse community input into the work of council, catalyse the approach across the whole of council and build the capacity of the organisation to work in ways which empower communities.

9. There will be a shift from delivering community development activities directly to communities, to using community development practices to achieve local board and governing body aspirations and outcomes.

10. The proposed operating model will consist of three components which together will better support the delivery of local board plans as well as address complex community issues across Auckland. These components are provisionally called: local community brokers, the community practice hub and Auckland-wide response.

11. A reduction in the cost to deliver community development over time is expected, starting with savings in the 2015/2016 financial year.

12. Community development and engagement is at the heart of the role of local boards. The local board plans all include a focus on developing strong communities. Proposed changes to council’s community development approach are of significant interest to local boards.

13. To date the ECA has been informed by the following input from local boards: Political Advisory Group (PAG), two chairpersons and portfolio holders’ workshops and individual local board workshops.

14. Community and council staff consultation has also informed the approach.

15. The final PAG meeting is on 4 May 2015. Feedback is attached to this report as Attachment B.

16. The transition timeline is for work to be done on models and roles from now until the end of June. From July to December the approach will be implemented to meet local board needs and in 2016 as the approach matures and evolves it will be extended across the council family.

17. This report enables the Rodney Local Board to make resolutions on the ECA . These resolutions will be reported to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee on 4 June 2015.

Recommendation/s

That the Rodney Local Board:

a) provide feedback on the proposed Empowered Communities Approach, for consideration as part of the report to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee in June.

Comments

Background

18. The Mayor’s Proposal for the Long Term Plan 2015-2025 (LTP) includes developing a more empowered community approach to the work of Auckland Council. The proposed changes to the community development function are:

· to transition delivery to a more empowered community approach

· to move away from direct delivery (and therefore save overheads) and fund community groups to deliver more

· for local boards to play a much more active role by allocating more funding through them.

19. The purpose of the ECA is to develop a new, more effective and empowering approach to the way council delivers services and supports community activities. The ECA will establish a new operating model for the Community Development and Safety (CDS) unit which will shift its service delivery to have a greater focus on local and community empowerment, with a view to embedding this way of working across the council family.

20. The proposed approach builds on the Thriving Communities Action Plan Ngā Hapori Momoho (April 2014). It will bring to life the principles, focus areas and actions by providing a clear operational direction to enable implementation of the plan across council.

21. The approach also provides an implementation framework for the High Performing Council’s special focus area ‘Engaging and Enabling Communities’. The approach could play a significant role in building best practice across the organisation in the four high performance behaviours: develop, serve, collaborate and achieve.

22. The approach is guided by the principle of Empowered Communities: Enabling Council resulting in improved outcomes for Aucklanders. The approach identifies what will change, what council will do and enabling ways of working. This approach was reported to local boards and the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee in April 2015. More information is provided in attachment A.

The new operating model

23. A primary focus for the new unit will be on working with other parts of council to provide community development support, expertise and assistance to local board projects and activities so that every opportunity for council to work in ways that are enabling of communities is maximised. There will be a shift from delivering community development activities directly to communities, to using community development practices to achieve local board and governing body aspirations.

24. The key functions of the new operating model are to:

· support the council to work seamlessly together at local board level

· build community capacity and capability

· increase diverse community input into the work of council

· embed the approach across the whole of council and build the capacity of the organisation

· to work in ways that empower communities.

25. The proposed operating model will consist of three components which together will better support the delivery of local board plans as well as address complex community issues across Auckland. These components are provisionally called: local community brokers, the community practice hub and Auckland-wide response.

26. The local community brokers are strategic roles. They will be co-located alongside local board services teams. They will work alongside local board advisors to support and join up the work of all departments delivering on local board outcomes and will support devolving more resources to the community. The broker’s work programme will be based on local board outcomes. The role will be tailored to meet local board and community needs and they will provide a portal into council for the community.

27. The community practice hub consists of a dedicated team of expert practitioners with skills including community development, facilitation and project management. They will work alongside the local board teams to deliver programmes and tools, capacity building for communities, inclusive engagement and participation programmes and also provide operational support for local community brokers, local boards and across the council family.

28. The local community brokers will work with the local board members and advisors to identify which projects offer opportunities to work in a more empowered communities way and are priorities for support from the community practice hub. The hub will then develop a work programme incorporating priorities from across local boards.

29. If new community priorities start to emerge, the local community brokers will work with local board members and staff to agree next steps. The community practice hub will have some capacity to support work on emerging issues if they become local board priorities.

30. The Auckland-wide response will be a team of people with specialist skills. They will work on significant and/ or complex issues that would benefit from an all of Auckland approach, internal systems and processes and barriers and activity where a regional response delivers efficiency/ effectiveness benefits.

31. Different responses will be needed around Auckland taking into account community capacity, strength and resilience. This range of responses will need to cover those areas where there is well developed community capacity to opportunities to further development community capacity and newly formed communities.

32. The impact of the approach will be that:

· local boards are able to access tailored and strategic support

· community development practice enhances the work of the whole of the council family

· communities have more access to resources and support to do things for themselves

· the empowered communities approach is embedded throughout the organisation.

33. There are a number of empowering initiatives and activities, both new and existing, which could be further developed to empower communities.

34. A reduction in the cost to deliver community development over time is expected, starting with savings in the 2015/2016 financial year.

35. Community development and engagement is at the heart of the role of local boards. The local board plans all include a focus on developing strong communities. Proposed changes to council’s community development approach are of significant interest to local boards.

36. This report provides the opportunity to provide formal feedback. This will be reported to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee on 4 June 2015.

Political Advisory Group

37. A Political Advisory Group (PAG) has provided strategic advice and guidance to staff during the development of the empowered communities approach.

38. At their meeting on 16 April 2015 the PAG supported:

· the key functions of the new unit

· the three components of the new operating model (local community brokers, community practice hub and Auckland-wide response).

39. Other feedback from the PAG included the need to consider the relationship with the Māori Responsiveness Framework and the need for staff to have cultural competencies. There was also discussion around whether the local community brokers should be located within Community Development and Safety or Local Board Services, and comment that local board outcomes are the same as community aspirations.

40. Staff reported back to the PAG on 4 May with the following:

· revised approach and model

· approach to devolving resources

· tools to support implementing the approach.

41. Feedback from the PAG meeting on 4 May forms Attachment B to this report.

ECA timeline

42. The remaining key milestones are shown in the table below.

Stage

Date

Purpose

Budget Committee

7-8 May

LTP budget decisions including CDS budget for 2015/2016

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

4 June

Endorse ECA and the CDS operational model

Consultation and engagement

43. The community was consulted through a limited number of community-led, and staff run, workshops around the region. Staff were also consulted.

44. The key points from the consultation were:

· use a high trust model that is values based

· value what communities bring to the table

· one size does not fit all

· capacity building is critical and a fresh approach is required

· a whole of council approach

· respond to the diversity of Auckland’s communities.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

45. The ECA aims to provide a much more active role for local boards in community development.

46. ECA builds on the strong focus on community led planning and development in the local board plans 2014.

47. Local board chairs met to consider ECA on 30 March. The following four principles arose from this meeting:

· local boards need to be empowered themselves so that they can in turn empower their communities in a way that suits the area

· local board outcomes are community outcomes and need to be central to and drive the community empowerment approach and focus under the direction of the local board.

· community empowerment is not as simple as channelling funds through community groups, which has risks. Community empowerment is an approach and any change to the current needs to be carefully staged and made appropriate for each local board.

· within change there are always opportunities but they carry risks which can be minimised through careful planning, full engagement of the main parties and undertaken within a timeframe that is feasible for significant change to take place.

48. Local boards’ formal views are sought through this paper. This builds on earlier opportunities to provide informal feedback at local board workshops during April and at two workshops for local board chairs and portfolio holders.

49. The summary feedback from the chairs and portfolio holders meeting on 20 April was:

· the budget approach and costs associated with the proposed model are required to be able to make an informed response. There was also desire for better utilisation of the budget to achieve improved outcomes. Additionally, it was unclear how the model will deliver more resources to local boards

· the broker role needs to operate on a continuum that is tailored to local boards and can deliver across the continuum from those with contracted out services to communities with less capacity to take on additional services

· the broker role bests sits in local board services but the overlap with local board advisor roles needs to be explored

· the community practice hub services are valuable but local boards do not want to have to pitch for resources. A bottom up approach is preferred and the hub should also use resources from other areas of council and the community. It was also unclear where the expertise exists to deliver the hub services

· uncertainty over what the Auckland wide response team will deliver and concern that it will not deliver local board priorities. Local boards could be supported to work collaboratively on common issues as community development is delegated to local boards. The community brokers can collaborate to tackle the systemic issues. Regional issues should be funded by the governing body and Community and Social Policy can cover these Auckland wide issues

· the need to respond to diverse and disempowered communities

· the transition process was unclear and raised concerns over delivery in coming months.

There were also recurring themes from early discussions:

· one size does not fit all

· the model needs to focus on delivering local board priorities, which are the same as the communities’ priorities.

Māori impact statement

50. The ECA has a direct relationship with the Māori Responsiveness Framework, which sets out two key areas of activity; the first being understanding the rights and interests of Māori. The second, and closely intertwined, is acting on the needs and aspirations of Māori.

51. To be a High Performing Organisation a key component is engaging with and enabling communities, which means considering and understanding Māori needs and issues and having the capability and capacity to improve process and systems to enhance involvement. The approach described in this report sets out a shift in the way the organisation delivers services, which includes improving outcomes for Māori. The Council Māori Responsiveness Leadership Group has been established to enable better outcomes with Māori in the areas of cultural, social, economic effectiveness for Māori and treaty settlements and moving to a more empowered community way of working will help make progress in all these areas.

52. There are a number of initiatives underway which can help inform the Empowered Community Approach such the Māori Input to Decision Making project in the south of Auckland. This, and other activities being undertaken in partnership with Mana Whenau around the environment, provide strong examples of how Māori can be engaged with and participate to embed the proposed approach to communities.

53. Engagement with mataawaka and mana whenua is ongoing to enable staff to understand potential impacts.

54. A representative from the Independent Māori Statutory Board sits on the PAG.

Implementation

55. The transition timeline is for work to be done on models and roles from now until the end of June. From July to December the approach will be implemented to meet local board needs and in 2016 as the approach matures and evolves it will be extended across the council family.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Empowered Communities: Enabling Council	179
b View	Feedback from Political Advisory Group meeting 4 May 2015	181

Signatories

Authors

Helen Dodd - Local Board Strategic Advisor

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Chairperson	Brenda Steele
Deputy Chairperson	Steven Garner
Members	James Colville
	Warren Flaunty, QSM
	Thomas Grace
	Beth Houlbrooke
	John McLean
	Phelan Pirrie
	Greg Sayers

Authors	Raewyn Morrison - Local Board Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager