Agenda of Waitākere Ranges Local Board

1 Welcome

2 Apologies

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

3 Declaration of Interest

Members were 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.

Specifically members are asked to identify any new interests they have not previously disclosed, an interest that might be considered as a conflict of interest with a matter on the agenda.

At its meeting on 28 November 2013, the Waitakere Ranges Local Board resolved (resolution number WTK/2010/5) to record any possible conflicts of interest in a register.

Board Member	Organisation / Position
Sandra Coney	· Waitemata District Health Board – Elected Member · Women’s Health Action Trust – Patron
Neil Henderson	· Portage Trust – Elected Member · West Auckland Trust Services (WATS) Board – Trustee/Director · Weedfree Trust – Employee
Greg Presland	· Portage Trust – Elected Member · Lopdell House Development Trust – Trustee · Titirangi Residents & Ratepayers Group – Committee Member · Whau Coastal Walkway Environmental Trust – Trustee · Combined Youth Services Trust - Trustee
Steve Tollestrup	· Waitakere Licensing Trust – Elected Member · West Auckland Trust Services (WATS) Board – Trustee/Director · Waitakere Task force on Family Violence – Appointee
Saffron Toms	NIL
Denise Yates	· Friends of Arataki Incorporated – Committee member · Ecomatters Environment Trust – Trustee · Keep Waitakere Beautiful Trust – Trustee · Huia-Cornwallis Ratepayers & Residents Association – Co-chairperson · Charlotte Museum Trust – Trustee

Member appointments

Board members are appointed to the following bodies. In these appointments the board members represent Auckland Council.

Board Member	Organisation / Position
Sandra Coney	· Friends of Arataki Incorporated – Trustee
Neil Henderson	· Friends of Arataki Incorporated – Trustee · Living Cell Technologies Animal Ethics Committee – Member
Saffron Toms	· Ark in the Park – Governance Group Member

There was no changes to the register.

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) Confirms the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 9 July 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 Update from Ward Councillors

An opportunity is provided for the Waitakere Ward Councillors to update the board on regional issues they have been involved with since the last meeting.

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 Waitākere Ranges 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 Peace Bell at Waitakere Central

Purpose

Ann Poulsen has asked for an opportunity to speak to the board regarding:

1. A design for a new canopy for the Peace Bell.

2. To present a design developed as part of a submission to NZIA for 2016 Venice Architecture Biennale and briefly explain the larger project, A Peace Trail for Tamaki Makaurau.

3. The Board is being asked to support this project by assisting with obtaining permission to replace existing canopy with new design and fundraising.

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) Receives the deputation from Ann Poulsen and thank her 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 members.

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

10 Extraordinary Business

Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-

(a) The local authority by resolution so decides; and

(b) The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-

(i) The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and

(ii) The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-

(a) That item may be discussed at that meeting if-

(i) That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

(ii) the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

(b) no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”

11 Notices of Motion

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

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

13 August 2015

Local & Sports Park Proposed 2015/2016 Financial Year Capital Works Programme

File No.: CP2015/13313

Purpose

1. To seek approval from the Waitākere Ranges Local Board for the delivery of a capital works programme proposed by Local & Sports Parks West (LSPW) for the 2015/2016 financial year.

Executive Summary

2. The Local Boards Parks capital works budget for 2015/2016 financial year is $2,641,045. An additional $267,968 is provided in regional funding as part of the Growth Programme. The programme has been developed from information received through asset condition auditing, requests from the Local Board and from residents through the Councils service request system.

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) Approves the Local & Sports Parks West 2015/2016 Financial Year Capital Works Programme.

b) Delegates the authority to the Parks Portfolio Holder and the Board Chair to make changes to the programme to the value of $50,000.

Comments

3. LSPW manages a range of assets on local parks and sports parks. The programme includes the renewal of existing assets and development of new assets. These include sport fields, car parks, playgrounds, amenity lighting, park furniture and signage, changing room and toilet facilities, walkways and footbridges, stormwater and drainage requirements. Provision is made for the programme in the Long Term Plan.

4. The Waitākere Ranges Local Board Local and Sports Park capital budget for 2015/2016 financial year is:

· $2,207,805 for the asset renewal programme;

· $433,240 of deferred development capex funding; and

· $267,968 is provided from the Regional Growth Fund which includes provision for Sports Field Capacity Development, Greenways, Generic Park Development and Play Programmes.

5. LSPW is seeking Local Board approval of their proposed capital work programme for the 2016/2017 financial year. Full programme details in available in Attachment A.

The key asset renewal projects are:

· Huia Domain - seawall renewal;

· French Bay Esplanade - toilet block renewal

· Armour Bay Reserve – toilet block renewal;

· Withers Reserve – playground renewal; and

· Duck Park – sports field flood light renewal;

6. Capital development budget of $433,240 is provided for the walkway development in Waitākere Ranges Local Board area and has been appointed to the Little Muddy Creek walkway development, upgrading the track in Siebel Reserve and track development on Perris Road paper road.

7. $267,968 is provided in the Regional Growth Fund for the 2015/2016 financial year for the following projects:

· Parrs Park new flood lighting for no 2 sports field (design, consents, construction) - $204,000; and

· Swanson Station Reserve install new skate area for young children (construction phase) - $63,968.

8. The costs shown on the attached programme are estimates only and the actual cost will not be known until the project work is taken through the procurement process. Adjustments to the programme may be required when the actual costs are identified. Changes of over $50,000 will be reported to the Local Board for their approval.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

9. A workshop was held with the Local Board on 21 May 2015 and there was support for the proposed programme.

Māori impact statement

10. The work programme ensures the assets are well maintained and development programmes provide benefits to local communities, including Maori.

11. Engagement with seven local iwi is undertaken for all projects where iwi interest is identified.

Implementation

12. No implementation issues have been identified at this time.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	WR LB FY16 Capex Programme	9

Signatories

Authors

Helen Biffin - Team Leader Parks Liaison and Development

Authorisers

Mark Bowater - Manager Local and Sports Parks

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

13 August 2015

Item No	Park Name	Local Board Area	Work Programme	Comment	Project Phase	Funding Source	2015/2016 FY	2016/2017 FY
1	Waitakere Ranges Foothills	Waitakere Ranges	Growth	Little Muddy Creek Walkway, Perris Rd & Seibel Reserve walkways	Construction	Development	433,240
2	Parrs Park	Waitakere Ranges	Sport	Install lighting on no 2 sports field	Construction	Growth programme	204,000
3	Swanson Station Park	Waitakere Ranges	Play	Extension of existing skate park with new skate elements to cater for younger users	Construction	Growth programme	63,968
4	Huia Domain	Waitakere Ranges	Structure	Seawall renewal	Construction	Renewal	753,736
5	Duck park	Waitakere Ranges	Sport	Sports field flood lighting renewal	Construction	Renewal	148,936
6	French Bay Esplanade	Waitakere Ranges	Building	Refurbish toilet block	Construction	Renewal	130,754
7	Armour Bay Reserve	Waitakere Ranges	Building	Refurbish toilet block	Construction	Renewal	99,000
8	Swanson Oaks	Waitakere Ranges	structure	Renew pergola	Construction	Renewal	85,404
9	Withers Reserve	Waitakere Ranges	Play	Playground renewal	Construction	Renewal	80,741
10	Parrs Park	Waitakere Ranges	Building	Renew toilet block	Planning	Renewal	65,000	470,000
11	Parrs Park	Waitakere Ranges	Car Park	Renew car park	Construction	Renewal	58,254
12	Opanuku Marginal Strip Reserve	Waitakere Ranges	structure	Renew pedestrian bridge	Construction	Renewal	50,000
13	North Piha Strand	Waitakere Ranges	lighting	Renew ground lights	Construction	Renewal	49,035
14	Swanson Station Park	Waitakere Ranges	lighting	Renew amenity lighting	Construction	Renewal	44,269
15	Parrs Park	Waitakere Ranges	Sport	Renewal of no 2 sports field	Construction	Renewal	42,402
16	Prospect Park	Waitakere Ranges	lighting	Renew amenity lighting	Construction	Renewal	36,367
17	Titirangi War Memorial	Waitakere Ranges	lighting	Renew amenity lighting	Construction	Renewal	35,000
18	Armour Bay Reserve	Waitakere Ranges	Track/footpath	Renew track	Construction	Renewal	30,000
19	Titirangi War Memorial	Waitakere Ranges	Track/footpath	Renew track	Construction	Renewal	29,661
20	Takaranga Reserve	Waitakere Ranges	Play	Playground renewal	Construction	Renewal	28,000
21	Kawaka Reserve	Waitakere Ranges	Track/footpath	Renew track	Construction	Renewal	28,000
22	Davies Bay Reserve	Waitakere Ranges	Track/footpath	Renew track	Construction	Renewal	26,000
23	Parrs Park	Waitakere Ranges	Play	Renew furniture	Construction	Renewal	25,840
24	Various	Waitakere Ranges	Sign	Renewal of park identification signs, water safety signage, dog bylaw signage	Construction	Renewal	101,999
25	Various	Waitakere Ranges	Furniture	Renewal of minor assets - bollards, drinking fountains, gates, park furniture	Construction	Renewal	103,977
26	Kamara Walk	Waitakere Ranges	Lighting	Renew amenity lighting	Construction	Renewal	22,000
27	Kamara Walk	Waitakere Ranges	Track/footpath	Renew footpath	Construction	Renewal	20,000
28	Swanson Oaks	Waitakere Ranges	Lighting	Renew lighting	Construction	Renewal	20,000
29	Taumatarea Esplanade	Waitakere Ranges	Track/footpath	Renew track	Construction	Renewal	15,000
30	Kitewaho Reserve	Waitakere Ranges	Track/footpath	Track renewal	Construction	Renewal	14,866
31	Ceramco Park	Waitakere Ranges	Building	Renew components of toilet block	Construction	Renewal	12,000
32	Westview Reserve	Waitakere Ranges	lighting	Renew amenity lighting	Construction	Renewal	10,000
33	Parrs Park	Waitakere Ranges	Play	Court hoop renewal	Construction	Renewal	7,000
34	Taumatarea Esplanade	Waitakere Ranges	Track/footpath	Track renewal	Construction	Renewal	7,000
35	Glen Eden Picnic Ground	Waitakere Ranges	Lighting	Renew amenity lighting	Planning	Renewal	5,233	25,000
36	Huia Domain	Waitakere Ranges	Play	Court hoop renewal	Construction	Renewal	4,000
37	Swanson Station Park	Waitakere Ranges	Play	Court hoop renewal	Construction	Renewal	3,831
38	Waima Reserve	Waitakere Ranges	Play	Court hoop renewal	Construction	Renewal	3,800
39	Prospect Park	Waitakere Ranges	Play	Court hoop renewal	Construction	Renewal	3,700
40	Sandys Parade	Waitakere Ranges	Lighting	Renew amenity lighting	Construction	Renewal	3,500
41	Sunvue Park	Waitakere Ranges	Play	Court hoop renewal	Construction	Renewal	3,500
						Total	2,909,013

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

13 August 2015

Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Implementation Programme - Report on 2014/15 Programme

File No.: CP2015/14186

Purpose

1. To provide an end of year report on Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Implementation Programme funded by the Local Board in the 2014/15 financial year.

Executive Summary

2. The Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area (WRHA) Implementation Programme implements the objectives of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008. A total budget of $225,173 was available for allocation in the 2014/15 financial year. Of this, $212,215 (94% of the budget) was spent.

3. This report summarises the activities undertaken and outcomes for each of the projects, together with budget and actual expenditure. Where appropriate, potential follow-up and next steps for consideration have been identified. These will be incorporated into a separate agenda item relating to the allocation of the budget for the 2015/16 financial year, which will be considered by the local board.

4. Each of the 2014/15 projects have, for the most part, been successfully implemented. The exception to these was the Annual Local Board and Community Forum, which was postponed. Implementation of the following projects will continue and are intended to be finalised in the 2015/16 financial year:

· Local Area Plan for Te Henga (Bethells Beach) and the Waitākere River Valley

· “Building in the Bush” - Information and Advice

· Heritage Site Mapping - Stage 1 Field Work.

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) Notes the outcome and outputs from the 2014/15 Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Implementation Programme.

Comments

5. The Waitākere Ranges Local Board (the Board) allocated $225,173 to support the delivery of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Implementation Programme (the Programme) in the financial year 2014/15. At the meeting held on 28 August 2014, the Board approved an allocation of $186,673 to 11 projects. Additional funding of the remaining $38,500 for another project was approved on 26 February 2015. In total, $212,215 (94 % of the allocated amount) has been expended on the various projects in the financial year 2014/15.

6. The Programme included projects to implement the existing Local Area Plans (LAPs), projects identified through the preparation of the 2013 Five Year Monitoring Report and continued funding of the Sustainable Neighbourhoods Programme.

7. The projects that were allocated funding were:

· Local Area Plan for Te Henga (Bethells Beach) and the Waitākere River Valley - $20,173

· Webpage Development - $2,000

· “Building in the Bush” - Information and Advice - $15,000

· Annual Local Board and Community Forum - $5,000

· Heritage Area Conservation Network Forum - $4,000

· Sustainable Neighbourhoods Programme - $90,000

· Strategic Weed Projects - $25,000

· Long Tailed Bat Research/Protection/Recovery - $5,000

· Heritage Site Mapping - Phase 1 - $12,500

· Heritage Site Mapping - Stage 1 Field Work - $38,500

· Local Business Stocktake - $5,000

· Small Business Facilitation - $3,000

8. The objectives of each project, activities undertaken, outcomes and potential next steps (where relevant) are summarised as follows.

Local Area Plan for Te Henga (Bethells Beach) and the Waitākere River Valley

9. At its meeting on 13 March 2014, the Board approved the preparation of a LAP for Te Henga (Bethells Beach) and the Waitākere River Valley. A substantial part of the LAP preparation was conducted in the financial year 2014/15. Feedback was received at each stage of the plan development from the community and iwi.

10. The engagement process involved ten workshops and three open days. Photographs for the LAP were obtained through a competition inviting local residents to contribute their images for the LAP. Communication with the community occurred through LAP newsletters, email, community website, posters and updates on community Facebook pages.

11. Internal meetings and workshops with relevant Auckland Council and Auckland Transport units were held. Staff from those units provided updates on emerging strategies and programmes and gave feedback on the content of the LAP.

12. A hearing of submissions on the draft LAP was conducted by the Board on 11 June 2015. The LAP is intended to be finalised in August 2015. Actions identified in the LAP will become part of the wider Programme, and will be progressed in forthcoming years as funding permits.

Allocated FY 14/15 Budget: 20,173.00

Actual Expenditure: 12,963.42

WebPAGE development

13. A webpage for the WRHA was launched in May 2015. The webpage is located within the Auckland Council internet site under the “Heritage” section within the “News, events and culture” page. The webpage contains many embedded files and web links related to the WRHA. It provides online information about the WRHA at a single location and includes the following information:

· an introduction about the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008, including a web link to access a copy of the legislation

· characteristics and location of the WRHA, including web links to the Human Environment maps of the Auckland Council District Plan (Waitākere Section) showing the exact location of the boundary of the WRHA

· considerations to be given when preparing a resource consent application within or adjoining the WRHA. Includes web links to copies of Heritage Features Guide and Waitākere Ranges Foothills Design Guide to assist applicants

· web link to access information about the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park, which covers about 60 per cent of the WRHA. Includes web link to the Regional Parks Management Plan 2010

· an overview and web links to access copies of the Waitākere Ranges Strategic Weed Management Plan, LAPs, the 2013 Monitoring Report and the reports of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Programme.

14. The information in the webpage will be updated regularly.

Allocated FY 14/15 Budget: 2,000.00

Actual Expenditure: 3,960.00

“Building in the Bush” - information and advice

15. This project is to prepare and publish the “Building in the Bush Design Guide”. The purpose of the design guide is to provide guidelines to achieve quality built design outcome in the bush-clad environments in the WRHA.

16. The “Building in the Bush Design Guide” complements the earlier publication “Waitākere Ranges Foothills Design Guide”, which provides guidelines to assist landowners in making good choices about the design and layout of building projects in the foothills of the Waitākere Ranges. The preparation phase of the project has been completed. The board reviewed and recommended amendments to the draft in June 2015. The Design Guide is anticipated to be finalised in the first half of financial year 2015/16.

Allocated FY 14/15 Budget: 15,000.00

Actual Expenditure: 13,713.30

Annual Local Board and community forum

17. The inaugural forum was planned for 24 May 2015 but was postponed. It is being organised in 2015/16 with a potential date in the first half of the financial year.

Allocated FY 14/15 Budget: 5,000.00

Actual Expenditure: 261.64

Heritage Area Conservation Network forum

18. The inaugural Waitākere Ranges Conservation Network workshop was held on 19 October 2014 with funding assistance from the Board. The workshop discussed how the conservation initiatives and groups of the Waitākere Ranges can support each other to become more effective and have greater impact on shared conservation aims. This workshop was attended by over 40 representatives of local groups, organisations and individuals. A Facebook Group of the Conservation Network has been set up to facilitate communication and networking among groups and individuals working on conservation projects in the Waitākere Ranges.

19. With financial assistance from the Board, the Conservation Network is continuing with following activities in 2015/16:

· maintaining a web site of the Conservation Network

· organising a seminar to raise awareness of conservation issues and co-ordinate the efforts of conservation groups in the Waitākere Ranges

· publishing a newsletter

· gathering information and mapping.

Allocated FY 14/15 Budget: 4,000.00

Actual Expenditure: 4,344.00

Sustainable Neighbourhoods Programme

20. The Sustainable Neighbourhoods Programme is facilitated by the Environmental Services Unit of Council. The budget for this project contributed to delivery of the Sustainable Neighbourhoods Programme in the WRHA.

21. As part of the 2014/15 financial year, a total of 498 hectares of land within the WRHA was under care by the Sustainable Neighbourhoods Programme. Within this, 353 households from 39 neighbourhood groups were involved. Refer to Attachment A for the location of the neighbourhood groups. The weeds that were removed included woolly nightshade, climbing asparagus, kahili ginger, running bamboo, giant reed, privet and gorse.

22. The following activities were conducted by the neighbourhood groups and/or the facilitators as part of the Sustainable Neighbourhoods Programme in the WRHA in 2014/15 financial year:

· weeding and planting on private property, riparian areas, road corridors and on local reserves

· starting new and managing existing community gardens

· attending volunteer days for Regional Parks weed control operations

· conducting site visits to new residents and providing advice to new group members

· building relationships and connections within the community including with businesses

· teaching native plant propagation and restoration skills to primary school students

· organising planting days with schools

· assisting to set up pest trap lines

· fostering co-operation among Sustainable Neighbourhood groups

· organising street party to celebrate successfully carried out work.

Allocated FY 14/15 Budget: 90,000.00

Actual Expenditure: 90,000.00

Strategic Weed Projects

23. The 2014/15 financial year’s budget for strategic weeds was utilised to implement the following two projects:

· Buffer Zone Follow-up, and

· Buffer Zone Management.

24. Both projects were delivered by WeedFree Trust under the auspices of the EcoMatters Environment Trust. The first project “Buffer Zone Follow-up” provided assistance to ten properties that have been part of the weed projects since financial year 2012/13. The 2014/15 financial year’s project involved completion of following activities:

· providing assistance to five properties to manage weeds such as climbing asparagus, wild ginger and pampas

· conducting a plant/weed survey in the Opanuku Road area.

25. The second project is “Buffer Zone Management” that delivered the following outputs in two new locations in Waiatarua and Laingholm:

· raising awareness regarding weeds and understanding of the role the buffer zone plays in protecting biodiversity within the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park

· increasing the level of community engagement in the management of weeds and pests on properties that share a boundary with the Waitākere Ranges Regional Park

· providing maintenance and support to previous Buffer Zone projects, to ensure that the gains made in managing weeds in those areas are retained.

26. The Buffer Zone Management project involved activities such as weed control, provision of weed bags and development of weed management plans for some properties within the project area. The final report of the project is anticipated early in the financial year 2015/16.

Allocated FY 14/15 Budget: 25,000.00

Actual Expenditure: 25,000.00

Long-Tailed Bat research/protection/recovery

27. This project is the continuation of the long-tailed bat survey supported by the board in the 2013/14 financial year. The objectives of the study include the following:

· to build on the previous knowledge of long-tailed bat population within the WRHA

· to extend survey efforts to areas where existing knowledge about the presence of long-tailed bats is limited, including in the southwest of the WRHA, from Whatipu to Karekare

· to conduct rapid habitat assessment to gain information about the characteristics of the immediate habitat where bats are present.

28. The 2014/15 financial year’s budget contributed to a survey conducted over areas in the Waitākere Ranges and Rodney Local Boards. The budget enabled further work in 20 survey locations in WRHA in the vicinity of Te Henga wetland and Whatipu. A map of these locations is shown in Attachment B. The highest level of bat activity was recorded in the vicinity of Waitākere River and Te Henga wetlands.

29. The survey indicates that the Waitākere River is an important commuting corridor for bats foraging around the Te Henga Wetland. The rapid habitat assessment conducted in 2014/15 needs further work to build on the information gathered about how bats use the habitats that are available to them. Further research is expected to continue in 2015/16 on habitat assessment, movements of bats and their habitat use.

Allocated FY 14/15 Budget: 5,000.00

Actual Expenditure: 4,999.98

Heritage Site Mapping - Phase 1

30. This continues the heritage site survey project conducted in the 2013/14 financial year. The 2014/15 financial year’s project comprised a desktop study and an associated report that collates, rationalises and organises the available data relating to the heritage resources of the WRHA. The project has identified 591 heritage sites that are considered to have a priority for survey within the wider WRHA. These sites are:

· 166 Maori and European sites scheduled in the Operative Auckland Council District Plan (Waitākere Section) and the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan

· 395 sites that have not been recently updated (within the last five years) and at risk sites located on council and public land in erosion prone coastal environments

· 30 potentially significant sites on private land.

31. Research for this project was completed in January 2015. A draft report was presented to the Board at a workshop on 19 February 2015. The output from this study feeds into the field work project discussed below.

Allocated FY 14/15 Budget: 12,500.00

Actual Expenditure: 12,430.00

Heritage Site Mapping - Stage 1 field work

32. At its meeting of 26 February 2015, the Board resolved to allocate $38,500 budget for the field work project. This project is aimed at:

· compiling, organising and setting up the required field work data packs

· creating monitoring forms and data capture methods to enable the field survey of the 591 heritage sites identified under the project “Heritage Site Mapping - Phase 1”.

33. The work on this project was commenced by the Heritage Unit in April 2015 and is approximately 70% completed as of June 2015. A summary of completed work is as follows:

· site survey packs for all 591 priority sites discussed under “Heritage Site Mapping - Phase 1”. Hard copy of information about all the sites will be available as a reference source

· an annotated bibliography for the Waitākere Ranges

· a reference list from search of online photographic databases

· maps from bibliographic sources and cadastral map index

· photographic and bibliographic records linked to individual cultural heritage inventory (CHI) site numbers for future reference.

34. The survey work is now anticipated to occur from October 2015 to April 2016. See Attachment C for a detailed list of the work to be undertaken along with the components to be completed prior to the beginning of the survey work. A summary of tasks intended to be completed by September 2015 prior to commencing field survey involves:

· finalising the Phase 1 summary report and associated tables

· creating GIS survey maps and routes

· finalising two sets of survey packs – one for use during the survey and one for the Board

· creating and testing baseline and monitoring forms for archaeological and built heritage sites

· conducting additional research on the Piha Tramway and the historic villages of Waiti and Parawai

· consultation with Te Kawerau a Maki and Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara.

Allocated FY 14/15 Budget: 38,500.00

Actual Expenditure: 37,557.43

Local business stocktake

35. The Board received a report of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Business Stocktake at its meeting of 25 September 2014. The stocktake provided a baseline database of businesses in the WRHA and recommended projects to support sustainable rural businesses. This budget was allocated to meet the final costs of the stocktake study which was completed in July 2014.

Allocated FY 14/15 Budget: 5,000.00

Actual Expenditure: 5,000.00

Small business facilitation

36. At its meeting of 25 September 2014, the local board approved the publication and distribution of a newsletter targeted at businesses in the WRHA.

37. Two editions of Thrive newsletter to support sustainable businesses have been published and distributed to about 900 businesses within in the WRHA. Thrive has received positive response from the readers. Three editions of Thrive are planned for the financial year 2015/16.

Allocated FY 14/15 Budget: 3,000.00

Actual Expenditure: 1,986.10

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

38. The projects that make up the Programme were considered and approved by the Board at the concept and budget approval stages.

Māori impact statement

39. Te Kawerau a Maki were consulted on their involvement in the LAP for the Bethells Beach (Te Henga) and the Waitākere River Valley. Meetings and discussions with Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority were held to agree on the process of engagement, and to seek input into and feedback on the content of the LAP at each stage of the plan preparation. Te Kawerau developed a Cultural Values Assessment for the LAP area early in the engagement process in May 2014. In accordance with their wishes Te Kawerau will be consulted in LAP implementation and other projects.

40. Te Kawerau a Maki and Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara will be consulted for input from the iwi as part of the “Heritage Site Mapping - Stage 1 Field Work” project.

Implementation

41. The success of the projects discussed in this report provides opportunities to extend some of them in a variety of ways in 2015/16 financial year. The scope to do so will be considered in the context of long-term priorities and objectives, budget and staff resources. Projects for the financial year 2015/16 will be considered in a separate report to the Local Board.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Sustainable Neighbourhoods	19
b View	Auckland Council Long-tailed Bat Surveys - 2015	21
c View	Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area - Historic Heritage (2013/14 - 2014/15)	23

Signatories

Authors

Raj Maharjan - Planner

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - GM - Plans & Places

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

13 August 2015

Glen Eden Summer Square 2014/15

File No.: CP2015/13957

Purpose

1. This report describes the outcomes of the Glen Eden Summer Square programme, and seeks approval for the allocation of operational budget to a new programme in the summer of 2015/16.

Executive Summary

2. The Glen Eden Summer Square programme took place on a public space and car park area near the Waitakere Ranges Local Board office in Glenmall Place from December 2014 until April 2015.

3. An evaluation of the programme concluded that it was successful in providing a safe place for people to gather, relax and enjoy a variety of events and activities throughout the summer.

4. This report recommends that the Summer Square programme be organised again from December 2015 until March 2016, and that a budget of $24,000 be allocated from Local Board’s Locally Directed Initiatives budget for its organisation and implementation across that time period.

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) Allocates up to $24,000 of its operational budget in 2015/16 to organise and deliver a Summer Square programme in Glen Eden Town Centre between December 2015 and April 2016.

Comments

5. The Glen Eden Urban Design Framework (the Framework) was adopted by the former Waitakere City Council in March 2010. It provides a ‘Place Making Road Map’ for the delivery of projects that will contribute to transforming Glen Eden Town Centre into an attractive and economically buoyant destination for residents, businesses and visitors.

6. In June 2013 the Waitakere Ranges Local Board endorsed the draft implementation plan for the Framework. This draft implementation plan provides a guide to the Waitakere Ranges Local Board, Auckland Council and Auckland Transport, community and business stakeholders and development partners for the phasing, programming and funding of town centre development work.

7. Part of this work included the preparation of a concept plan for a central civic and community-gathering space, a “Town Square” located near the Local Board office. This would extend the existing open space located in front of the Local Board office around into the car parking area east of the buildings. It would be directly aligned with a proposed new open space linking West Coast Road and Glenmall Place identified in the Framework.

8. The Waitakere Ranges Local Board Plan 2014 identifies as one of its priorities the implementation of key projects to support the revitalisation of Glen Eden. In particular, the Local Board is advocating for funding for the “Town Square” and the open space linking West Coast Road and Glenmall Place.

Development and Implementation of the Summer Square

9. In December 2014, the Local Board allocated $50,000 to establish a temporary or “pop up” Summer Square on Glenmall Place. This was done to assess the value of an open space in this location, and assist in developing a business case for future investment in developing this area as a town square.

10. A project team led the development of the Summer Square. This team included Local Board members, staff from Community Development, Arts and Culture, North West Planning and City Transformation teams, and the Glen Eden Business Improvement District Manager. It was later expanded to include the town centre manager, two people employed by the Glen Eden Business Improvement District Association (BID), and a local resident contracted to assist the operation of the programme and conduct customer surveys.

11. In the development of the concept for the Summer Square, the project team considered feedback from local residents and businesses gathered at a Tidy Town Day event on 2 November 2014 and previous consultation on the Glen Eden Urban Design Framework. Key objectives were to foster a sense of ownership and pride in the town centre, and provide a family-friendly and safe place to gather. Ideas for the type of activities that would benefit Glen Eden were compiled from those consultations and used to draft the events programme.

12. The project team studied the physical environment of the space available and devised different set-up arrangements for a range of activities and events. This was to allow informal use of the space, for meeting people or having lunch, as well as to accommodate events of different scales with performances, market stalls, and children’s activities.

13. The space was activated throughout the summer and early autumn (from 13 December 2014 until 11 April 2015). It was set up during weekdays between 12 and 2pm for informal activities. It was temporarily closed to vehicular traffic on Saturdays for events (three to four hours each time). During that time the area was used by various community organisations and performers to provide entertainment or engage people, particularly children, in activities. At the end of each event the space was returned to its car park role and re-opened to vehicular traffic.

14. Equipment was purchased to support the set-up of the Summer Square. This included beanbags, shading, signage, chairs, tables, planters, imitation grass, waste and recycling bins. Power supply was installed from the Local Board office. The equipment was stored on the site in a container that was also set up with a sound system.

15. Council staff collaborated with the BID to organise the programme of events, and attend to the logistical and equipment requirements of the site. The Glen Eden BID Manager coordinated the event schedule and managed the space when it was operating, with support as required from Council staff and Local Board members.

16. The cost of the programme included equipment purchase and hireage expenses (approximately $21,000) and operational, event and evaluation expenses (approximately $21,500).

Evaluation of the Summer Square

17. An evaluation of the programme was undertaken and a report is provided in Attachment A.

The evaluation found that:

a) The Summer Square programme was organised at short notice, yet the Local Board engaged a wide range of businesses, residents, and community organisations. This was fundamental to the Square’s success because it ensured the programme responded to local needs. Concerns could mostly be addressed at an early stage, and the programme could adapt as feedback was received.

b) The combination of larger events, smaller activities and ‘chill out’ space was appreciated and attracted a wide range of participants. It also served to trial different set-up configurations for the space. However, there was some criticism regarding music events and the use of the sound system which created a nuisance for a local business. There were many comments suggesting additional activities, particularly family-focused, with a particular theme being activities that reflect the diversity of ethnic communities in Glen Eden.

c) The evaluation found that the Summer Square programme enticed people to visit Glen Eden shops more often and stay for longer. This resulted in benefits such as feeling safe because more people were around. This confirms the findings of a 2014 Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) assessment which found that the Glen Eden Town Centre lacks a formal public space for events and there was nowhere safe for people to ‘hang around’. The CPTED report recommended improving the Glenmall Place environment into a public space rather than a solely providing a car park environment, bringing more people into the town centre and providing opportunities for activity, socialising, and recreation.

d) The Summer Square may have resulted in benefits that were not measured, such as higher personal spending per person who visited the space, and more social connections. The space also provided an initial opportunity (which could grow) for the community to ‘talk to itself’ about issues such as the kauri dieback threat or stream restoration.

e) Activating the space opened the community’s eyes to the potential of Glen Eden. People saw the programme as heralding a genuinely new phase of Glen Eden’s development. There is a keen interest in a permanent town square. It would have flexibility for a wide range of uses, be co-located in the best place for traffic safety and functionality, as well as contributing to Glen Eden’s overall vitality.

f) An urban design assessment of the Summer Square found that the space achieved four key qualities of a successful public space:

· sociability: the Summer Square enhanced the town centre’s street life, creating an interesting, diverse and accessible environment for a wide section of the community

· access and linkages: the Summer Square sat at the heart of a well-connected and walkable town centre

· comfort and image: the Summer Square offered an attractive, inviting and safe space with portable furniture, shading, and trees.

· uses and activities: a range of organized and spontaneous activities took place, creating an active, fun and special space.

18. Recommendations from the urban design evaluation to improve the urban design quality of the square include setting up an additional seating and eating spaces and micro-commercial retail spaces that could be used by local retailers.

19. The evaluation of the Summer Square programme showed that there is strong support from local businesses and residents for a family-friendly open space. The Square should be able to accommodate a range of organised and informal activities in Glen Eden Town Centre. From an urban design perspective, its location on Glenmall Place was found to be the best possible one in the town centre.

20. There is strong community support for the Summer Programme to be organised again in 2015-16. This would again provide a space for local residents and shoppers to gather, relax and enjoy events and activities within the town centre. It would also provide an opportunity to further trial and evaluate different set up configurations for the town square which would be used to inform the design of a permanent town square. Security issues associated with the on-site container will be reviewed and addressed before the container is placed on the site.

21. To progress the Summer Square programme in 2015-16, a budget of $24,000 is required. Much of the equipment that is required to run the programme was purchased for the 2014-15 programme, and is currently in storage. The main expenses anticipated for the 2015-16 programme are expected to be:

a) hireage of a container to store equipment, and miscellaneous additional equipment required ($12,000 approximately)

b) day-to-day operation, coordination and monitoring of the Summer Square contracted to the BID Association ($4,000 approximately)

c) organisation and coordination of events, contracted to the BID Association ($8,000 approximately).

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

22. The Local Board sees Glen Eden as the Waitākere Ranges Local Board area’s economic heart and is acting to improve the sense of place in the town centre, thereby supporting its economic vitality. By enabling the trial of physical arrangements and activities on a temporary square, the Summer Square programme assists the Local Board and the Governing Body in future decision making about how best to utilise funds in Glen Eden Town Centre to support its revitalisation. The programme helped create a safer and more attractive town centre. Consequently people have felt a stronger sense of connection and belonging, thereby contributing to a thriving community. This is a priority outcome of the Local Board Plan.

Māori impact statement

23. This project does not have a direct impact on tangata whenua and will not affect areas of cultural significant to tangata whenua.

24. Hoani Waititi Marae participated in the blessing of the space during its inauguration in December 2014.

Implementation

25. This report recommends that the 2014/15 Summer Square programme be undertaken again in 2015/16, being coordinated by Community Development, Arts and Culture and be funded from the Local Board’s Locally Directed Initiatives budget.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Glen Eden Summer Square Evaluation Report	33

Signatories

Authors

Eryn Shields - Team Leader Planning - North West

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - GM - Plans & Places

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

13 August 2015

Waitakere Ranges Programme 2015-16 Allocation

File No.: CP2015/14783

Purpose

1. To endorse the allocation of funding from the Local Board’s Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Programme budget for the 2015/2016 financial year to specific projects and initiatives within the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area.

Executive Summary

2. The Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Programme contributes to the implementation of the objectives of the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2008 (‘the Act’) alongside other relevant Council and community activities and programmes. A total of $227,000 is available for allocation in the 2015/16 financial year.

3. This report recommends the allocation of funding across projects that contribute to implementing the Act, including:

· finalising the Local Area Plan for Te Henga (Bethells Beach) and the Waitākere River Valley

· implementing approved Local Area Plans

· addressing issues and recommendations arising from the 2013 Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Monitoring Report.

4. This report recommends the allocation of $207,500 of the available funding across nine projects that contribute to implementing the Act. It is also recommended that the Local Board make a decision on allocating the balance of $19,500 on the remaining candidate projects before the end of November 2015.

5. The projects are identified in the main body of the report, and are described in more detail in Attachment A. Attachment A describes each project or initiative, key implementation partners (Council and Council Controlled Organisations (CCO’s)), alignment of the project with the Act, the Local Board Plan 2014-17 and Local Area Plans, and provides a recommended budget allocation.

6. In one instance, two options for community based weed initiatives are provided. These are to provide transition support for the Sustainable Neighbourhoods Programme in 2015/16, or allocate the available budget to groups within the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area via the council’s grant system. Staff recommend that the available budget be allocated to the Sustainable Neighbourhoods Programme.

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) Allocates the 2015/16 financial year Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act Programme budget as follows:

i) Annual Local Board/community forum on Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act implementation (across all topics/objectives) - $4,000

ii) Community weed bins - $60,000

iii) Community-based weed projects – $45,000

iv) Buffer Zone weed project – $25,000

v) Long Tailed Bat research/protection/recovery - $5,000

vi) Heritage Site Survey and Mapping – Field Work - $60,000

vii) Publishing a newsletter targeted at businesses in the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area - $5,000

viii) Publishing ‘Living in the Bush’ - Design Guidelines - $2,000

ix) Finalising the Local Area Plan for Te Henga (Bethells Beach) and the Waitakere River Valley - $1,500

b) Maintain support to the Sustainable Neighbourhoods Programme and its transition during 2015/16 as part of recommendation a)(iii) Community-based weed projects

c) Agree that a decision on the allocation of funding for other projects to utilise the remaining $19,500 will be made before the end of November 2015

d) Note a mid-year review of all projects will be provided, if required, to the Local Board at its February 2016 meeting.

Comments

7. The Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Programme encompasses all Council and CCO activities that help to achieve the objectives of the Act. This includes activities that are part of wider regionally funded programmes, and specific activities identified for Local Board funding. A total of $227,000 is available for allocation in the 2015/16 financial year. This budget is separate from regional budgets (which also assist in implementing the objectives of the Act) or other Local Board funding for activities that lie outside the scope of the Act.

8. Candidate projects have been selected on the basis of their alignment with the following:

· the purpose and objectives of the Act itself, including the recommendations of the 2013 five year monitoring report, which assessed progress towards achieving the Act’s objectives

· the priorities in the Waitākere Ranges Local Board Plan 2014-17

· the objectives and actions identified in the four approved Local Area Plans (LAPs) prepared under the Act to date. The proposed actions under the draft LAP for Te Henga (Bethells Beach) and the Waitākere River Valley have also been considered

· the recommendations of the Waitākere Ranges Strategic Weed Management Plan adopted by the Local Board on 11 June 2015.

9. A table of approximately 70 potential projects was prepared and circulated to the Local Board prior to a workshop held on 7 May 2015. Following that workshop, a shortlist of projects for funding in 2015/16 was identified and prioritised (refer to Attachment A, Table 1). This prioritisation is based on a combination of each project’s strategic and operational importance (as identified in the Monitoring Report and Local Board Plan) and the likelihood of successful implementation of the project in the current financial year.

10. Some of the shortlisted projects can proceed immediately, whilst others require further scoping or resolution of issues before their likelihood of proceeding this financial year can be determined. It is therefore recommended that funding approval is given to a proportion of the projects. Final prioritisation and a decision on funding allocation for other projects is recommended to be deferred until further information is available (by the end of November 2015).

11. Based on consideration of the above, projects falling into the first category (recommended for immediate funding) are as follows.

Planning, communications and awareness-raising

· Annual Local Board/community forum on Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act implementation (across all topics/objectives) - $4,000

· Finalising the Local Area Plan for Te Henga (Bethells Beach) and the Waitākere River Valley - $1,500

Ecosystem management

· Community weed bins (previously funded under ‘Sustainable Neighbourhoods Programme’) - $60,000

· Community-based weed projects (previously funded under ‘Sustainable Neighbourhoods Programme’) – $45,000

· Buffer Zone weed project (formerly named ‘Strategic Weeds project’) – $25,000

Landscape Management

· Publishing ‘Living in the Bush’ - Design Guidelines - $2,000

Biodiversity

· Long Tailed Bat - research/protection/recovery - $5,000

Built/Cultural Heritage

· Heritage Site Survey and Mapping – Field work - $60,000

Community economic and social wellbeing

· Publishing the newsletter Thrive, targeted at businesses in the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area - $5,000

12. A budget of $45,000 has been identified for community-based weed projects in the list above. Two options for this initiative are as follows:

(1) maintaining support to the Sustainable Neighbourhoods programme and its transitioning to a new model under the Empowering Communities framework that will support groups within the Heritage Area to implement the Strategic Weed Management Plan. This would provide continuity for the existing support to the Sustainable Neighbourhood groups through the 2015 planting season and transition support to prepare groups to operate under a new model. The Auckland Council will engage with stakeholders in this area to develop a programme of support to initiatives that achieve the priority outcomes identified in the Strategic Weed Management Plan and Local Area Plans.

(2) supporting groups and individual land owners within the Heritage Area that are undertaking weed control through a contestable grants system with the decision making on the allocation of grant made by the Local Board. This would be implemented by adding this budget to the Local Grants budget, and this would be administered and monitored by the Grants team. The grants will target groups who are seeking resources to undertake weed control and/or environmental restoration work in their area. Two type of grants may be available:

· Quick Response Local Grants: maximum amount per grant $1,500, with five funding rounds per year. The soonest that community groups applying to this fund would be able to access funding and therefore undertake work would be in September 2015.

· Local Grants: for grants over $1,500, with two funding rounds per year. The soonest that community groups applying to this fund would be able to access funding and therefore undertake work would be in November 2015.

13. It is recommended that the Local Board approve option (1) for the following reasons:

· The regional funding for the Sustainable Neighbourhood Programme ($161,000 out of the total Programme value of $206,000) has been approved by the Governing Body for 2015-16. Over 75 percent of households participating in the Programme are within the Waitākere Ranges Local Board area

· The funding from the Programme has contributed significant value to the facilitation support given to local groups. If funding were to be withdrawn, support for around 10 of the 40 groups in the Local Board area would have to be stopped, or the level of support would have to be reduced across all groups

· Facilitator support is the key mechanism by which the groups access practical assistance for weed removal and restoration activities. Facilitators provide best practice advice so the work undertaken is appropriate. They also facilitate networking opportunities between neighbouring groups so there can be more coordinated and concerted effort. The Environmental Services Unit will be developing a model, using recognised best practices and the Empowering Community framework, to transition the Sustainable Neighbourhood Programme to a different model that would deliver on the environmental outcomes sought by the Local Board. Facilitators will provide transition support to prepare groups to operate under the new model.

14. A budget of $19,500 is recommended to remain unallocated. Work is continuing to scope and provide cost estimates for the following projects shortlisted for consideration by the Local Board:

· information about the Heritage Area: Heritage Area brochure for visitors, information package for new residents

· community education and engagement in the monitoring and protection of threatened coastal birds (penguins and grey faced petrels) in the dune ecosystems of Te Henga, Piha and Karekare

· threatened species research: a study to assess the feasibility of re-introducing dactylinthus/ pua o te reinga (also known as wood rose or Hades flower), and in the longer term the short-tailed bat, to the Waitākere Ranges

· rural land management practice: a capacity building project that identifies, documents and promotes existing practices of sustainable land management that protect valued landscapes, enhance the biodiversity of local areas and are economically sustainable

· Swanson Village social infrastructure planning: a project that may be funded by the Local Board through its Local Development Initiative budget to develop a long term vision for Swanson Village, identify the needs and aspirations of its current and future residents and prepare an action plan to address those needs. Funding for the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Programme will be targeted at aspects of that planning process that relate to the Heritage Area.

15. The remaining candidate projects listed in Attachment A would only be considered for funding this financial year if any of the above projects are delayed or do not require all of the funding allocated to them. Progress will be reviewed and reported if required at the end of February 2015.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

16. All of the projects identified either complete or build upon existing projects funded by the Local Board in the 2012/13, 2013/14 and 2015/16 financial years, or relate to recommendations from the Five Year Monitoring Report or Local Area Plans. All of the projects are closely aligned to the priorities in the Local Board Plan 2014-17 and will help to implement it. The key objectives, projects, and indicative funding allocation were considered by Local Board members at workshops on 7 May and 11 June 2015, and the recommendations have been prepared in response to the feedback from those workshops.

Māori impact statement

17. Mana whenua (Te Kawerau a Maki and Ngati Whatua) have not been specifically consulted on this report. Work is continuing as part of this programme to develop mechanisms for greater engagement with mana whenua to better meet the requirements of the Act. Mana whenua is updated on the progress of, and consulted as part of, the implementation of individual projects. Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority have been involved in the preparation of the Te Henga (Bethells Beach) and Waitākere River Valley LAP. The further work on the Heritage Sites Survey will involve consultation with mana whenua, with a view to promoting their role as kaitiaki of pre-European settlement sites.

Implementation

18. Individual projects have been discussed with the lead implementation partners within the Environmental Services and Heritage Units and have their support. The project list as a whole has also been considered and is generally supported by Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Programme Co-ordination Group. Implementation of projects within the suggested timeframes is dependent on staff availability and expertise. Where there is a high risk that appropriate staff time/expertise will not be available, outside contractors will be utilised, and allowance has been made for this in the allocation of funds to each project.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Attachment A LIST OF CANDIDATE ACTIVITIES AND PROJECTS 2015-16	89

Signatories

Authors

Eryn Shields - Team Leader Planning - North West

Authorisers

Penny Pirrit - GM - Plans & Places

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

13 August 2015

Waitakere Ranges Local Event Support Fund - Round 2 2015/2016

File No.: CP2015/14625

Purpose

1. To present a summary of applications received in round two of the local event support fund for 2015/2016 for the Waitākere Ranges Local Board. The Waitākere Ranges Local Board is requested to either fund, part-fund or decline the applications.

Executive Summary

2. A local events fund of $172,000.00 is available to the Waitākere Ranges Local Board, of which $34,000 has been earmarked for distribution via a contestable process over two funding rounds in the 2015-2016 financial year.

3. In round two, 9 applications have been received seeking $101,136.38. These applications were discussed at a local board workshop on 2 July 2015.

4. The board is now being requested to allocate event funding for 2015/2016 from this fund.

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) Agree to fund, part-fund or decline, the round two 2015-2016 contestable local event support fund applications as follows:

Applicant	Event	Amount Requested	Recommended Allocation
InterAct 2015	Interacting	$5,136.38	$4,000
Condor Rugby Club 7’s Tournament	Condor Rugby Football Club	$5,000.00	$1,000
Yzup 2016	Tuhi Tuhi Communications	$25,000.00	$5,000
Piha Community Library Trust’s Creative Readers and Writers Festival	Piha Community Library Trust	$4,000.00	$2,000
Waitakere Diwali Festival	Waitakere Indian Association	$20,000.00	$0
Oratia Jungle Festival 2016	Toi toi Music Management	$15,000.00	$0
Undo-Kai (Sports Day)	Waitakere Japanese Supplementary School	$1,000.00	$0
Undefeated	Primal Youth Trust	$22,000.00	$0
Hubbard’s Head 2 Head Charity Walk	Head2Head Charity	$4,000.00	$0
TOTAL			$12,000

b) Recommend the following events submit applications and are considered for Regional Events Funding:

i) Waitakere Diwali Festival – Waitakere Indian Association

ii) Undefeated – Primal Youth Trust

iii) Hubbard’s Head 2 Head Charity Walk – Head2Head Charity

Comments

5. Local boards are responsible for the decision making and allocation of local board events funding. The Waitākere Ranges Local Board has identified key priorities for the local area within its local board plan, some of which can be achieved through events.

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

7. A local events fund of $172,000.00 is available to the Waitākere Ranges Local Board, of which $34,000 has been earmarked for distribution via a contestable process over two funding rounds in the 2015-2016 financial year.

8. The 2015/2016 local events support fund is available for distribution via two rounds. An initial round opened in April 2015 (referred to as round two via the Waitakere Ranges Local Board community grants policy and in the table below). A additional round will open in August 2015 closing in September 2015 where any remaining contestable funding can be allocated.

Round	Applications Open	Applications Closes	Decision Making
1	August	September	October/November
2	April	May	June/July

9. Round two of the local event support fund received 9 applications totalling $101,136.38. A summary of those applications is below:

Applicant	Event	Amount Requested	Recommended Allocation
InterAct 2015	Interacting	$5,136.38	$4,000
Condor Rugby Club 7’s Tournament	Condor Rugby Football Club	$5,000.00	$1,000
Yzup 2016	Tuhi Tuhi Communications	$25,000.00	$5,000
Piha Community Library Trust’s Creative Readers and Writers Festival	Piha Community Library Trust	$4,000.00	$2,000
Waitakere Diwali Festival	Waitakere Indian Association	$20,000.00	$0
Oratia Jungle Festival 2016	Toi toi Music Management	$15,000.00	$0
Undo-Kai (Sports Day)	Waitakere Japanese Supplementary School	$1,000.00	$0
Undefeated	Primal Youth Trust	$22,000.00	$0
Hubbard’s Head 2 Head Charity Walk	Head2Head Charity	$4,000.00	$0
TOTAL			$12,000

10. The Waitākere Ranges Local Board also supports a programme of events through the Events Partnership Fund. These events are Local Board owned, and are delivered by either the CDAC Events Delivery Team, or through independent contractors managed by the CDAC Events Delivery Team.

11. The Events Partnership fund has an earmarked budget of $64,500. The following programme was resolved as part of the CDAC work programme on 11 June 2015 (WTK/2015/101).

Event Name	Funded Amount
Movies in Parks	$7,000
Disco for Youth with Disabilities	$2,500
Kauri Karnival	$25,000
Titirangi Festival of Music*	$25,000
Glen Eden Christmas Parade*	$5,000

*These events are currently funded under three year funding agreements, the final year of which is the 2015/2016 financial year.

12. The Waitākere Ranges Local Board has the opportunity to refer applications to a more appropriate fund or to allocate funding from within its local event funds.

Consideration

13. The Waitākere Ranges Local Board members want their area to be a great place to live, work and visit. To achieve this they will support the arts, events and cultural activities that are unique to their area, including opportunities around the new Lopdell Precinct and Te Uru, and by rejuvenating Glen Eden through providing public spaces where people can meet, have a coffee and take part in events

Local Board views and implications

14. The local board have discussed the applications at their workshop on 2 July 2015.

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

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

Māori impact statement

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

Implementation

18. Once the Waitākere Ranges Local Board has resolved the funding applications, Event team staff will contact all applicants to notify them of the outcome, and commence contracting and payment.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Carrie Doust - Team Leader Event Facilitation Central

Authorisers

Graham Bodman - Manager - Community Development, Arts and Culture

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

13 August 2015

New Road Name Approval for the Residential Subdivision by SM, JW and EA Wheeler 224 Bethells Road, 30 Te Aute Ridge Road and 34A Te Aute Ridge Road, Bethells.

File No.: CP2015/13121

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to seek approval from the Waitakere Ranges Local Board, for new road name for various rights of way created by way of Subdivision at 224 Bethells Road, 30 Te Aute Ridge Road and 34A Te Aute Ridge Road, Bethells.

Executive Summary

2. Auckland Council has road naming guidelines that set out the requirements and criteria of the Council for proposed road names. These requirements and criteria have been applied in this situation to ensure consistency of road naming for the Auckland Council.

3. Following assessment against the road naming criteria, the road names Waiti Track, Hap’s Track and Waiti Lane were determined to meet the road naming policy criteria.

4. Local Iwi groups were consulted and Edward Ashby, Heritage and Environment Manager, Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority supported the suggested names but was reluctant to suggest any others as he had not been engaged.

5. The name Waiti Track, proposed by the Applicant and the names Hap’s Track and Waiti Lane are recommended for approval to the Local Board.

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) Pursuant to Section 319(1)(j), of the Local Government Act 1974, considers for approval, the road name Waiti Track, proposed by the Applicant, for the rights of way created by way of subdivision at 224 Bethells Road, 30 Te Aute Ridge Road and 34A Te Aute Ridge Road, Bethells, while noting that Hap’s Track and Waiti Lane also meet the road naming criteria.

Comments

6. The Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines allowed that where a new road needs to be named as a result of a subdivision or development, the subdivider/developer shall be given the opportunity of suggesting their preferred new road name for the Council’s approval.

7. In 2006, Auckland Council approved an Application for a combined land use and subdivision consent to undertake a subdivision creating 6 Lots at 224 Bethells Road, 30 Te Aute Ridge Road and 34A Te Aute Ridge Road, Bethells. The subdivision contains various rights of way, that will provide all Lots with road access. The consent holder has proposed to label the rights of way Waiti Track (SUB2006-4188).

8. The Applicant has proposed the following names for consideration for the road created as part of the development at Site address

Preference	Proposed New Road Name	Meaning
Preferred Name	Waiti Track	Refers to the Waiti Stream which the rights of way cross over.
First Alternative	Hap’s Track	In recognition of Hap Wheeler, previous owner.
Second Alternative	Waiti Lane	Refers to the Waiti Stream

9. The Auckland Council, by way of the Auckland Council Long Term Plan (2012-2022), allocated the responsibility for the naming of new roads, pursuant to Section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974, to Local Boards.

10. Consultation with NZ Post was undertaken and all suggested names were accepted.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

11. The decision sought from the Waitakere Ranges Local Board for this report does not trigger any significant policy and is not considered to have any immediate impact on the community.

12. The Applicant’s proposed road names have been assessed against the criteria set out in the Auckland Council road naming guidelines.

13. Waiti Track, Hap’s Track and Waiti Lane all meet the criteria set out in the Road Naming Guidelines.

14. As the Applicant’s preferred name Waiti Track meets the criteria, it is recommended for consideration for approval while noting that Hap’s Track and Waiti Lane are also appropriate as they comply with all the criteria of the road naming guidelines.

Māori impact statement

15. The decision sought from the Waitakere Ranges Local Board on this report is linked to the Auckland Plan Outcome, “A Maori identity that is Auckland’s point of difference in the World”. The use of Maori names for roads, buildings and other public places is an opportunity to publicly demonstrate Maori identity.

16. Consultation with local Iwi was undertaken, Edward Ashby, Heritage and Environment Manager, Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority supported the suggested names but was reluctant to suggest any others as he had not been engaged.

Implementation

17. The Resource Consenting Team is involved in ensuring that the appropriate road name signage will be installed accordingly once an approval is obtained for the new road name.

18. The cost of processing the approval of the proposed new road name and any installation of road name signage is recoverable in accordance with Council’s Administrative Charges.

19. The decision sought from the Waitakere Ranges Local Board for this report is not considered to have any legal or legislative implications.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Waiti Track Diagram excluding F	103

Signatories

Authors

Andrew Foley - Subdivision Advisor

Authorisers

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

13 August 2015

New Road Name Approval for the Residential Subdivision by Murray Royden Hooker at 269-288 Bethells Road, Bethells

File No.: CP2015/14423

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to seek approval from the Waitakere Ranges Local Board, for new road names for a Jointly Owned Access Lot (JOAL), created by way of Subdivision at 269-288 Bethells Road, Bethells.

Executive Summary

3. Following assessment against the road naming criteria, the road names Tiamana Creek Road, Te Henga Homestead Lane and Lake Waiataru Lane were determined to meet the road naming policy criteria.

4. Local Iwi groups were consulted and Edward Ashby, Heritage and Environment Manager, Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority did not suggest any alternative road names.

5. The name Tiamana Creek Road, Preferred Name), proposed by the Applicant and the names Te Henga Homestead Lane and Lake Waiataru Lane are recommended for approval to the Local Board.

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) Pursuant to Section 319(1)(j), of the Local Government Act 1974, considers for approval, the road name Tiamana Creek Road, proposed by the Applicant, for the new Jointly Owned Access Lot (JOAL) created by way of subdivision at 269-288 Bethells Road, Bethells while noting that Tiamana Creek Road, Te Henga Homestead Lane and Lake Waiataru Lane also meet the road naming criteria.

Comments

7. In 2009, Auckland Council approved an Application for a combined land use and subdivision consent to undertake a subdivision creating 7 residential allotments at 269-288 Bethells Road, Bethells. The subdivision contains a Jointly Owned Access Lot (JOAL), that will provide all allotments with road access. The consent holder has proposed to label the Jointly Owned Access Lot (JOAL) Tiamana Creek Road. (SUB2009-1013).

8. The Applicant has proposed the following names for consideration for the road created as part of the development at Site address:

Preference	Proposed New Road Name	Meaning
Preferred Name	Tiamana Creek Road	Name of the creek which runs from Lake Kawapaku to the ocean.
First Alternative	Te Henga Homestead Lane	Refers to the original homestead and boarding house area from the early days of the family settling in the area.
Second Alternative	Lake Waiataru Lane	A major water catchment area near the old Bethells Homestead.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

9. The Auckland Council, by way of the Auckland Council Long Term Plan (2012-2022), allocated the responsibility for the naming of new roads, pursuant to Section 319(1)9j) of the Local Government Act 1974, to Local Boards.

10. The Applicant’s proposed road names have been assessed against the criteria set out in the Auckland Council road naming guidelines.

11. Tiamana Creek Road, Te Henga Homestead Lane and Lake Waiataru Lane all meet the criteria set out in the Road Naming Guidelines.

12. As the Applicant’s preferred name Tiamana Creek Road meets the criteria, it is recommended for consideration for approval while noting that the names Te Henga Homestead Lane and Lake Waiataru Lane are also appropriate as they comply with all the criteria of the road naming guidelines.

13. The decision sought from the Waitakere Ranges Local Board for this report does not trigger any significant policy and is not considered to have any immediate impact on the community.

14. Consultation with NZ Post was undertaken and the suggested names were accepted.

Māori impact statement

16. Local Iwi groups were consulted and Edward Ashby, Heritage and Environment Manager, Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority did not suggest any alternative road names.

Implementation

17. The Resource Consenting Team is involved in ensuring that the appropriate road name signage will be installed accordingly once an approval is obtained for the new road name.

18. The cost of processing the approval of the proposed new road name and any installation of road name signage is recoverable in accordance with Council’s Administrative Charges.

19. The decision sought from the Waitakere Ranges Local Board for this report is not considered to have any legal or legislative implications.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Tiamana Creek Road	109

Signatories

Authors

Andrew Foley - Subdivision Advisor

Authorisers

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

13 August 2015

Allocation of discretionary capital budget to local boards

File No.: CP2015/13901

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 Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) Provides 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 & Budgeting

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

13 August 2015

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

File No.: CP2015/14882

Purpose

1. Auckland Council is undertaking a review of the funding model under the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008 (ARAFA Funding Model Review). Feedback from the local boards is sought on the level of change proposed in the options and the impacts on local boards and local communities (if any).

Executive Summary

1. The Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008 (the Act) established a distinct model for contributing funds to specified regional amenities (regional amenities). This funding model is now under review to consider whether it remains fit for purpose and to identify how it might be improved. The Governing Body adopted Terms of Reference for the review on 26 February 2015.

2. Working closely with representatives of the regional amenities, seven funding model options were generated along a spectrum, ranging from:

· retaining the status quo

· seeking improvements within the existing ARAFA legislative framework

· modifying the existing ARAFA framework by amending legislation, to

· repealing the existing ARAFA framework and replacing it with an Auckland Council policy framework. (The options are discussed in paragraphs 15 - 32)

3. The Finance and Performance Committee endorsed the seven options for evaluation on 18 June 2015. The options will be evaluated against criteria previously endorsed by Finance and Performance on 21 May 2015. (The criteria is discussed in paragraph 14)

4. When viewed across the spectrum, the options shift the role of Auckland Council from influencing decision-making under the Act (by a Funding Board) to becoming the decision-maker itself. The closer Auckland Council becomes to being the decision-maker the more opportunities there are to align the council’s strategic outcomes with those of the regional amenities. The options also incorporate improvements relating to information flows, longer term planning, communications and relationship building.

5. The options are also associated with a progressively increasing volume of further work that would be required to implement them. The implementation of options requiring legislative change is particularly complex. The necessary trade-offs involved will be teased out and considered through the evaluation of the options.

6. The evaluation is to be completed and will be reported to the Finance and Performance Committee on 17 September 2015. The evaluation will identify the preferred option/s which may be a refined version, comprising different elements of the options proposed.

7. Local board feedback is sought on the level of change proposed in the options as set out in this report and the impacts on local boards and local communities(if any).

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) Provides feedback on the level of change proposed in the options and the impacts on local boards and local communities (if any) as an input into the evaluation of options under the Auckland Regional Funding Amenities Act Funding Model Review.

Comments

The Funding Model under the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008

2. The Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act 2008 (the Act) has two purposes; to provide adequate, sustainable and secure funding for specified regional amenities, and to ensure that local government in Auckland contributes funding.

3. The Act came into force prior to amalgamation of Auckland’s former councils. It was designed to ensure that all councils in the region contributed fairly to funding the regional amenities given the amenities operated across and benefited the whole of the Auckland region. It also sought to ensure that qualifying regional amenities remained financially viable.

4. The regional amenities apply each year to a Funding Board for next year’s funding. The Funding Board confers with Auckland Council and prepares and consults on a funding plan, before recommending a levy to Auckland Council for the next financial year. Auckland Council approves the recommended levy and if not, arbitration takes place. The Funding Board subsequently receives the levy and allocates funding to the regional amenities.

5. Auckland Council appoints six of the Funding Board’s 10 members with four members appointed by an Amenities Board, also created by the Act.

6. Only the regional amenities specified under the Act may apply for funding and funding is not available for any part of services or facilities provided outside of the Auckland region. Funding is to contribute towards the operational expenditure that regional amenities must incur and is not available for capital expenditure.

7. The regional amenities must make all reasonable endeavours to maximise funding from other sources. The regional amenities are prohibited from receiving operating funding form Auckland Council, other than via the Funding Board. However, staff are aware that local boards may receive funding requests from groups affiliated with the amenities.

8. The Funding Board and Auckland Council must have regard to the funding principles prescribed in the Act. The Act makes provision for additional funding principles to be adopted.

Regional Amenities

8. The purpose of the Act is to ensure the regional amenities are funded to provide services or facilities that contribute to “the well-being of the whole region” and “towards making Auckland an attractive place to live in and visit”. Organisations that wish to become regional amenities must possess these qualities to satisfy criteria for admission. The Act as enacted specified 10 regional amenities in Schedule 1:

· Auckland Observatory and Planetarium Trust Board

· Auckland Philharmonia

· Auckland Regional Rescue Helicopter Trust

· Auckland Theatre Company

· Coast Guard Northern Region Incorporated

· New Zealand National Maritime Museum

· New Zealand Opera Limited

· Surf Life Saving Northern Region Incorporated

· Auckland Festival Trust

· Watersafe Auckland Incorporated

9. The following examples illustrate the way the regional amenities serve the Auckland region:

· The Auckland Philharmonia (APO) was accorded the status of Metropolitan Orchestra as part of the Ministry of Culture and Heritage’s Orchestra Review in 2012. In that year the APO presented 31 performances in the Auckland Town Hall and performed in the Bruce Mason Centre (Takapuna) Telstra Events Centre (Manukau), Massey High Schools and Trusts Stadium (West Auckland) and the Holy Trinity Cathedral (Parnell). It also presented chamber concerts in Takapuna, Remuera and Howick and five free community performances and events in west, central, north and south Auckland.

· Coast Guard Northern Region Incorporated has 14 units located across the Auckland region at Waiuku, Papakura, Titirangi, Kaipara, Kawau, Great Barrier, Hibiscus, North Shore, Auckland, Waiheke, Howick and Maraetei, with the Operations Centre and the Auckland Air Patrol operating centrally.

· Similarly, there are 10 clubs in the Auckland Region under the umbrella of Surf Life Saving Northern Region Incorporated, located at Karioitahi Beach, Karekare, Piha (2), Bethels Beach, Murawai, Omaha, Red Beach, Orewa and Mairangi Bay.

The ARAFA Funding Model Review

10. Auckland Council’s establishment and issues arising out of the Act’s operation have raised the question of ‘whether the funding model remains fit for purpose’. Auckland Council agreed to review the ARAFA Funding Model through its deliberations on the Mayor’s proposal for the 2014 Annual Plan. The Governing Body endorsed Terms of Reference (Attachment A) for this review on 26 February 2015. It records stakeholder issues and objectives (Schedule 2) and sets the overarching objective to:

“achieve long term sustainable, affordable and predictable funding of the existing amenities while recognising the Council’s purpose and responsibilities under the Local Government Act 2002 and other legislation.” (paragraph 12):

11. The ARAFA funding model and changes to enhance its effectiveness are the focus of the review:

· The review will not consider whether to add or remove any of the regional amenities from the funding mechanism. That would be a separate piece of work.

· The review will also not consider how much funding each regional amenity currently receives but rather look at the process that determines the amount of funding provided.

12. The Terms of Reference set out the basic process for the review with the identification of criteria for the evaluation of options, identification of options and their subsequent evaluation. In undertaking this review we are working closely with representatives of the amenities and engaging with the Funding Board.

Criteria for the Evaluation of Options

13. The following criteria for evaluating options were endorsed by the Finance and Performance Committee on 21 May 2015:

i. Financial sustainability and certainty

Addresses the ‘sufficiency’ of the contribution provided by the funding model in terms of “adequate, sustainable and secure funding for specified amenities.” It includes the predictability of that funding over the short to medium terms in support of financial planning.

ii. Affordability

Addresses the affordability of the sum of the contributions allocated under the funding model including the impact on rates.

iii. Independence and continuity

Considers the extent to which the option provides for objective decision making and the extent it provides for continuity of decision-making over time. These considerations go to the stability of the funding model over time.

iv. Accountability and transparency

Considers the information and the processes to support decision-making required by an option to ensure there is a clear chain of accountability from the recipient through to the funder. Transparency supports accountability, providing clarity around decision-making processes. Public sector responsibility requires accountability and transparency generally, and particularly in respect of public funds.

v. Administrative efficiency

Considers the efficiency of the funding model, with regard to the costs associated with the information and processes required by an option. Funding arrangements should have regard to the costs of implementation, and how effective they will be in achieving their objectives.

vi. Alignment of outcomes and goals

Considers the extent to which the option allows for alignment between the outcomes and goals sought and achieved by the regional amenities and those of the Auckland Council on behalf of Auckland’s ratepayers.

vii. Fairness

Considers the extent to which the funding model provides for fairness.

viii. Flexibility

Requires consideration of the extent to which the option provides a funding model with sufficient flexibility to take account of changing circumstances.

Options to Enhance Effectiveness

14. Working closely with representatives of the amenities, seven options along a spectrum have been generated, ranging from:

· retaining the status quo

· seeking improvements within the existing ARAFA legislative framework

· modifying the existing ARAFA framework by amending the legislation, to

· repealing the existing ARAFA legislative framework and replacing it with an Auckland Council policy framework.

15. The options were endorsed for evaluation by the Finance and Performance Committee on 18 June 2015.

16. Figure 1 illustrates the options and where they are located on the spectrum. Viewed across the spectrum, the options shift the role of Auckland Council from influencing the Funding Board’s decision-making to becoming the decision-maker itself. Similarly, there are increasing opportunities along the spectrum to align Auckland Council’s strategic outcomes with those of the amenities.

17. The review to date has identified that processes relating to funding bids and reporting have evolved under the existing arrangements. There appear to be further opportunities to pursue improvements through a focus on, information, communication, developing relationships and longer term planning which are being investigated through the final evaluation.

18. Implementation of the options will require further work, some of which is significant. The implementation of options requiring legislative change is particularly complex.

19. Options 1 to 4 are based on current arrangements which provide the pathway for regional amenities to seek operational funding from Auckland Council. Improvements under these options would be available for the 2016/2017 funding year.

20. Option 5 limits opportunities for Auckland Council to scrutinise the funding sought by the regional amenities, whereas Options 6 and 7 increase Auckland Council’s role in decision-making. The level of funding provided under Option 7 would be dependent on the policy and decisions of the governing body. There may therefore be a greater level of uncertainty for the regional amenities which may hold implications for the level of services and facilities they provide.

21. Options 5 to 7 require legislative change through the parliamentary process and it is not possible to indicate when they might become available for implementation.

22. The necessary trade-offs in relation to implementation will be considered through the evaluation of the options.

Figure 1.

23. Option 1 – Status Quo

The existing funding model prescribed by the Act is the benchmark against which the other options will be compared. It is described in paragraphs 1 to 7.

Seeking Improvements from within the existing ARAFA legislative framework

24. The following three options seek to introduce changes to enhance the legislative framework and the sharing of information between the regional amenities, the Funding Board and Auckland Council.

25. Option 2 – Enhanced Status Quo – ‘Clear Pathway to Capital Funding’

This option provides a ‘clear pathway for capital funding’ to augment the status quo.

While the amenities can currently apply for capital funding from Auckland Council via the Long Term Plan process, the granting of such funding is considered to be by exception. Under this option, applications for capital could be anticipated from any of the regional amenities. Potential applications would need to be signaled well ahead of time to assist financial planning and to enable the provision of funding.

26. Option 3 - Enhanced Status Quo – ‘Sustainable Funding’

This option introduces financial planning over a longer time frame with a 3 year rolling funding cycle and supporting information, and establishes how the sustainable level of funding for each regional amenity might be determined:

Introduction of a three year ‘rolling’ funding cycle

This cycle would align with Auckland Council’s Long Term Plan/Annual Plan cycle. Applications for the first year of funding (the year of application) would seek that year’s funding and identify anticipated funding for the next two years. Annual applications made in the second and third year would be considered in the light of all the relevant information then provided.

Information supporting ‘rolling’ applications

The clarity and timeframe of information accompanying applications would be reviewed to ensure it supports the rolling funding cycle.

‘Sustainability’

A definition of the sustainable level of funding would be developed for application in the context of each of the regional amenities. This would also establish appropriate levels of reserves amenities would be able to build-up and maintain to help manage the peaks and troughs of the funding requirements.

27. Option 4 – Enhanced Status Quo – ‘Alignment/Groupings’

This option similarly proposes the three year rolling review, maximises opportunities to improve strategic alignment between the regional amenities and Auckland Council and addresses the diverse range of regional amenities.

The three year ‘rolling’ funding cycle / Information supporting applications becomes available as set out in the previous option.

Auckland Council and the Funding Board confer

Auckland Council would be more explicit in clarifying its expectations, its funding constraints and its intentions when conferring with the Funding Board on the draft Funding Plan. The purpose would be to ensure transparency about the Auckland Council context and any funding constraints the council might face.

Auckland Council supports public notification

Auckland Council supports public notification of the Draft Funding Plan. The council could support the notification of the Draft Funding Plan on the council’s web site, through the media centre and/or in publications. This would help rate payers provide feedback and make submissions.

More particular consideration relevant to the type of amenity

This could include:

· Criteria and considerations as relevant to different types of amenities – e.g. safety, arts & culture, and facilities

· Clarification and guidance around what might be meant by ‘sustainability’ and the sustainable contribution required could be developed with reference to the activities undertaken by the particular regional amenities.

Modifying the existing ARAFA framework by amending legislation

28. The two following options amend the ARAFA legislative framework, proposing specific amendments to the way funding is determined or the roles of institutions and the processes through which they work.

29. Option 5 – Baseline Plus CPI

Under this option the specified amenities would determine the ‘sustainable’ level of funding required for year 1, which would be CPI adjusted for the next two years. The level of sustainable funding would then be reset for the next (4^th) year and CPI adjusted in each of the next two years.

The basis for determining the sustainable level of funding would need to be developed and the implications for the Funding Board explored.

30. Option 6 - Strong Funder

This option remaps the relationship between the regional amenities and the Auckland Council with Auckland Council providing funds directly. Under this option the ARAFA legislative framework would be amended so that:

· the regional amenities apply to Auckland Council directly for funding

· three year rolling funding cycle / supporting information applies

· Auckland Council sets the funding envelope

· Auckland Council prepares and adopts the Funding Plan

· the role of the Funding Board becomes one of providing expert advice to Auckland Council

· the regional amenities report annually to the Auckland Council.

Auckland Council sets the funding envelope

The funding envelope from which contributions to the regional amenities would be drawn would be set for the 10 year period though the Council’s Long Term Plan process. This longer term approach to funding would likely require a review of the information required in support of setting the envelope.

Auckland Council prepares and adopts the Funding Plan

The Funding Plan mechanism could be similar to the status quo or be modified in terms of the process and matters to be taken into consideration.

The role of the Funding Board

The Funding Board’s role would change to one of providing expert advice to assist Auckland Council. Appointments may still be made by Auckland Council and by the regional amenities.

Repeal of the existing ARAFA framework and replacement with an Auckland Council policy framework

31. Under this model the existing ARAFA legislative framework would be repealed and replaced with a policy framework established and maintained by Auckland Council.

32. Option 7 - Auckland Council Dedicated Fund

The repealed ARAFA legislative framework would be replaced by a specific policy of Auckland Council where:

· Auckland Council sets the funding envelope

· there is no Funding Board and the regional amenities apply to Auckland Council for funding

· Auckland Council considers applications and determines the funding allocated following public consultation

· there is separate policy and consideration for different types of amenity – for example, safety, arts & culture and facilities for example.

· a three year rolling funding cycle with supporting information would apply

· the amenities annually report to the Auckland Council.

This option replicates many of the policy intentions of the Strong Funder option within Auckland Council formulated policy, though without the legislation or the Funding Board. As Council policy, the funding model/policy framework would be amenable to any amendment subsequent Councils may require.

Evaluation

33. The evaluation involves considering the performance of each option against the criteria, relative to the performance of the status quo. Working closely with the amenities representatives, this process is currently underway and the results will be reported to the Finance and Performance Committee on 17 September 2015. The evaluation will identify the preferred option/s which may be a refined version, comprising different elements of the options proposed.

34. Local board feedback on the level of changes proposed in the options and the impacts on local boards and local communities (if any) is sought and will be an input into the evaluation along-side feedback received from the Funding Board and Regional Facilities Auckland.

35. From the work completed to date it is clear that Option 4- ‘Alignment/Groupings’ is compromised. The idea of grouping amenities by the nature of their operations is unworkable due to the extent of the difference between each of the regional amenities. The other features of this option continue to offer merit however and will be included in the evaluation.

36. Implementation is a particular consideration in addition to the identified criteria. With the exception of the status quo, each option will require further work to become operational. The amount of work required and the level of complexity is likely to:

· be less from options seeking improvement within existing frameworks (options 2, 3 and 4)

· increase where improvements are sought through amendments to the Act (options 5 and 6)

· further increase with the repeal of the Act and its replacement by an alternative regime (option 7).

37. Seeking amendments to or the repeal of the Act would require sponsorship by a Member of Parliament to drive it through the Parliamentary processes. These include three readings in Parliament and the Select Committee Hearings process. The Act is a private Act. A private bill seeking changes would be subject to parliamentary processes required and it is not possible to indicate the time it might take for it to be enacted.

Next Steps

38. Local Board feedback will be collated and incorporated into the final report to the Finance and Performance Committee on 17 September 2015.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

39. The ARAFA funding model review considers the funding model established under the ARAFA legislation and will not directly impact on local board funding or decision-making. However, communities across all of Auckland are able to benefit from the services and facilities provided by the amenities funded through the Act.

40. Local board views on the level of change proposed in the options and their impacts on local boards (if any) are being sought via this report. This report follows a memo circulated to Local Board Chairs in February 2015 and a briefing to Local Board Chairs and members on 22 June 2015. This report follows the structure of that briefing while elaborating on the information provided.

Māori impact statement

41. The ARAFA funding model review focuses on how Auckland Council’s funding contribution to the specified amenities is determined. Using Whiria Te Muka Tangata: The Māori Responsiveness Framework as a lens there do not appear to be any statutory or treaty obligations, direct Māori or value Te Ao Māori outcomes affected by this review. Enquiries were made of mana whenua in March 2015 to ascertain whether the ARAFA funding model review held any interest. No interests were identified.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Act Review	129

Signatories

Authors

Alastair Cameron - Principal Advisor CCO Governance and External Partnerships

Wayne Brown - Lead Strategic Advisor Strategic Scanning

Authorisers

John Bishop - Treasurer and Manager CCO Governance & External Partnerships

Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Waitākere Ranges Local Board

13 August 2015

Future Urban Land Supply Strategy

File No.: CP2015/14883

Purpose

1. To inform Local Boards about the purpose and content of the draft Future Urban Land Supply Strategy and seek their feedback.

2. To outline the Special Consultative Procedure being undertaken and the anticipated role of Local Boards in this consultation process.

3. To obtain Local Board views on the draft Future Urban Land Supply Strategy.

Executive Summary

4. The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan provides for approximately 11,000 hectares of Future Urban zone land. This land is located within the Rural Urban Boundary (RUB), but outside the 2010 Metropolitan Urban Limit (MUL).

5. The Future Urban Land Supply Strategy (the “Strategy”) (Attachment A) provides direction on the next stage in planning for the following Future Urban zone areas:

· North: Warkworth, Wainui and Silverdale-Dairy Flat

· North-west: Whenuapai, Redhills, Kumeu-Huapai and Riverhead

· South: Takanini, Opaheke-Drury, Karaka, Paerata and Pukekohe.

6. The Strategy sets out Auckland Council’s intention for when the above Future Urban areas are proposed to be development ready. The Strategy was developed in collaboration with infrastructure providers such as Watercare, Auckland Transport and the New Zealand Transport Agency.

7. The Strategy has significant implications for Rodney, Upper Harbour, Henderson-Massey, Papakura and Franklin Local Boards as they contain areas of Future Urban land which are sequenced for development readiness by the Strategy.

8. At its July meeting the Auckland Development Committee resolved to approve the draft Strategy for public consultation in accordance with the Special Consultative Procedure set out in s83 of the Local Government Act (2002) (Attachment B). They also appointed a five person hearing panel consisting of four Councillors and a member of the Independent Maori Statutory Board.

9. The consultation period will run from 17 July to 17 August 2015. Public engagement on the Strategy will include a series of ‘Have your say’ events to be held in Warkworth, Dairy Flat, Drury and Kumeu.

10. The final Strategy will be submitted to the Auckland Development Committee in October for adoption.

11. This report seeks views from the Waitakere Ranges Local Board for consideration by the Auckland Development Committee and hearing panel in making a determination on if and how the Strategy will be amended.

Recommendation/s

That the Waitākere Ranges Local Board:

a) Receives this report

b) Provides feedback to the Auckland Development Committee and hearing panel on the Strategy, in particular on:

i) whether the Local Board agrees with the sequencing proposed within the draft Future Urban Land Supply Strategy and, if so, the reasons why

ii) aspects of the sequencing in the draft Future Urban Land Supply Strategy the Local Board disagrees with and the reasons as to why

c) any further issues on the draft Future Urban Land Supply Strategy.

Comments

Background

12. The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan provides for approximately 11,000 hectares of Future Urban zone land. This land is located within the Rural Urban Boundary (RUB) but outside the 2010 Metropolitan Urban Limit (MUL). The Future Urban zone indicates that this land is appropriate for future urban development.

13. A key goal of the Auckland Plan Development Strategy is to achieve a quality compact form. This requires urban intensification, supplemented by well-managed urban expansion. The Auckland Plan advocates for 70 per cent of growth in the existing urban area and up to 40 per cent of growth in locations outside the 2010 MUL. The Future Urban land is intended to provide a significant portion of the growth outside the 2010 MUL – around 110,000 dwellings. The balance of growth outside the RUB and the satellite towns of Warkworth and Pukekohe, will be accommodated in rural and coastal towns, rural villages, countryside living and general rural areas.

14. The draft Strategy focuses on the Future Urban land areas located in:

· North: Warkworth, Wainui and Silverdale-Dairy Flat

· North-west: Whenuapai, Redhills, Kumeu-Huapai and Riverhead

· South: Takanini, Opaheke-Drury, Karaka, Paerata and Pukekohe.

15. Local Board areas which contain Future Urban land directly affected by this Strategy include Rodney, Upper Harbour, Henderson-Massey, Papakura and Franklin.

16. The draft Strategy marks the next step in planning the Future Urban areas that started with the Auckland Plan. The Auckland Plan identified ‘greenfield areas of investigation’ to provide for future growth outside the MUL. The Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan formalised this concept through the location of the RUB and the proposed zoning of this land as Future Urban.

17. High-level planning was undertaken to provide more detail around possible land use, key infrastructure and potential housing yield and business land location. Based on this, the Strategy sequences the order for when this land is intended to be ready for development over the three decades of the Auckland Plan. It is a proactive approach to long-term planning, infrastructure provision and providing housing and business capacity.

18. Most of the Future Urban areas are predominantly rural and have not previously been identified for urbanisation. Bulk infrastructure will therefore have to be provided to these areas. All Future Urban areas require some degree of bulk infrastructure; development will therefore not be able to occur until this infrastructure is in place. In areas where bulk infrastructure projects are large and complex, longer lead-in times (for design, consenting and build) are required. This affects the timing for when land can be development ready.

Purpose of the Strategy

19. The purpose of the draft Strategy is to provide a robust and logical sequence for when the Future Urban areas are proposed to be ‘development ready’ across the three decades of the Auckland Plan. This will enable coordination of timely structure planning and bulk infrastructure provision to these areas and provide clarity and certainty to all key stakeholders, including infrastructure providers.

Drivers for the Strategy

20. The key driver for the draft Strategy is the significant current and projected growth in Auckland and the pressure this growth places on housing supply and key infrastructure. The Strategy therefore aims to proactively plan for, coordinate and deliver bulk infrastructure so that this land can be brought on stream for both residential and business development i.e. contributing to development capacity across the region.

21. Accommodating this growth will come at a significant cost. Preliminary, high level estimates of bulk infrastructure costs are provided within the draft Strategy; however it does not include costs for any local network infrastructure. The significant costs are primarily driven by the size of the Future Urban areas (these equate to approximately one and a half times the area of urban Hamilton); the scale of the bulk infrastructure that will be required; and the current lack of such infrastructure in these areas. For these reasons it would be prohibitively expensive for Council, CCOs and, more broadly, for central government (e.g. the New Zealand Transport Agency and Ministry of Education) to invest in all Future Urban areas at the same time.

The draft Future Urban Land Supply Strategy

22. The draft Strategy sets out a logical timed sequence for development readiness. It integrates information on key infrastructure required to get these areas ready for urban development. The sequencing is based on a suite of principles (attached to the Strategy) that include the consideration of the lead-in times for the bulk infrastructure required. Bulk infrastructure refers to water, wastewater, stormwater and the transport network. This draft Strategy will also assist with the forward planning of community facilities and services critical for creating sustainable communities.

23. The sequencing set out in the draft Strategy was developed with input from a number of infrastructure providers including Watercare, Veolia, Auckland Transport and the New Zealand Transport Agency.

24. The analysis done for this draft Strategy is of sufficient scale and specificity to broadly determine bulk infrastructure requirements. There are two subsequent parallel and inter-dependent processes to get land ready for development – more detailed structure planning, and bulk infrastructure planning and build.

25. Structure planning and plan changes (to urban zones) will be done prior to the areas being ready for development and will be undertaken by the Council (or in partnership with others) in line with the programme set out in the draft Strategy. This is the stage of the process where Local Boards, mana whenua and communities will be involved in the detailed planning of these areas.

26. The sequencing programme ensures the infrastructure costs are distributed over three decades to smooth spikes in capital expenditure, allow all infrastructure providers to forward plan their asset management and assist with prioritising key enabling projects.

27. A monitoring programme is an integral part of the Strategy and will be used to monitor trends over time. This is to ensure that the proposed sequencing remains relevant. This monitoring will be part of an overall strategy to provide information on development capacity in brownfield and greenfield locations. Given the 30-year timeframe, a number of factors could change the proposed sequencing and timing as set out in the Strategy. These include funding constraints, possible alternative funding options and changes to population growth and housing demand. Therefore, for the Strategy to remain relevant and effective, it must be a ‘living’ document, able to respond to changes identified through the monitoring programme.

The Consultation Process

28. The public consultation period will run from 17 July – 17 August 2015. It will follow the Special Consultative Procedure set out in s83 of the Local Government Act (2002). This procedure requires all interested parties to be given an opportunity to present submissions in a manner which enables spoken interaction.

29. The Auckland Development Committee has appointed Councillors Cashmore, Darby, Webster and Quax and one member of the IMSB (to be confirmed) to form a hearing panel to receive the spoken submissions.

30. A series of ‘Have your say’ events will be held to provide an opportunity to all interested parties to provide spoken feedback. These events will be held at the following dates, times and locations:

· Monday 3 August (7pm-8.30pm) – Warkworth Masonic Hall

· Wednesday 5 August (7pm-8.30pm) – Drury Hall

· Monday 10 August (7pm-8.30pm) – Dairy Flat School Hall

· Tuesday 11 August (7pm-8.30pm) – Kumeu Community Hall

31. Invitations will be extended to Ward Councillors and Local Board members to attend these events.

32. Public notices will be placed in the New Zealand Herald and relevant local newspapers notifying interested parties about the Strategy itself and the ‘Have your say’ events. The Strategy and a feedback form will be available on the Shape Auckland website and a media release will be distributed at the commencement of the consultation period. A targeted direct mail out will also be undertaken for key stakeholders.

33. Local Board participation at the events and feedback and input to the draft Strategy are welcomed.

34. Feedback received during the period, including that received from Local Boards, will be analysed, summarised and reported to the Auckland Development Committee and the hearing panel. The panel will then make a determination about amendment of the Strategy.

35. The final Strategy will be submitted for adoption at the Auckland Development Committee meeting in October.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

36. The Strategy has significant implications for Local Boards particularly Rodney, Upper Harbour, Henderson-Massey, Papakura and Franklin Local Boards as they contain areas of Future Urban land sequenced by this Strategy. The consultation period and the ‘Have your say’ events provide an opportunity for Local Boards to become involved in the process, hear the views of their communities and form their own views and response to the Strategy.

37. Local Boards were informed about the Strategy at a joint workshop held with the Auckland Development Committee on 16 June 2015. A briefing on the Strategy and the consultation process was held for Local Board members on 15 July 2015. This was to ensure Local Boards have a sound understanding of the Strategy and consultation process prior to the commencement of the consultation period.

38. Preliminary issues raised by attendees included the need to manage community expectation about land purchases in the future urban areas, the need to ensure Council is fully resourced to undertake the structure planning work, a need to forward plan land purchase for community facilities and a proactive engagement approach with central government around provision of education and health facilities and services to deliver the best outcomes for local communities.

39. This report seeks Local Board views on the Strategy and these issues and any other feedback will be reported to the Auckland Development Committee and the hearing panel.

Māori impact statement

40. This Strategy has significant implications for Maori and has the capacity to contribute to Maori well-being and development of Maori capacity. It is acknowledged that Maori have a special relationship with Auckland’s physical and cultural environment. Ongoing liaison has occurred with Te Waka Angamua around the Strategy and the suite of principles which sit behind it. One of the principles reflects Council’s commitment to Maori social and economic well-being as a transformational shift set out in the Auckland Plan. Independent Maori Statutory Board staff were briefed at the commencement of the project, provided with background documentation and invited to workshops as the Strategy was developed. A representative from the IMSB is to be appointed to the hearing panel for this project. A hui was held with mana whenua chairs on 29 June 2015 and individual meetings will occur with interested Chairs who were unable to attend the hui.

41. Iwi responses will be sought as part of the public consultation process outlined in this report. Consultation submissions from iwi will be reported to the Auckland Development Committee and the hearing panel.

Attachments