Agenda of Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

20 August 2015

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 Welcome 5

2 Apologies 5

3 Declaration of Interest 5

4 Confirmation of Minutes 5

5 Leave of Absence 5

6 Acknowledgements 5

7 Petitions 5

8 Deputations 5

8.1 Deputation : YMCA Raise Up 5

9 Public Forum 6

10 Extraordinary Business 6

11 Notices of Motion 6

12 Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board Performance Report for 12 months ending 30 June 2015 7

13 Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board - Locally Driven Initiative Budget Allocation - 14 July 2015 Workshop 9

14 Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board Annual Report 2014/15 - DRAFT

This report was not available at the time of printing and will be distributed under separate cover.

15 Allocation of discretionary capital budget to local boards 13

16 Landowner approval for alteration to the public walkway from Tuata Street to Maroa Reserve, One Tree Hill 21

17 Dunkirk Road Activity Centre Incorporated and Maungarei Community Christian Trust Licence’s to Occupy and Manage 31

18 61-65 Selwyn Street, Onehunga – Application for new Commercial Lease – Darryl Prout Trading as Enchanted Forest Mini Golf 35

19 Ruapotaka and Maybury Reserves Master Planning

This report was not available at the time of printing and will be distributed under separate cover.

20 Auckland Council Property Limited Local Board Six Monthly Update 1 January to 30 June 2015 41

21 Auckland Transport Monthly Update Report - August 2015 61

22 Auckland Transport Quarterly Report - August 2015 71

23 Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act (ARAFA) Funding Model Review - Local Board Input 99

24 Future Urban Land Supply Strategy 121

25 Making Good Decisions Course - Local Board Member Attendance 129

26 Record of Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board Workshops - July 2015 131

27 Board Members' Reports 137

28 Chair's Report to the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board 145

29 Governing Body Member's Update 149

30 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

1 Welcome

2 Apologies

Apologies received for Member JR Bartley.

3 Declaration of Interest

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

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 16 July 2015, including the confidential section, 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 Maungakiekie-Tāmaki 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 Deputation : YMCA Raise Up

Purpose

1. Providing an opportunity for the YMCA a not-for-profit community organisation to present to the Board regarding their Raise Up programme and youth events in the community.

Executive summary

2. As per standing orders the Chair has approved the request from the YMCA to brief the board on their programme and activities.

3. Adam Brown-Rigg, the Raise Up Youth Coordinator for Panmure and Onehunga, will present on behalf of the YMCA.

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a) thanks Adam Brown-Rigg, the Raise Up Youth Coordinator for Panmure and Onehunga, representing the YMCA for his attendance.

9 Public Forum

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

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.

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

20 August 2015

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board Performance Report for 12 months ending 30 June 2015

File No.: CP2015/14633

Purpose

1. To update the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board members on progress towards their objectives for the year from 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015 as set out in the Local Board Agreement.

Executive Summary

2. A financial performance report is presented to the local boards for the accounting quarters ending September, December, March and June. Except the September quarter was replaced by four months reporting ending in October 2014.

3. Auckland Council departments and Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs) also present regular performance reports to the local boards

4. To improve overall performance reporting the Financial Advisory Services – Local Boards team produces a combined quarterly financial report, department report and CCO report

5. The attached omnibus consolidation contains the following reports this quarter

• Local board financial performance report

• Local Community Development, Arts and Culture (CDAC) activity overview

• Local Libraries overview

• Local Infrastructure and Environmental Services (IES) overview

• Local Parks Sports and Recreation (PSR) overview

• Local Board Services Department Update (LBSD) overview

6. Treasury Report

7. Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (ATEED) report

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a) receives the Performance Report for the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board for the period ended 30 June 2015.

Comments

8. In consultation with local boards this omnibus report provides the elected members with a comprehensive and common overview of local activities from council departments and CCO’s.

9. The Performance Report includes departmental and CCO reports for inclusion and discussion. Some of these will be six monthly reports depending on their traditional reporting cycles.

Maori Impact Statement

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board Performance Report for 12 months ending June 2015 (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Authors

Sugenthy Thomson - Lead Financial Advisor

Authorisers

Christine Watson - Manager Financial Advisory Services - Local Boards

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

20 August 2015

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board - Locally Driven Initiative Budget Allocation - 14 July 2015 Workshop

File No.: CP2015/15815

Purpose

1. To seek approval from the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board on further allocations made to Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) funds during the 14^th July 2015 workshop.

Executive Summary

2. As part of the Long Term Plan (LTP) process, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board received funding of $1,287k each year for the next three financial years of the new LTP (i.e. FY16, FY17 and FY18).

3. At the time of the adoption of the LTP, the total unallocated funds remaining were $238k, $236k and $207k respectively. This amount excludes $152k per year of multi board grant (regional) which has been ring-fenced until further advice received from staff.

4. During the 14^th July Workshop, $155k was allocated to the following projects in FY16:

Local Board Plan initiatives	Note	Amount	Total
Invest in public art to enhance our civic spaces	· Public art mapping project for $5k · Temporary Public Art Project or Public Art Scoping $25k	$30k	$30k
Continue work with our community and partners to restore our highest priority and most diverse parks and reserves	Additional allocation would be managed by the parks team and worked through in further detail if any further budget is provided.	$50k	$200k
Support and promote community initiatives to reduce single use plastic bags	Increase funding for Riverside community centre to deliver x 2 programmes - Circus and Arts	$10k	$10k
Local events discretionary fund	Per workshop on events, an increase of $10k to Onehunga Festival; $3k to Glow in the Park; Safety day $5k and the Jellicoe lights $15k; removal of the movies in parks $6k. Overall increase is $15k.	$15k	$95k
Explore the WHO safer community model and other mechanisms to collaborate around community safety and well-being	Funds to be used for either of these project: · Implement safety and alcohol harm reduction plans · Neighbourhood safety capacity project	$40k	$60k
Local civic functions	Civic event for opening of Onehunga Foreshore	$5k	$25k
Volunteers - local parks	Additional allocation would be managed by the parks team and worked through in further detail if any further budget is provided.	$5k	$20k

5. The remaining unallocated funds after this allocation for the next three consecutive years are $83k, $236k and $207k respectively (project name ‘Local Community Services Response Fund’)

6. Please refer to the attachment for a list of all LDI projects approved to date.

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a) approves this report and the attached LDI worksheet.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

7. The content of this report is presented to the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki at a workshop prior to the ordinary meeting involving discussion and allocation of LDI funds.

Māori impact statement

8. This fund does not specifically target Māori groups, however Māori communities are like to benefit from the projects supported by the local board, alongside other groups in the community.

Implementation

9. Once the board has approved this allocation, the respective departments will engage with the boards through Local Board Services staff with progress report, as part of each department work programme.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Maungakiekie-Tāmaki LDI Worksheet after 14 July 2015 Workshop	11

Signatories

Authors

Sugenthy Thomson - Lead Financial Advisor

Authorisers

Christine Watson - Manager Financial Advisory Services - Local Boards

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

20 August 2015

Allocation of discretionary capital budget to local boards

File No.: CP2015/13924

Purpose

1. This report seeks direction from Local Boards on the proposed discretionary fund for local board capital expenditure (Capex fund) regarding the:

· model for allocating the fund

· criteria for the fund.

Executive Summary

2. The Governing Body has created a discretionary fund for capital expenditure for local boards. Local boards are to work with staff to develop a formula for allocation and criteria for qualifying projects.

3. The Capex fund enables local boards to deliver small local asset based projects, either directly, in partnership with the community, or through joint agreements between boards.

4. The Capex fund will be managed over three years. Local boards can use their entire three year allocation for one project or spread it over the three years for smaller projects.

5. Local boards provided views on how funding should be allocated during the review of the Local Boards Funding Policy (LBFP) in 2014. The resulting funding formula for Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI) allocates 90 per cent based on population, 5 per cent on deprivation and 5 per cent on land area. The same allocation formula can be used for the Capex fund to maintain consistency in the policy. Staff note however that the link between costs and land area is weak and leads to major shifts in the allocation of funding.

6. A formula based approach provides limited funding for the Great Barrier Island and Waiheke boards. Local boards should consider what level of funding over three years is appropriate for these boards. Staff recommend setting funding at one per cent of the fund for Great Barrier and two per cent for Waiheke.

7. Using the Capex fund is preferable to LDI funding as the Governing Body funds the consequential opex. Boards should consider whether they need to continue to use LDI funding for minor (less than $1 million) capital projects. Boards should also consider whether they need to be able to bring forward regionally funded projects using the Capex fund.

8. The proposal to allocate a Capex fund to local boards will require an amendment to the LBFP. This will amend the Long-term Plan and requires the use of the special consultative procedure.

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a) provide feedback on the allocation of Capital expenditure (Capex) funding to local boards.

Comments

Background

9. The Governing Body has created a discretionary fund for capital expenditure for local boards. On May 7 the Budget Committee passed the following resolution:

a) Provide a new Local Board discretionary capex fund of $10 million per annum noting that this will incorporate the existing Facilities Partnership Fund.

b) Approve the following parameters for this fund:

i. The fund may be managed as a three year amount.

ii. Local Boards may use the fund to build council owned assets, add to an existing council funded renewal or new capital project, work in partnership with an external provider or seed fund a community project.

10. The Budget Committee requested that staff and local boards develop a formula for allocation and criteria for qualifying projects to report to the Finance and Performance Committee.

Purpose of the Capex fund

11. The purpose of the fund is to ensure locally important projects are given appropriate priority. It is envisaged that the fund will be used for projects similar to those historically funded by the local improvement projects (LIP’s) or small local improvement projects (SLIP’s).

Funding Allocation Model

Principles for funding allocations

12. The core principles for allocating funding to local boards are an:

· equitable capacity for each local board to enhance well-being

· administrative effectiveness

· transparency.

Attributes for funding allocation

13. The Local boards funding policy (LBFP) makes allocations on the following basis:

· 90 per cent based on local board population size

· 5 per cent based on the relative level of deprivation of the board

· 5 per cent based on the land area of the board

· Waiheke and Great Barrier Island are funded for a fixed amount set by the Governing Body.

14. The following table shows the level of local board support for the use of the above factors for allocating LDI recorded during the review of the LBFP.

Local Board Attribute	Local Boards that supported use during last review of LBFP	Relationship to need for funding	Staff Comments
Population	21	Strong	Strongly relates to demand for services
Deprivation	17	Weak	Little objective evidence for relationship to demand for services
Geography	16	Weak	High distortion effect on allocation that does not relate to need for services

15. A key decision for the allocation of the Capex fund will be to determine the appropriate level of capital funding for Great Barrier Island and Waiheke. The discussion document considers the two current allocation models used to fund these boards:

· LDI allocation: Great Barrier Island and Waiheke receive the same proportion of the Capex fund as they currently receive of the total funding pool for Locally Driven Initiatives. (This is 2.3% of the total pool for Great Barrier Island and 2.7% for Waiheke)

· Transport Model: Great Barrier Island receives 1 per cent and Waiheke 2 per cent of the total funding pool.

16. Five models have been considered for allocating the Capex fund between all boards based on the population, deprivation and land area attributes of the boards:

· Model A: All boards funded based on 100% population

· Model B: All boards funded based on 95% population and 5% deprivation

· Model C: All boards funded based on 90% population, 5% deprivation and 5% land area

· Model D: Great Barriers receives 2.3% and Waiheke receives 2.7% of total funds, remaining funds allocated to all other boards based on 90% population, 5% deprivation and 5% land area

· Model E: Great Barriers receives 1% and Waiheke receives 2% of total funds, remaining funds allocated to all other boards based on 90% population, 5% deprivation and 5% land area.

17. The following pages present these five models in table and chart form.

18. Other potential funding attributes that have not been included in the modelling are:

· rates paid: there is no relationship with need for services, and support was low for this attribute during the last review, with six boards in favour.

· current levels of capital expenditure: data on regional activities is unavailable at local level. Levels of expenditure on local assets are not relevant to the purpose of the Capex fund. Gaps in the provision of assets will be met through the relevant network facilities plan.

· population growth: growth will be addressed every three years through the proposed allocation formula.

19. The charts show the following:

· Using land area as an allocation factor significantly increases funding to Rodney and Franklin local boards.

· Great Barrier Island receives less than $7,000 under a population based allocation. This rises to $77,000 under the allocation formula that includes deprivation and land area.

· Providing Great Barrier Island and Waiheke with fixed allocations under the LDI allocation and Transport models only has a small impact on the other 19 boards.

20. In determining the appropriate funding levels for Great Barrier Island and Waiheke consideration should be given both to the total value of the funding over three years, and the typical costs of activities likely to undertaken by these boards. The following table shows the level of funding these boards would receive over three years in comparison to the next smallest board, Papakura:

Allocation formula model	Three year capex funding allocation for
Allocation formula model	Great Barrier	Waiheke	Papakura
Board Population size	900	8,400	45,000
A: 100% population	$20,000	$180,000	$970,000
B: 95% population + 5% deprivation	$130,000	$260,000	$1,000,000
C: 90% population + 5% deprivation + 5% land area	$230,000	$290,000	$970,000
D: GBI: 2.3% Waiheke 2.7% (Current LDI allocation)	$690,000	$820,000	$940,000
E: GBI: 1% Waiheke 2% of total fund	$300,000	$600,000	$960,000

21. The average cost for SLIPs projects in the last financial year was $31,000 for Great Barrier Island and $27,000 for Waiheke. Under Model E Waiheke would receive two per cent of the fund, and be able to deliver 20 average cost projects over three years. Great Barrier would receive one per cent of the fund and be able to deliver 10 average cost projects over the same period. They can of course accumulate funds over the three year period to undertake larger projects.

22. Staff consider there is a strong case for using the same formula for LDI and the capex fund to maintain consistency in the allocation. However, there is also a case for excluding land area given its impact on the distribution of funding.

23. Staff consider that allocating Great Barrier and Waiheke the same proportion of funding as they receive from the LDI opex fund would over fund these boards compared to other board areas. Staff recommend an allocation of one per cent of the total fund to Great Barrier, and two per cent to Waiheke would be appropriate.

Decision making process for capex projects

24. The chart on the following page provides an overview of decision making pathways for each type of project.

25. Staff will work with boards to develop guidelines for facilities partnerships (including feasibility studies) and community-led projects.

Bringing future capex allocation forward

26. The governing body has proposed that the fund be managed over a three year period, aligned with the Long-term Plan planning cycle. Local boards can use their entire three year allocation for one project or spread it over the three years for smaller projects. This provides boards with greater choice in the size and timing of projects they undertake.

27. As a practical consideration, it is unlikely that all 21 local boards would be in a position to bring forward their three years of funding to 2015/16. However, in the event that this was to happen, the projects would need to be assessed against the modified “gateway” process to ensure they were able to be delivered.

28. Budget for the Capex funding is included in the ten year plan. Local boards’ can only bring three years budgets forward however so future decision making is unencumbered.

Role of LDI funding

29. The table below sets out how the Capex Fund and LDI Opex Fund could be used for different types of projects.

Funding Type	Project Type	Capex Fund		LDI Opex fund
Capex	Minor Asset based projects (less than $1M)	ü	GB funds consequential opex	?	LBs fund consequential opex (feedback sought)
	Top-up of regional projects and renewals	ü	GB funds consequential opex	?	LBs fund consequential opex (feedback sought)
	Major Asset based projects (greater than $1M)	ü	GB approval required. GB funds consequential opex.	û	Must use Capex fund for large projects
Opex	Capital grants to community groups	ü	Debt funded opex. Must be included in annual plan	ü	Standard opex expenditure
Opex	Feasibility Studies	ü	Debt funded opex. Must be included in annual plan	ü	Standard opex expenditure

30. Local boards are currently able to fund capital projects using their LDI budget by funding the consequential opex. The capex fund largely does away with the need for this and the Mayor’s report proposed the removal of the ability to fund major new facilities with opex funded by their LDI. This raises the question of whether local boards still need the ability to use LDI to fund minor capital projects. The table sets out the key differences between the Capex fund and the LDI opex fund for capital projects.

Capex fund	LDI opex fund
GB funds consequential opex	LB funds consequential opex
Easier for GB to control and plan for debt (set amount available for three years)	Creates variable unknown capex requirements on an annual basis
Simplified reporting processes	Complex financial reporting required to track LB funding vs regional funding

31. Staff recommend that local boards’ do not fund minor (less than $1 million) capital projects with LDI opex from 1 July 2016. This will not impact projects that boards have already committed to funding.

32. Local boards should provide feedback on whether they see a need to use:

· LDI to fund minor capital projects

· Capex funding to bring regionally funded projects forward.

Transferring LDI to Capex

33. Local boards may transfer their currently approved capex projects paid for by LDI (as outlined in their LB Agreement 2015/16), to the new discretionary fund. This will free up their LDI opex again and remove the need to fund consequential opex.

Deferral of Capex

34. Normal deferral conditions apply to the Capex fund. Projects cannot be planned outside of the three years but funds may be deferred if projects are unable to be completed within this period.

Transition for current Capex allocations

35. There will be no transition mechanism for any existing Capex budgets held by some local boards. The Governing Body has decided that this fund will replace the current Facilities Partnership fund.

36. Projects that have already been committed to through the Facilities Partnership fund will need to be funded from the relevant boards’ Capex fund allocation.

Local Boards Funding Policy

37. The current Local Boards Funding Policy must be amended to provide for the allocation of capex funding. This is an amendment to the Long-term Plan requiring use of the Special Consultative Procedure with a public consultation period of one month.

38. Staff propose to amend the LBFP to provide a general formula for allocating any non LDI funding. This will avoid the need to amend the LBFP every time the Governing Body decides to give local boards funding that is not for Locally Driven Initiatives.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

39. The proposal does not impact the allocation of decision making.

Significance and Engagement

40. The proposed Capex fund is a minor change in the scale of the Council’s budget and funding for Local Activities. As such it is not a significant change. However, creating a new funding allocation for local boards requires an amendment to the Local Board Funding Policy, and consequently the Long-term Plan.

41. The Council is required to undertake a special consultative process for any amendment to the Long-term Plan.

Implementation

42. The proposed amendment to the Local Board Funding Policy is not significant. As such, the amendment to the Long-term Plan will not need to be audited.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Beth Sullivan - Principal Advisor Policy

Authorisers

Matthew Walker - General Manager Financial Plan Policy and Budgeting

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

20 August 2015

Landowner approval for alteration to the public walkway from Tuata Street to Maroa Reserve, One Tree Hill

File No.: CP2015/16079

Purpose

1. To seek the view of the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board on a landowner approval request from Housing New Zealand for alterations to the public walkway from Tuata Street to Maroa Reserve and for easements to enable two vehicle crossings across the walkway.

Executive Summary

2. Housing New Zealand Corporation (HNZ) is proposing to lodge a resource consent as a qualifying development within the Special Housing Area at 1-7 Tuata Street and 13 Maroa Road, One Tree Hill. As part of the design, it is proposed to develop a 3m wide driveway adjacent to the existing 1.8 metre wide council owned pedestrian accessway leading from Tuata Street to Maroa Reserve.

3. The proposal would require the removal of the pedestrian accessway boundary fences and the walkway to be redeveloped. HNZ is also seeking permission for two vehicle crossings over the walkway which will require easements. The proposal is shown in the plans in Attachment A with an alternative plan shown in Attachment B.

4. The proposal outlined in Attachment A is supported as it will improve safety and passive surveillance of the pathway between Tuata Street and Maroa Reserve as part of comprehensive redevelopment of this neighbourhood.

Recommendations

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a) support the granting of landowner approval for the works associated with the alteration of the council pedestrian accessway from Tuata Street to the Maroa Road Reserve, as part of the housing development as shown on Attachment A, Plan titled “Tuata Maroa Development Proposed Plan Option B” prepared by Waterfall Gunns Lowe Architects Ltd, sheet 10 revision 8B, dated 04/06/2015

b) support the granting of easements to enable two vehicle crossings across the council pedestrian accessway from Tuata Street to the Maroa Road Reserve.

c) support landowner approval being subject to the following conditions:

i) That the applicant raises the walkway, installs a curb to separate the walkway from the vehicle accessway and provides a surface treatment that makes it clear it is a link to the park.

ii) That the applicant installs signage at both ends of the walkway, in agreement with the Council’s Parks, Sport and Recreation Department.

iii) That the applicant incorporates traffic calming measures within the vehicle accessway to restrict the speed of vehicles utilising this space.

iv) That the applicant installs a gate at the park entrance, to the satisfaction of the Councils Parks, Sport and Recreation Department, to ensure dogs from the off leash area do not stray into the walkway.

v) That the general construction and mitigation conditions are provided by the Local and Sports Manager – Central.

vi) That pursuant to s44 of the HASHAA and 221 of the RMA, the following consent notice be registered against the Certificate(s) of Title of lots/ dwellings facing the walkway: That Any fencing on the boundary immediately adjacent to the walkway shall be maintained to have a maximum height of no more than 1.2m. Landscape planting may be implemented on either side of the fence and must be maintained to ensure 50 percent permeability.

vii) That prior to the occupation of the new dwellings or the issuing of the 224c Certificate pursuant to s46 of the HASHAA, whichever is the earlier, the consent holder shall confirm the required traffic control devices (parking control marking along the walkway to restrict parking), unless otherwise agreed with the SHA Consenting Manager.

Comments

5. HNZ is proposing to lodge a resource consent for a subdivision within the Special Housing Area at 1-7 Tuata Street and 13 Maroa Road, One Tree Hill. As part of their proposal they wish to alter the existing council owned pedestrian accessway between Tuata Street and Maroa Reserve. The existing accessway is 1.8m wide sealed path bordered by fences on both sides and is 45.71m long.

6. The scheme plan proposed by HNZ seeks to improve this connection and provide for increased safety when moving between Tuata Street and the Maroa Reserve. As the enclosed scheme plan and sketches illustrate, by incorporating the pedestrian access into the development, visibility and subsequent pedestrian safety will be greatly improved. The park access point in Tuata Street will be wider and potential entrapment spots will be removed. The access lane will become an integral part of the neighbourhood’s movement network, with houses fronting onto and overlooking it. This will provide passive surveillance and activity during the day and night. Any landscaping within the development will further support this and comprise low landscaping and/or permeable fences to allow good visibility for vehicle’s crossing the walkway.

7. The main disadvantages of the proposal are that it will alter an existing pedestrian only pathway and introduce vehicles which will need to cross the path to access driveways within the proposed development. The accessway may risk feeling privatised and part of the development rather than a public accessway. However if approved it is proposed that signage be erected and that there is different heights and surface treatments between the walkway and driveway to clearly demarcate the two for the public.

8. If approved, security lighting will be installed on the exterior walls of dwellings within the development to further improve safety. HNZ will also incorporate traffic calming measures within the private way to restrict the speed of vehicles utilising this space.

9. HNZ have provided an alternative plan shown as 8A (Attachment B) with a shorter driveway. However, this will have three cars crossing the walkway and is not supported by urban design and traffic specialists. The other option would be to keep the narrow walkway as it is currently and locate the driveway to another part of the site, this would mean new lots would back onto the narrow pathway and would not allow opening up of the path and improved safety and passive surveillance for the public.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

10. The proposal has been discussed with the Parks Portfolio Holder who has referred it to the full local board for their view due to the significance of the request.

11. No funding form the local board is required. All costs associated with the alteration to the walkway (including reformation, signage and the gate) and the easement (including survey, documentation and legal fees) will be covered by HNZ

Māori impact statement

12. Views of mana whenua have not been sought as public access to the park will be retained in the same location and the proposal is not anticipated to have any impact on iwi. It is not listed as a site of significance to Maori.

Implementation

13. The proposal is under the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act (HAASHA) and there is no ability to publically notify the application. Whether the application will be limited notified will be at the discretion of the Housing Project Office (HPO) and will only be assessed when the application has been formally lodged.

14. If the proposed works are approved, a resource consent application will be submitted. Whether the application will be limited notified will be at the discretion of HPO and will only be assessed when the application has been formally lodged.

15. The applicants want to lodge resource consent at the end of August 2015 and begin works in November 2015.

16. Applications for easements within reserves are treated differently from other requests for landowner approvals and are considered to be a divestment. Decisions on minor requests for easements such as this application are delegated to the Local and Sports Parks Manager. The views of the Local Board as landowner of the reserve will be considered and reported to the Manager in order to make an informed decision.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	“Tuata Maroa Development Perspective Sketch Reserve Access”, sheet 14, revision 8B, and “Tuata Maroa Development Perspective Sketch Access Crossings”, sheet 15, revision 8B, all prepared by Waterfall Gunns Lowe Architects Ltd dated 19/06/2015	25
b View	Plan titled “Tuata Maroa Development Proposed Plan Option D” prepared by Waterfall Gunns Lowe	27
c View	Plan titled “Tuata Maroa Development Proposed Plan Option B” prepared by Waterfall Gunns Lowe Architects Ltd, sheet 10 revision 8B, dated 04/06/2015	29

Signatories

Authors

Simon Roche - Parks and Open Space Specialist

Authorisers

Mark Bowater - Manager Local and Sports Parks

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

20 August 2015

Dunkirk Road Activity Centre Incorporated and Maungarei Community Christian Trust Licence’s to Occupy and Manage

File No.: CP2015/15670

Purpose

1. This report seeks Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board approval to grant a Licence to Occupy and Manage to the Maungarei Community Christian Trust (MCCT) for the Riverside Community Centre, 20-22 Peace Avenue, Mt Wellington and to Dunkirk Road Activity Centre Incorporated (Dunkirk Activity Centre) for the Dunkirk Road Activity Centre, Mt Wellington War Memorial Reserve, 14-50 Dunkirk Road, Panmure.

Executive Summary

2. As a result of amalgamation, community centres and houses that were operated by community committees had their legacy agreements extended, most for several years. As an initial step, council staff developed a more appropriate funding agreement, with an attached licence to occupy and manage that provided more coherency and consistency as well as aligning to delivering on local board outcomes. Currently these agreements and licences are granted on an annual basis.

3. For the past three years both MCCT and Dunkirk Activity Centre have been in partnership with council through a funding agreement arrangement. The agreement requires the provision of programmes and activities with a focus on local board outcomes, to be provided from the community centres to the community.

4. The report is requesting local board approval for the granting of a new Licence to Occupy and Manage (LTOM) to MCCT for the Riverside Community Centre and to Dunkirk Activity Centre Incorporated for the Dunkirk Road Activity Centre. The LTOM is schedule three of the Funding Agreement documentation.

5. The 2015/2016 centre work programmes (schedule one of the funding agreement) has been approved by the local board (MT/2015/103).The complete funding agreement document is attached (Attachment A) for the boards information.

6. In the future the local board could consider offering a range of options for the term of the agreement and/or licence and this would be dependent on a number of factors. For example, new organisations or those still developing their governance structure should remain on a one year term. More experienced organisations could transition to a two or three-year term and major organisations with proven performance, especially those requiring long-term tenure for external funding, could be granted five or more years. Staff will commence discussions with local board portfolio holders within the next few months.

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a) approves the granting of the Licence’s to Occupy and Manage to the Maungarei Community Christian Trust for the Riverside Community Centre, 20-22 Peace Avenue, Mt Wellington and to the Dunkirk Road Activity Centre Incorporated for the Dunkirk Road Activity Centre, subject to the following terms and conditions:

i) Term –1 year commencing on 1 July 2015;

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

Comments

7. This report is seeking approval to grant a LTOM to Maungarei Community Christian Trust for the Riverside Community Centre at 20-22 Peace Avenue, Mt Wellington, Lot 172 DP 45220, Lot 173 DP 45220 for a term of 1 year commencing on 1 July 2015 at a rental of $1.00 plus GST, and to Dunkirk Road Activity Centre Incorporated for the Dunkirk Road Activity Centre at 14-50 Dunkirk Road, (Mt Wellington War Memorial Reserve) Lot DP 39428, for a term of 1 year commencing on 1 July 2015 at a rental of $1.00 plus GST. The licence outlines Auckland Council, MCCT and Dunkirk building maintenance responsibilities.

8. The MCCT has occupied the council owned site on Peace Avenue since 2007. It currently operates the Riverside Community Centre from this location. The centre has approximately 11,000 visitors through its doors per annum, and delivers wide reaching activities to its local community. There is one manager who works 40 hours per week and one staff assisting with the operation and management of the premises. MCCT is made up of a chairperson, deputy chair, executive secretary, treasurer and four committee members.

9. The Dunkirk Activity Centre has occupied the council owned site on Dunkirk Road since 1978. It currently operates the Dunkirk Road Activity Centre from this location (Mt Wellington War Memorial Hall, 50 Dunkirk Road, Panmure). The Dunkirk Activity Centre has approximately 32,000 visitors through its doors per annum, and has activities that cater to a wide range of ages. There is one manager who works 20 hours per week and one part time administrator for four hours per week. There is also holiday programme staff, key holder staff and volunteers assisting with the operation and management of the premises. The Dunkirk Activity Centre is made up of a chairperson, deputy chair, executive secretary, treasurer and four committee members

10. Both MCCT and Dunkirk Activity Centre deliver community programmes and activities to meet local needs and local board outcomes. Their 2015/2016 work programme is outlined in schedule one of their funding agreement. Schedule two of the funding agreement outlines the reporting requirements. The LTOM is schedule three of this agreement. The 2015/2016 centre work programmes have been approved by the local board (MT/2015/103).The complete funding document is attached (Attachment A) for the local boards information.

11. The financial accounts provided by the MCCT and Dunkirk Activity Centre both indicate that the funds held are sufficient to meet their liabilities and are being managed appropriately. All necessary insurance cover, including public liability insurance, is in place.

12. In the future the local board could consider offering a range of options for the term of the agreement and/or licence and this would be dependent on a number of factors. For example, new organisations or those still developing their governance structure should remain on a one year term. More experienced organisations could transition to a two or three-year term and major organisations with proven performance, especially those requiring long-term tenure for external funding, could be granted five or more years.

13. Multi-year agreements would not change any of the other conditions in the existing funding agreements or licenses. Adjustments for inflation could be included in each agreement and licence that has a term of two or more years. Staff will commence discussions with local board portfolio holders within the next few months.

14. Council staff have sought input from relevant council departments

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

15. The 2015/2016 work programmes have been approved by the local board.

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

Māori impact statement

17. Both MCCT and Dunkirk Activity Centre Incorporated endeavor to improve the well-being among Maori within the work programmes they deliver. Council staff continue to work with the centres to ensure support and development of programmes and activities that directly improve well-being and outcomes for Maori.

Implementation

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Dunkirk Funding agreement 2015-2016 (Under Separate Cover)
b View	Riverside Maungarei CCT FA 2015-2016 (Under Separate Cover)

Signatories

Authors	Taylor Norman - Community Safety Advisor
Authorisers	Graham Bodman - Manager - Community Development, Arts and Culture

Chairperson	Simon Randall
Deputy Chairperson	Chris Makoare
Members	Josephine Bartley
	Brett Clark
	Bridget Graham, QSM
	Obed Unasa
	Alan Verrall