Agenda of Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

17 September 2015

Mt Wellington War Memorial Park & Panmure Wharf Reserve Concept Plan

File No.: CP2015/10319

Purpose

1. To seek approval of the final concept plan for Mt Wellington War Memorial Park and Panmure Wharf Reserve.

Executive Summary

2. A concept plan for the future development of Mt Wellington War Memorial Park and Panmure Wharf Reserve has been completed.

3. The plan proposes a number of changes to the existing parks, including:

· a new multi-sport building

· developing new pedestrian and cycle routes

· developing a beach area at Panmure Wharf Reserve

· upgrading playground, seating and picnic areas in both parks

· replacement of existing jetty

· reconfiguring vehicle access and parking provision

4. There is currently insufficient budget allocated to Mt Wellington War Memorial Park and Panmure Wharf Reserve to implement the concept plan in full. A number of priority projects have been identified that can be implemented within the currently allocated renewals and development budget for these parks.

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a) approve the concept plan for Mt Wellington War Memorial Park and Panmure Wharf Reserve (Attachment A).

b) approve the implementation of the priority projects for Mt Wellington War Memorial Park and Panmure Wharf Reserve.

Comments

Background

5. In March 2014, the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board approved the development of a concept plan that would guide the long-term development aspirations for Mt Wellington War Memorial Park and Panmure Wharf Reserve.

6. The preparation of the concept plan has been a collaborative design process with mana whenua, and has been informed through consultation with key stakeholders and the wider community. The local board have been involved throughout the project through a series of workshops.

The concept plan

7. The Mt Wellington War Memorial Park and Panmure Wharf Reserve long-term concept plan proposes a number of key projects. These include:

i) Mt Wellington War Memorial Park

· Reduce the number of buildings by developing a new multi-sport facility in the northern part of the park to accommodate rugby, tennis and the Dunkirk Activity Centre.

· Close the existing public toilets and construct a new public toilet in the vicinity of the proposed new playground.

· Reconfigure the car parking in the short-term to improve access to the Dunkirk Activity Centre and improve the amenity in this area.

· Upgrade and expand the existing playground; making it into a destination playground that can provide for a wider range of age groups.

· Develop new stormwater ponds to allow for stormwater to be treated and detained before entering the Tāmaki Estuary.

· Improve the Armein Road entry to the park.

· Improve the sports field quality by sand carpeting some of the fields.

ii) Panmure Wharf Reserve

· Reduce pedestrian/vehicle conflict and improve access to the foreshore by realigning the existing vehicle access so traffic is rerouted behind the rowing club.

· Create a new beach and rock groyne.

· Resurface the boat ramp.

· Replace the existing jetty with a pontoon style jetty for all-tide access for water sports.

· New picnic and seating areas.

iii) Both reserves

· Develop a new greenway route along the coastal edge of both parks connecting into the wider greenway network.

· Upgrade park furniture in both parks.

· Implement the signage strategy and install art works.

Implementation

8. The indicative cost to deliver the long-term aspirations identified in the concept plan is estimated at $7 million. This estimate does not include the cost of the proposed multi-sport facility. This proposed facility would require substantial additional budget and could vary widely depending on the scope of the building. Further scoping of the proposal in the context of the wider regional Sports Facilities Network Plan is required to identify the optimum project scope and relative priority.

9. At this time there is insufficient budget allocated in the Long Term Plan 2015-2025 to deliver the long-term aspirations identified in the concept plan in full.

10. The Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board has allocated a capital development budget of $1,050,000 over three years for delivery of projects within the parks. In addition, there will be budget available from the parks renewals budget that can be allocated to some specific projects.

11. This combined capital development and renewals budget will allow the local board to implement the long-term concept plan in a staged manner.

Priority projects

12. A number of priority projects were identified at a workshop with the local board Parks Portfolio holder on 20 July 2015. The proposed priority projects are outlined in Table 1 below.

13. Based on initial cost estimates, the proposed priority projects would require a capital development budget of $1,211,000 in addition to renewals and other budget allocation. This amount exceeds the current capital development budget allocation for the development of these parks. Further prioritisation of projects from this proposed priority list will be required once more accurate cost estimates have been completed.

Table 1: Priority Projects

Project	Funder	Year	Amount
Mt Wellington War Memorial Reserve

Dunkirk Activity centre area close toilets and improve access	Maungakiekie Tāmaki Local Board	1-3	$200,000
Toilet near new playground	Maungakiekie Tāmaki Local Board	1-3	$300,000
Playground	Maungakiekie Tāmaki Local Board Asset renewals	1-3 1-3	$295,000 $120,000
Minor entry works Armein Road	Maungakiekie Tāmaki Local Board	1-3	$15,000
Bins, seats and picnic sets	Asset renewals	1-3	$20,000
Sand carpet sports fields	Sports Field Capacity Development	1-3
Signage strategy, artworks and interpretation	Tāmaki Estuary Walkway	1-3	$54,500
Panmure Wharf Reserve
Beach establishment	Maungakiekie Tāmaki Local Board	1-3	$110,000
Rock groyne	Maungakiekie Tāmaki Local Board	1-3	$100,000
Mudcrete boat ramp	Maungakiekie Tāmaki Local Board	1-3	$152,000
Floating pontoon	Asset renewals	1-3	$443,000
Picnic/amenity area	Maungakiekie Tāmaki Local Board	1-3	$38,900

Next steps

14. Subject to local board approval of the proposed priority projects, the detailed planning, design, consenting and delivery of these projects will form part of the local boards capital development and renewals programme over the next three years.

15. The local board may wish to release on Shape Auckland and its web page the concept plan and how its sets out the long-term development aspirations for Mt Wellington War Memorial Reserve and Panmure Wharf Reserve. It may also wish to outline the process to implement the concept plan.

Local Board views and implications

16. The local board has been involved in the development of the concept plan through a series of workshops and portfolio meetings:

i) 11 March 2014	- scope of concept plan project
ii) 10 February 2015	- phase one consultation feedback and draft concept plan options
iii) 30 June 2015	- phase two feedback on the concept plan
iv) 20 July 2015	- priority projects were identified with Parks Portfolio holder.

Māori impact statement

17. Mana Whenua have been engaged as design partners rather than key stakeholders for the project via an Iwi Mana Whenua Collaborative Partnership Model. This model was a new approach to concept plan engagement with Mana Whenua and this project was treated as a test case by staff and the Local Board. The premise of the model is that the role of Mana Whenua was reflected in three project stages, representing concept, detailed design and capital works.

18. A number of iwi authorities are represented within a Mana Whenua working group, with one representative of the group nominated by the group to actively participate in concept plan design alongside council staff. Lucy Tukua from Ngati Paoa is the nominated representative for this project. The concept design is informed by a set of generic and place based Te Aranga Maori Design Values and Principles that the Mana Whenua working group collectively developed.

Implementation

19. Implementation of the long-term concept plan is subject to the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board securing funding.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Mt Wellington War Memorial Parkand Panmure Wharf Reserve concept plan	93
b View	Consultation summary	103

Signatories

Authors

Shyrel Burt - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

17 September 2015

Summary of Phase 2 consultation

Question	Percentage	Reasons
1A and 1B: Rugby and Tennis club area
Option 1: Relocate tennis building. Retain Marist building in current position Option 2: Remove existing buildings and replace with multisport facility	16.6% - don’t know	· Majority of comments relate to the Panmure Wharf Reserve and the respondents haven’t expressed a preference in relation to this end of the reserve
	16.6% - option 1	· A number of the comments relate to potential cost of replacing existing buildings in suitable condition · Some reservations over this option relate to design issues e.g. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design and visual effects
	57.8% - option 2	· Support for this option centres around a desire to remove buildings that are no longer fit for purpose with an improved, more efficient and multi-functional and well utilised facility · Improved coastal treatment and a better outcome for the walkway as it could be located alongside the coastal edge
	9.0% - blanks	N/A
1C Panmure Wharf Reserve Area
What are your thoughts on the proposal for the Panmure Wharf Reserve area?	· Positive support for changes · Prevent structures and vegetation from obstructing views · Insufficient parking · Need to provide sufficient manoeuvring for large vehicles associated with yacht club · Install concrete on existing public boat ramp · Conflict regarding use of public pontoon/wharf · Provide sufficient space for waka ama boat storage · Ensure planting does not restrict access to Auckland Grammar School rowing shed
1D Playground and stormwater area
What are your thoughts on the draft concept for the playground and stormwater area?	· Positive support for changes · A number of respondents raised concerns regarding co-location of ponds and the playground with potential water safety risks · Some suggestions to move the playground to northern end and improve CPTED risks · Concerns raised regarding maintenance of stormwater ponds and risk of poor maintenance attracting mosquitos and odour issues
1E Dunkirk Activity Centre area
What are your thoughts on the draft concept for the Dunkirk Activity Centre (DAC) area?	· A large number of respondents requesting that the DAC be incorporated in to multi-sport facility in Option 2 · Those wishing to see it retained prefer that toilets are not removed e.g. Marist and Auckland University Cricket Club. Too far to walk between toilets · Some do not favour retention of 90° parking due to safety issues (vehicles/cyclists) · Plans show distances for disabled people are too far · Previous vandalism issue with landscape planting in the past led to garden being removed. Assume the same will occur under the new proposal
1F Any further comments
General comments	No fundamental comments in opposition to the proposals Respondents who selected Option 1 for Marist/Tennis area (retain existing buildings): · “Excellent solution, strongly support this” · “Thank you for helping make our community a better place” · Comments in support for the greenway and proposed new vehicular and circulation arrangements. · Cycle safety important to a number of respondents · Traffic control important, especially around the rugby club on sports days and around Panmure Wharf Reserve Respondents who selected Option 2 for Marist/Tennis area (multisport facility): · “Good”, “positive” · Repair the seawall · Traffic control important, especially around the rugby club on game days · Maximise the wharf as a multi-functional recreational space · Wide path is important

Summary of Stakeholder Consultation

Stakeholder	Phase 1 feedback summary
Marist Rugby	Requested council funding for improvements to toilet facilities within the building.
Marist Rugby	Requested artificial training field to the west of field 1 near Dunkirk Road
Mt Wellington Tennis Club	Would support shared facilities with Marist rugby but cautious of management practicalities
	The club has an immediate aspiration to expand the Futsal Programme on the site
	Re-name club Mt Wellington Community Sports Club with a common fee structure
	Expand casual access to the courts for other sport and community groups (via electronic access system)
	Upgrade old tarmac area for multi-sport use as per front courts with artificial grass, windbreaks and floodlights
	Explore the possibility of covering the area with a roof
	Current parking shortage but the current existing informal management regime is effective
Panmure Yacht & Boating Club	Rowing club boats on the road are an issue
	Circulation of various activities on site could be improved
	Concerned about anti-social behaviour in the car park north of the PYBC club rooms
	Children swimming near the wharf – safety issues with motor boats
St George’s Rowing Club	Key objective is new building
	Improved boat launching facilities
	Improved circulation on site *this is shared by others in terms of on-site vehicle/pedestrian/boat use conflicts
	Improve picnic facilities at PWR
Waka Ama	Critical issue is water access. Improved facilities for launching boats, preferably via a pontoon similar to St Kentigern’s College on the eastern side of the Tāmaki River
	Seek improved storage facilities for waka related equipment
	Seek opportunity to utilise Panmure Yacht & Boating Club facilities (upstairs). The experience is that the club has not been very receptive to this.
Auckland Cricket and University of Auckland Cricket	Seeking to maintain current number of wickets in Auckland
	Would support addition of 2x lane cricket net facility to MWWMP
	Kaikuyu grass on outer fields. Scarification recommended
	Would support provision of shelter for non-batting players and spectators
Auckland Kilikiti	Would support addition of an additional kilikiti pitch at MWWMP but it is not critical (ultimately wish to protect existing number of pitches)
	MWWMP is great venue with surrounding bank for spectating
	Consider opportunities to improve safety for toilet use via CPTED
Auckland Grammar Rowing	Seeking greater certainty of over its building lease from University of Auckland. Three broad options considered: 1. Longer term lease 2. Purchase site from UoA (assuming it is a willing seller) 3. Construct new shared facility at Paisley Place.
	Support replacement of existing Panmure Wharf with a different structure (e.g. pontoon). Would be beneficial for launching rowing and waka ama boats and other public uses. See Saunders Reserve pontoon.
	Would consider opportunity for the use of shared facilities with other clubs at Panmure Wharf Reserve (and Paisley Place).
University of Auckland	UoA has water sports focus for the concept plan.
	Seeking certainty for the future location and operation of its water sports clubs including rowing and waka ama.
	An extension to pontoon(s) may be necessary to improve all tide access
	When considering options for pontoon development ensure the manoeuvring requirements of waka ama are taken in to consideration. For example, their boats are generally heavier and wider than rowing skiffs.
Dunkirk Activity Centre	Seeks removal of public toilets from centre of the building to enable activity space to be expanded
	Improve accessibility to playground for pushchairs and those with mobility difficulties
	Playground equipment for older children and disabled children requested
	Supports walkway along water’s edge
	Inadequate rubbish bins at the playground
RSA	Requesting memorial structure/monument at the MWWMP
Baseball New Zealand	Seeking two senior diamonds at MWWMP for Bayside Baseball club, retaining two junior diamonds at Crossfield Reserve
Baseball New Zealand	Would utilise Marist Clubrooms for post-game facilities. This has previously been discussed with Marist.

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

17 September 2015

Ruapotaka and Maybury Reserves Master Planning

File No.: CP2015/18780

Purpose

1. To seek endorsement from the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board to progress the master-planning of the Ruapotaka and Maybury Reserves and Housing New Zealand Crown land to the north and south of the reserves.

Executive Summary

1. In March 2013, the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board approved in principle a Master Plan^{^[1]} for Ruapotaka Reserve (refer Figure 5, Attachment A).

2. Stage 1 of the Master Plan was the development of Te Oro, which opened in May 2015. Stages 2 to 4 of the Master Plan are currently un-funded and subject to stakeholder consultation. These stages include the removal of the existing CAB/Plunket and Ka Mau Te Wero buildings, soft landscaping, stormwater treatment, improvements to the Glen Innes Community Hall, further consultation with the Ruapotaka Marae and improving the linkages between Ruapotaka and Maybury Reserves.

3. Now that Stage 1 is completed, Development Auckland (DA – formerly ACPL) seeks approval from the local board to progress further stages of master-planning which now extend to include Maybury Reserve.

4. The proposed physical scope of the project includes the whole of Ruapotaka and Maybury Reserves along with the facilities within them, plus the Housing NZ land within the area shown in the site plan below. It is noted that the HNZC properties will be transferred to TRC in March 2016.

5. Also within scope is consideration of:

· Non-physical works that activate the spaces, such as events or community activities

· Renewal or maintenance works that require immediate attention, such as playground renewal, footpath renewals

· Proposed future land acquisitions or land exchanges

· Current activities occurring on the reserves, including the facilities within them.

6. This report outlines the process for the development of an approved Master Plan for the Ruapotaka and Maybury Reserves. It includes concept planning of the stages outlined in paragraph 3.

7. Key tasks, responsibilities and milestones DA seeks the local board’s approval to progress are:

i) Development of options – Ruapotaka and Maybury Reserves Masterplan (Stages 2 to 4): target completion end of November 2015. Timeframe includes key community stakeholder engagement throughout October and November and incorporation of their feedback into a Draft Master Plan.

ii) Local Board engagement on the Draft Master Plan: local board workshop December 2015, target completion end of December 2015.

iii) Identify and endorse preferred option: local board workshop early March, business meeting mid-late March 2016, target completion end of March 2016. Timeframe includes review of options with key community stakeholders throughout January and February 2016.

iv) Provide staged and costed development recommendations: local board workshop early May 2016, business meeting late May 2016, target completion end of May 2016.

v) Implementation Plan: local board workshop early June 2016, business meeting late June 2016.

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a) approve Development Auckland (formerly ACPL) progressing the master-planning for the Ruapotaka and Maybury Reserves and Housing New Zealand Crown land to the north and south of these reserves.

Comments

Background and rationale

8. Ruapotaka Reserve, located at 96-108 Line Road, Glen Innes, is a 0.9 hectare area containing the Ruapotaka Marae, Glen Innes library, Glen Innes community hall, Plunket, CAB and car parking. Te Oro (formerly known as the Glen Innes Music and Arts Centre) has been recently completed and opened in May 2015

9. The reserve is classified as a local purpose reserve (community buildings) under the Reserves Act 1977. It is Crown owned and council managed and not currently subject to treaty claims.

10. Ruapotaka Reserve is bordered by Maybury Reserve to the east, Glen Innes Police station and residential flats to the north, residential Housing New Zealand properties to the south and the Glen Innes town centre on the western side of Line Road.

11. Figure 1: Location map – Ruapotaka Reserve (Attachment A)

12. Maybury Reserve is a long park, approximately seven hectares in area, which extends from Ruapotaka Reserve in the west to Elstree Avenue in the east. The reserve provides for informal recreation and, together with Point England, Taniwha, Eastview and Apirana Reserves, helps to form a green link from Meadowbank to the Tāmaki Estuary. The reserve is classified as a recreation reserve under the Reserves Act and is Council owned and managed. This reserve does not have a reserve management plan.

13. A section of Omaru Creek also runs through the reserve, and recent community, local board, and Watercare initiatives (such as the River Talks and Ko Au te Awa) have focused on bringing people’s attention to the need to improve the water quality of the creek.

14. A number of safety issues have been identified with the reserve by the Neighbourhood Policing Team, and a Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) report commissioned in 2012.

15. The Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board has requested that Council staff develop a concept plan for Maybury Reserve. TRC also recognises the importance of delivering change in this area, and have prepared a draft Maybury Precinct Plan, which contemplates redevelopment on properties that border Maybury Reserve and potential reconfiguration of some reserve boundaries. It makes sense to plan both in tandem in an integrated manner.

16. Figure 2: Location Map - Maybury Reserve (Attachment A)

Rationale for Master Plan

17. A number of safety issues have been identified in the adjoining Maybury and Ruapotaka Reserves. This is a particular issue around the CAB/Plunket and Ka Mau Te Wero buildings, with vandalism and graffiti a persistent problem, along with more serious crimes occurring away from public view within Maybury Reserve.

18. In March 2013, the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board approved in principle a Master Plan [2] for Ruapotaka Reserve (refer Attachment A).

19. Stage 1 of the Master Plan was the development of Te Oro. Stages 2 to 4 of the Master Plan are currently un-funded and subject to stakeholder consultation. These stages include the removal of the existing CAB/Plunket and Ka Mau Te Wero buildings, soft landscaping, stormwater treatment, improvements to the Glen Innes Community Hall, further consultation with the Ruapotaka Marae and improving the linkages between Ruapotaka and Maybury Reserves.

Integration with surrounding area

20. The Master Plan will need to ensure that the redeveloped Ruapotaka and Maybury Reserves will integrate with and provide connectivity to the surrounding area, including the bordering Housing New Zealand properties, the Glen Innes town centre and the larger parks network. It will need to align with the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board Work Plan and the Greenways Plan.

21. Figure 3: Map of wider surrounding area (Attachment A)

Rationale for involvement of partners

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board / Auckland Council

22. As administrator of both Ruapotaka and Maybury Reserves, Auckland Council has responsibility for day-to-day management and long term planning.

23. Local decision making including design, service levels and funding for local parks, rests with the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board.

24. Regional decision making for changes such as reconfiguration of reserve boundaries, acquisition and sale of reserve land, or changing the status of a reserve rests with the Governing Body. In making its decisions, the Governing Body is guided by Local Board advice and feedback.

Tāmaki Redevelopment Company

25. The Tāmaki Redevelopment Company (TRC) is a company jointly owned by the council and Crown, established to deliver social, economic, spatial and housing outcomes as part of an urban regeneration programme in Tāmaki.

26. The transfer of the management and ownership of the circa 2,800 Housing New Zealand properties and tenancies to TRC has recently been announced and will occur 31 March 2016. TRC has therefore had input into this scoping document.

27. TRC have had discussions with the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board, Ruapotaka Marae and other key stakeholders about future planning options for Ruapotaka and Maybury Reserves.

Ruapotaka Marae

28. Ruapotaka Marae is located on Ruapotaka Reserve. The Mission Statement of Ruapotaka Marae is – “To influence positively the relationships of all people within the Glen Innes and surrounding communities through the practice of whanaungatanga and wairua”.

29. Ruapotaka Marae is an important cultural and community hub in Tāmaki and is seen by most as a gateway into the community.

30. TRC is working with the Marae to develop a feasibility study identifying the current and future needs of the Marae and how these translate into building requirements and possible future expansion. This work is being carried out at the same time as the Master Planning process so that one informs the other.

Options Considered

31. In the formulation of this scoping document several options for inclusion in the masterplan were considered. The potential components of the proposed masterplan are as follows.

Ruapotaka Reserve

32. The Ruapotaka Reserve includes the newly completed Te Oro music and arts centre, Glen Innes Library, Glen Innes Community Centre, and buildings which house Plunket, CAB and Ka Mau Te Wero. Plunket and Citizens Advice Bureau have expressed a strong desire to move to new premises, with preference that these are located within the reserve. The Community Hall within the Reserve has the potential to house these two tenancies, but would require attention to deferred maintenance and some internal remodeling. Options for relocation will be explored as part of the master plan.

Maybury Reserve

33. A concept plan for the Maybury reserve has previously been requested by the Local Board in response to issues highlighted previously. Maybury Reserve has a number of fixed assets including a playground, walk ways and seating, bins etc, a number of which have been deferred for renewal until the masterplan process provides guidance on location and specification of asset.

Point England Reserve

34. The Point England reserve acts as the eastern most link of the greenway connecting the Tāmaki Estuary with the Glenn Innes town centre and Meadowbank. The park has the potential to provide for a wider recreational catchment within Auckland, given its land area of 41 hectares. The reserve has a predominantly rural character whilst also providing sports fields and the Glen Innes pool complex. The reserve has significant ecological values due to its location on the Tāmaki River. The lower reaches of the Omaru Creek flow through the reserve.

35. Point England is classified for recreation purposes under the Reserves Act. The reserve is zoned Open Space 4 (Community), Open Space 3 (Organised Recreation) and Open Space 2 (Informal Recreation) in the Auckland Council Isthmus District Plan. The zoning in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan is Public Open Space – Informal Recreation and Public Open Space – Sport and Active Recreation. The reserve is subject to a number of other limitations such as strategic ecological areas, sites of significance to mana whenua, natural hazards and volcanic view shafts.

Marae Precinct

36. The Marae Precinct includes the Ruapotaka Marae along with the associated buildings and grounds. The inclusion of the Marae in the scoping was considered appropriate for the following reasons:

· The Marae acts as a community hub, running programmes, activities and hosting events for the local community

· The community lease for the Marae is due for renewal and the Marae has requested a lease renewal and an expansion to the existing lease area

· The Marae has aspirations for the redevelopment of the Marae site and these aspirations will be outlined in the Feasibility Study underway, along with the Marae’s current needs.

· The functioning of the Marae access may need review following the completion of Te Oro.

Adjoining Housing New Zealand / Tāmaki Redevelopment Company Dwellings

37. These dwellings adjoining the park could potentially be included in the master planning.

38. It is proposed that all of the options considered are included in the master plan scope except for Point England Reserve. The Point England reserve has been excluded due to the different status of the reserve with it being a place of organised recreation, the regional function of the park and the uncertainties around the extent of the treaty settlement area. The connections from Maybury to Point England reserve should be included in the scope.

Project Definition

Objectives

39. The key objectives of the Ruapotaka and Maybury Reserves Master Plan are:

· Identification of a suitable location and scale for Ruapotaka Marae that is informed by community and cultural requirements

· No net loss of open space taking into consideration wider spatial planning being undertaken across the whole of the Tāmaki Regeneration Area.

· Enhancing water quality at riparian edges in Omaru Stream

· Well configured buildings that relate to each other and the open space areas between buildings (physical location)

· Consistency with the objectives set out in the Heads of Agreement between council and the Crown for Tāmaki transformation (social, economic, spatial, housing resources)

· Buildings and activities that leverage off and complement each other providing improved experiences for the community and facility users

· Improvement of visual and physical linkages to the road network, Point England Reserve and the Glen Innes town centre

· Shared outcomes with Watercare and stormwater as infrastructure providers

· The creation of inviting, attractive and safe public spaces for communities to gather

· Shared outcomes with mana whenua and mataāwaka

· Cultural Heritage

· Improve access and parking to facilities

· Potential for future library expansion

· Improved open space outcomes including:

– better amenity, quality, function and natural environment

– Improved CPTED outcomes, such as opening up site lines from Ruapotaka Reserve to Maybury Reserve and improved surveillance from neighbouring properties

– Minimising the footprint and impact of any proposed buildings on open space.

– Eventual consistency and connection to Point England Reserve

40. The Master Plan will leverage off:

· Previous planning work carried out by the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board (specifically the draft Ruapotaka Reserve Master Plan approved in principle by the local board in March 2013, included as Figure 5 in Attachment A)

· The aspirations of Ruapotaka Marae for redeveloping their buildings (work underway), supported by a Needs Assessment

· Investigation and planning work by Tāmaki Redevelopment Company (TRC) including the Maybury Precinct Plan, Maybury Implementation Plan and the Tāmaki Implementation Plan

· Previous planning work completed as part of the former Tāmaki Transformation Project (TTP)

· The potential for reserve reconfiguration through opportunities arising from redevelopment of adjoining sites and other surplus reserves in the area.

Project Drivers

41. A key driver for this project is the local board’s desire to maximise the potential of the Ruapotaka, Maybury and Point England Reserves to become attractive, safe, well-functioning and connected spaces. The reserves (and any associated buildings and infrastructure) should be places that help to meet the community’s needs, are well used and well cared for.

42. The recently completed Te Oro building, which is located in the middle of Ruapotaka Reserve, is a further driver for the project as is preliminary design work currently being carried out for the Marae (by the Marae and Design Tribe).

43. The project will also be informed by the Heads of Agreement between council and the Crown, signed as the basis for working together on the TTP. To address the challenges and opportunities in Tāmaki, Crown and council agreed to work together on the transformation of Tāmaki by pursuing the following four objectives:

· Social – supporting Tāmaki residents and families to get the skills knowledge and employment opportunities to progress in their lives

· Economic – Strengthening the local economy and unlocking the potential of the Tāmaki area to enable a prosperous community and deliver better value for money to the Crown

· Spatial – Creating safe and connected neighbourhoods that support the social and economic development of Tāmaki and its community

· Housing resources – optimising the use of land and existing housing stock to effectively support and deliver social and economic results, including progressing private housing development and better public housing options for Tāmaki.

44. Each of these objectives will need to be captured and expressed in to the development of the Master Plan.

Strategic Fit

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board Plan 2014 – 2017

45. The Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board Plan (MTLBP) was adopted on 14 October 2014. The Plan sets the strategic direction and activities for the Local Board and council staff in this area over the next three years. The development of the plan included two phases of public consultation and also informed the local priorities of the 2015-2025 LTP which was consulted on in early 2015 and adopted in June 2015.

46. The Local Board Plan includes the following statements which are relevant to this scoping document:

· Work with Ruapotaka Marae, mana whenua, the Tāmaki Redevelopment Company and other organisations to redevelop the Ruapotaka Marae precinct.

· Progress the development of future stages of the Ruapotaka Reserve Masterplan, including moving the Citizens Advice Bureau, Plunket and foodbank to an appropriate permanent location.

· Develop and implement a concept plan for Maybury Reserve.

· The Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board also advocated to the Governing Body for additional funding to realise the above aspirations during the development of the 2015-25 LTP. This advocacy is included in the Local Board Agreement for 2015-16.

Spatial priority areas

47. The Mayor’s Proposal for the Long Term Plan (LTP) 2015-2025 states that spatial priority areas will enable a reduced capital programme to be targeted to those areas where the investment will have maximum impact in achieving the council’s strategic objectives.

48. Ruapotaka and Maybury Reserves, Glen Innes and Tāmaki are more widely included within the “Greater Tāmaki” spatial priority area. The Mayor’s Proposal for the LTP 2015-2025 includes redevelopment of the Ruapotaka Marae as an example of a project that will “unlock the potential for business and community development in spatial priority areas”

TRC Strategic Framework

49. Master planning for the Ruapotaka and Maybury Reserves aligns with several of the key themes and key moves in the TRC Strategic Framework August 2013 such as cultural identity, healthy happy children, health and recreation, safety and security, and natural environment. The Strategic Framework sets the scene and vision for the regeneration programme in Tāmaki. The Framework was widely consulted by TRC and adopted by the council and Crown shareholders in 2013.

Ruapotaka Marae

50. The Ruapotaka Marae have aspirations to improve their facilities, the detail of this will be clarified following the completion of the Marae Feasibility Study and Needs Assessment which is being undertaken in parallel with the Master Planning Process.

Other related strategies and initiatives

51. Draft Library Network Plan, Auckland Council

52. Draft Community Facilities Network Plan, Auckland Council

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

53. The MTLBP 2014 – 2017 refers to progression of master-planning and redevelopment of the Ruapotaka Marae precinct as outlined in paragraphs 46 and 47 above.

54. ACPL (now DA) met with the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board on 2 June to workshop stages 2 to 4 of the Master Plan. At the meeting the local board raised three issues: access and parking, potential for future library expansion, and inclusion of the Glen Innes Business Association as a key stakeholder in the master-planning process.

55. In response to the above feedback, DA added Improvement of access and parking and potential for library expansion to the key objectives of the Ruapotaka and Maybury Reserves Master Plan as noted under paragraph 41. The Glen Innes Business Association has also been added to the key stakeholder list and will be engaged with as planning progresses.

56. The Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board will continue to be involved in the master-planning process in their role as decision maker for design, service levels and funding for this local park and community initiative.

Māori impact statement

57. The importance of effective communication and engagement with Maori on the subject of land is understood. ACPL has accordingly developed and taken into DA a robust form of engagement with Mana Whenua groups across the region.

58. At this stage engagement has been primarily with the Ruapotaka Marae as outlined in the main report. Initial engagement was via a workshop on 16June 2015, where it was agreed that TRC would conduct a marae expansion feasibility study and DA will lead master planning. Engagement with the Ruapotaka Marae will continue under this arrangement.

59. If endorsement is given to progress master planning, DA will also commence engagement with all fourteen mana whenua with an acknowledged interest in the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board area, seeking hapu specific input into design proposals and desired outcomes.

60. It is further noted that there is an operative Sites and Places of Value to Mana Whenua heritage protection overlay in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan 2013. DA will ensure engagement with mana whenua reflects the stated objectives of that protection.

General

Out of Scope

61. Includes the following:-

· Anything outside the boundaries of the study area

· Privately owned land within the study area

· Programmes delivered at Ruapotaka Marae, library, Te Oro and other community facilities in Ruapotaka Reserve, except where it is necessary to consider the spatial or on the ground impacts of these programmes (e.g. if programmes run from the CAB building move into the community hall, this may justify removal of the CAB building from Ruapotaka Reserve and needs to be shown in the masterplan).

Implementation

62. Key tasks, responsibilities and milestones including local board engagement and optimal approval timeframes are outlined in points below, noting that consultation will include key stakeholder and the wider community engagement. Due to the complexity of interests, timeframes may have to be adjusted to allow for additional discussion and review.

ii) Local Board engagement on the Draft Master Plan: local board workshop December 2015, target completion end of December 2015.

iv) Provide staged and costed development recommendations: local board workshop early May 2016, business meeting late May 2016, target completion end of May 2016.

v) Implementation Plan: local board workshop early June 2016, business meeting late June 2016.

63. All future engagement will build off consultation findings already gathered. This will need further discussion to determine the type of engagement, responsibility for conducting the engagement, acknowledgement of existing structures/agreements around undertaking engagement in this area (e.g. Council’s requirements relating to engagement under the Reserves Act etc). From a community perspective this may mean using the “TIES” approach (Tāmaki Inclusiveness Engagement Strategy).

64. It is acknowledged that a number of organisations will be involved in project development and delivery, each with their own structures and sign off requirements. Managing the input and expectations of these diverse entities and their interdependencies will be a key challenge in delivering this project. It is accordingly proposed that a programme steering group be established to manage the process. A proposed governance structure for the project is included as Figure 4 in Attachment A.

Budget

65. TRC has been initially funded by the Council and Crown as shareholders to undertake the master planning project for the current financial year. The majority of funding for implementation will come from the Crown. The joint Council and TRC team, and the Programme Steering Group, will determine allocation of budget required for completion of the tasks identified above. Internal council resources will be utilised where available to ensure efficiencies and cost savings.

66. The allocated budget from identified sources is as follows: -

Tāmaki Redevelopment Company $60,000

Local Board $20,000

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Ruapotaka and Maybury Reserve master plan figures	117

Signatories

Authors

Gavin Peebles, Development Manager, Auckland Council Property Limited

Authorisers

Allan Young, Manager of Development, Auckland Council Property Limited

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

17 September 2015

Landowner Approval - Flood Mitigation and Stream Restoration Project: Elstree North Reserve

File No.: CP2015/18580

Purpose

1. To seek landowner approval from the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board to undertake the works associated with the Tāmaki College Flood Mitigation and Stream Restoration Project within Elstree North Reserve.

Executive Summary

2. The Northern Tāmaki Special Housing Area (SHA) is estimated to provide approximately 2,000 to 2,500 new homes over the next 5 to 10 years. The existing stormwater infrastructure is insufficient to accommodate the proposed level of development.

3. The Stormwater Unit are proposing to undertake stormwater infrastructure works to address current stormwater capacity constraints and provide for the future growth in the area. The majority of the works will occur within Ministry of Education land (Tāmaki College) and include construction of a wetland and daylighting a stream (see Attachments A and B).

4. Works will also be undertaken in the adjacent Elstree North Reserve and include the provision of a construction access and small construction lay down area, stream rehabilitation/ landscaping and new footpaths (see Attachment C).

5. The proposed works are programmed to commence in February 2016 and will take approximately 3 to 4 months to complete. Landscaping will take a further 3 to 4 months to complete. The Stormwater Unit is seeking landowner approval to undertake the works within Elstree North Reserve.

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a) grant landowner approval for the Stormwater Unit to undertake the stormwater infrastructure works within Elstree North Reserve in line with the plans provided in Attachments A and B (N.004327.001 and N.004327.002 dated 18/06/15)

b) delegate final design approval of restorative planting in Elstree North Reserve to the Manager Local and Sports Parks – Central, in line with the indicative planting plan in Attachment C dated August 2015

c) delegate final design approval of the stream crossings to the Manager Local and Sports Parks – Central.

Comments

Project Background

6. The 91ha catchment located upstream of Tāmaki College will be redeveloped as part of the Northern Tāmaki SHA by the Tāmaki Redevelopment Company. This is part of the urban regeneration programme within this area. It is estimated that the SHA will cater for approximately 2,000 to 2,500 new homes over 5 to 10 years.

7. The existing stormwater infrastructure is insufficient to accommodate the proposed level of growth and development. Stormwater infrastructure improvements are proposed to address current stormwater capacity constraints and future development within the area.

In particular, the works will address the significant development associated with the Northern Tāmaki SHA.

Proposed Stormwater Works

8. The majority of the proposed works will take place within Ministry of Education land (Tāmaki College) and include the construction of a wetland and daylighting a stream (see Attachments A and B). This will provide stormwater attenuation and treatment, and amenity and ecological benefits.

9. Works are also required within the adjacent Elstree North Reserve and are shown on Attachment B. It is noted that the aerial photograph sourced from Auckland Council GIS is now outdated, and the location of the existing playground is indicated in green hatching.

The proposed works include:

a) Providing construction access from the existing access points from Elstree Avenue and Leybourne Circle for the full construction and landscaping period (approximately 6 to 8 months). The impact of this construction access will likely be minor and will not impede general public access and use of the reserve or local traffic using these roads.

b) Providing a small construction laydown area fenced off during the construction of the wetland, located near the playground. The proposed works will be managed so as not to affect the use of the playground or other community facilities located in the reserve.

c) Rehabilitating the existing stream through the reserve by removing built up sediment and weeds (including four Willow trees), and providing riparian landscaping and restorative works (see Attachment C).

d) Provision of new pathways through the reserve, requested through consultation with the Parks Unit. The new pathways will replace the existing pathway and include two new stream crossings, and will provide access to the existing basketball court. Design of the stream crossings has yet to be finalised. The new footpath network is consistent with the greenways plan for the area and will be managed as a parks asset.

e) Provision of a new grassed maintenance accessway from Elstree Avenue. This is required to access the wetland and daylit stream for ongoing maintenance purposes.

f) The diversion of the existing 1200mm pipeline from Elstree Avenue to the new wetland, by the installation of a new 1350 diameter pipe and new stormwater manhole (SWMHC).

g) Upgrading of an existing outlet structure within Elstree North Reserve, adjacent to Leybourne Circle.

10. There is a need to undertake the stormwater infrastructure improvements as soon as all consents and approvals are obtained, as the urban regeneration project is underway in the catchment.

11. The proposed stormwater works are programmed to commence in February 2016 and will take approximately three to four months to complete. Landscaping will take a further three to four months to complete.

12. The overall project will provide opportunities to work with Tāmaki College and the local community. This will include opportunities to participate in the proposed landscaping (e.g. community planting days).

13. It is considered that the proposed works within Elstree North Reserve will improve the existing stream environment, surrounding path network and the overall amenity.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

14. Elstree North Reserve is located within the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board area. Approval is sought from the board to undertake the proposed works within the reserve. The local board has the delegation to provide this approval.

Māori impact statement

15. The proposed stormwater works require engagement with mana whenua in accordance with the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

16. The Stormwater Unit has commenced engagement with the mana whenua of the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki area. Feedback is currently being collated and will be included within the Assessment of Environmental Effects as part of the resource consenting process.

Implementation

17. The works will require resource consent. This has yet to be lodged.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Overall Layout Plan	127
b View	Wetland Plan	129
c View	Indicative Planting Plan	131

Signatories

Authors

Jayesh Parekh - Parks and Open Space Specialist

Authorisers

Mark Bowater - Manager Local and Sports Parks

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

17 September 2015

New Road Name Approval for the Residential Subdivision by Tāmaki Redevelopment Company Limited at 7 – 13 Sunnymead Road, Glen Innes

File No.: CP2015/18653

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to seek approval from the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board, for a new road name for a road created by way of subdivision at 7 – 13 Sunnymead Road, Glen Innes.

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 ‘Bunkys Way’ (applicant’s preferred road name), ‘Puru Way’ and ‘Awhina Way’ were determined to meet the road naming guideline criteria.

4. Local iwi groups were consulted and while other iwi groups deferred their interest in the matter to Ngāti Whātua o Orakei, that group tautoko (support) both ‘Bunkys Way’ and ‘Puru Way’.

5. The name ‘Bunkys Way’, proposed by the applicant and the names ‘Puru Way’ and ‘Awhina Way’, are considered for approval by the Local Board.

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a) pursuant to section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974, approves ‘Bunkys Way’ as proposed by the applicant, or ‘Puru Way’, or ‘Awhina Way’ for the new road created by way of subdivision at 7-13 Sunnymead Road.

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 Local Board’s approval.

7. The Tāmaki Redevelopment Company Limited is currently undertaking the redevelopment of areas within Glen Innes and in accordance with Master Plans for the Fenchurch and Overlea neighbourhoods.

8. On 17 June 2015 the Street Naming process for Tāmaki Redevelopment Company (TRC) was agreed to by Auckland Council and TRC. One component of that agreement is the naming of the road created as part of the development at 7-13 Sunnymead Road, Glen Innes and as identified in this report.

The applicant has proposed the following road names for consideration for the Board:

Preference	Proposed New Road Name	Meaning
Preferred Name	Bunkys Way	In recognition of Bunky Puru and her whanau that lived on Sunnymead Road from the 1960's to 1980s
First Alternative	Puru Way	In recognition of Bunky Puru and her whanau that lived on Sunnymead Road from the 1960's to 1980s
Second Alternative	Awhina Way	In recognition of 'Te Whare Awhina'. This was a home for street kids that Barbara Te Kare ran on Sunnymead for a number of years.

Figure One: Location and Layout of new Road

Decision Making

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.

Assessment

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

11. In this instance, all proposed road names meet the criteria as laid out in the guideline.

12. The proposed suffix ‘Way’ is considered appropriate in the circumstances as the New Zealand Standard “Rural and Urban Addressing AS NZS 4819-2011” reference way as being a short enclosed roadway similar to a cul de sac. In this instance, the road will be servicing six (6) dwellings only.

13. As the applicant’s preferred name (Bunkys Way) meets the criteria, it is recommended for consideration for approval while noting that the names proposed by the iwi (Puru Way and Awhina Way) are also appropriate as they comply with all the criteria of the road naming guidelines

Consideration

Significance of Decision

14. The decision sought from the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board for this report does not trigger any significant policy and is not considered to have any immediate impact on the community.

Maori Impact Statement

15. The decision sought from the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki 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.

Consultation

16. Consultation was undertaken with representatives of the following iwi in the Maungakiekie – Tāmaki Local Board area who were contacted on 30 July 2015 by Council’s Resource Consents Facilitation Advisor:

· Ngāti Whātua

· Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara

· Ngāti Whātua o Orakei

· Te Kawerau a Maki

· Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki

· Ngāti Tamaoho

· Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua

· Te Akitai Waiohua

· Ngāti Paoa

· Ngāti Whanaunga

· Ngāti Maru

· Ngāti Tamaterā

· Te Patukirikiri

17. A summary of the responses received is identified here:

Iwi	Preferred names	Comment from iwi
Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua		Our review of the information provided for consideration confirms the following:  The Mana Whenua interests of Ngāti Whātua in the area of the proposed development;  Defer those interests to Ōrākei in anticipation of their provision of an appropriate response accordingly;  We also anticipate that our future involvement will be determined following due consideration by Ōrākei as well; and,  We provide this response pro bono in our quest to support public good through managed growth and development. We wish you all well in your endeavours. Tame Te Rangi [For and on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua].
Ngāti Whātua o Orakei	Bunky’s place or way, and Puru.	NWŌ tautoko the names Bunky’s place or way, and Puru. Nga mihi nui Pani Gleeson
Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua		Ngatiteata shall leave it to the other Mana Whenua

18. Not all iwi representatives initially responded however after 10 working days the advisor also contacted the representatives either by phone or a further email. No further responses were received.

Financial and Resourcing Implications

19. 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.

Legal and Legislative Implications

20. The decision sought from the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board for this report is not considered to have any legal or legislative implications.

Implementation

21. The resource consenting team is involved in ensuring that appropriate road name signage will be installed accordingly once an approval is obtained for the new road name.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

David Snowdon – Team Leader, Subdivisions, Central Resource Consenting

Authorisers

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

17 September 2015

New Community Lease, Jolson Reserve, 11 Peace Avenue, Mt Wellington

File No.: CP2015/17479

Purpose

1. This report seeks approval from the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board for the Auckland Playcentre Association Incorporated to surrender its current community lease for Riverside Playcentre on Jolson Reserve at 11 Peace Avenue, Mount Wellington.

2. This report also seeks the Local Board’s approval of the process to enable a new community lease for an Early Childhood Education and Care facility to be granted on Jolson Reserve.

Executive Summary

3. The Auckland Playcentre Association Incorporated (the Association) was granted a lease on Jolson Reserve from 1 November 2006 for a period of five years with two further five year renewal terms until a final expiry on 31 October 2021. The Association owns the Riverside playcentre buildings and chattels within the leased area. (Attachment A)

4. The Association’s first lease term expired in 2011 and it has not applied for a renewal. The Association has struggled to maintain the parental involvement required for a playcentre operation and, in 2011, it introduced an alternative morning play group operated by Good Seed Trust (the Trust) and financed primarily through the Ministry of Education (MOE).

5. The MOE no longer provides funds for playcentre programmes in Mount Wellington South, including Riverside, but funding is available for more comprehensive education and care programmes. The Association supports the Trust operating an early childhood education and care facility, with the Trust purchasing the Association’s Riverside building and chattels for this purpose.

6. The Association’s lease with Auckland Council prohibits an assignment of the lease to a third party. The Association is prepared to surrender its current lease, subject to the Local Board’s approval of the sale and purchase of the Association’s building and chattels to a prospective lessee. Good Seed Trust has applied to council for a community lease over the facility and a draft sale and purchase agreement for the building and chattels has been drawn up between the Association and the Trust.

7. Riverside’s Jordan Reserve is held in fee simple by Auckland Council as a classified local purpose reserve subject to the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977. The operation of an early childhood facility is consistent with this classification.

8. There is no requirement under the Reserves Act for council to advertise leases to community organisations prior to granting them over local purpose reserves. However Council’s Community Occupancy Guidelines state that:

“ In cases of a vacant building, space or land identified as appropriate for development,

Council will seek applications through:

· public advertisement

· an expression of interest process

· direct notification to groups who have a registered interest.”

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a) calls for expressions of interest from Early Childhood Education organisations to lease the site and purchase the Auckland Playcentre’s Association’s Riverside facility and chattels on Jolson Reserve, 11 Peace Avenue, Mt Wellington,

b) requests Council Staff report back to the Maugakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board on the community groups interested in a ground lease and purchase of the Riverside facility and chattels on Jolson Reserve, 11 Peace Avenue, Mt Wellington.

Comments

9. The Association has held a lease over part of Jolson Reserve since 1970. During the term of its current lease, the Association has struggled to maintain the parental involvement and training required for the Riverside playcentre operation.

10. In 2010 and 2011 the Association held meetings at the centre with stakeholder groups including Panama Road School, community groups, the MOE and the Trust to determine how to continue to provide early childhood services in the Riverside community.

11. As a result, the Trust was contracted by the Association to operate an early childhood playgroup at Jolson Reserve, each week day morning, for the three years to 2015. The funding available from the MOE for the playgroup is now no longer available in the area.

12. For the last six years, the Trust has been operating a successful education and care facility, in its own right in Mangere. The Trust’s facility is on private church land and the Trust has a land lease with the church. In 2014, the Trust extended and redesigned its facility in response to increased demand and growth.

13. In 2014, the Trust received a positive Education Review Office report for its Mangere Early Childhood Education and Care facility which noted:

· all children experience their language, culture and identity being valued and affirmed

· Relationships between adults and children are mutually respectful and positive.

· Children experience a wide range of learning experiences through their play. The programme is enriched through the contributions made by the culturally diverse staff and community

· The senior manager, centre leader and team leaders have successfully built cooperative relationships with staff, parents and whānau.

14. The Trust was incorporated under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 on 16 January 2006. Its accounts for the year ended 31 December 2013, show its primary income coming from MOE funding, and wages, administration and occupancy accounting for the Trust’s most significant costs. The proposed operation at Jolson Reserve would also be primarily funded by the MOE.

15. A draft sale and purchase agreement for the Riverside building and chattels on Jolson Reserve has been drawn up for the Local Board’s consideration. Subject to Local Board approval, the Trust would complete the purchase over a four year term.

Consideration

16. The Riverside Household Survey completed by Auckland Council in 2012 found almost 50% of the population surveyed were under twenty years of age and, of those, 16.79% were under five. Community Policy staff confirm that the Tāmaki Community Needs Assessment completed in 2014 also identified a need for early childhood education in the Riverside area.

17. The MOE has confirmed a target for 98% of children starting school in 2016 will have participated in quality early childhood education. It states that Mount Wellington South, including Riverside, has a prior participation rate of 77.5%, which is below the Auckland Regional rate of 94.8%.

18. There is currently no other preschool education and care facility operating within the Riverside area. The Association’s building has been independently inspected and requires no additional alterations to be licenced as a full education and care facility. The MOE has identified a need for early childhood education participation in the area.

19. If the Local Board chooses not to follow the lease occupancy guidelines, but to allocate the facility to the Good Seed Trust, the process would be as follows:

i) That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board receives the single application for the facility at Jolson Reserve, 11 Peace Avenue, Mt Wellington and

ii) Approves the surrender of the existing lease held by the Auckland Playcentre Association Incorporated, effective from the day prior to the commencement of any new lease.

iii) Approves the grant of the lease to Good Seed Trust for the Early Childhood facility at Jolson Reserve, 11 Peace Avenue, Mt Wellington, subject to MOE licence, on the following terms and conditions:

1. Term - ten years from the commencement date, with a further ten year right of renewal. Rent - $1.00 per annum

2. Good Seed Trust purchases the Playcentre Association Incorporated’s building and chattels, on the terms in the draft sale and purchase agreement, as approved by the Local Board

3. Good Seed Trust develops a community outcomes plan to be approved by the Local Board Lease Portfolio Holders and attached as a schedule to the lease agreement.

4. All other terms and conditions in accordance with Auckland Council Community Occupancy Guidelines 2012.

Local Board views and implications

20. The Local Board lease portfolio holders have requested a report for the local board to consider options to enable a new early childhood facility on Jolson Reserve.

Māori impact statement

21. The local board’s continued support of community facilities, with respect to leases, provides benefits to the community as a whole, which includes Maori.

Implementation

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

23. Council staff sought input from relevant council departments who provided support and no opposition for an early childhood and care facility in the Riverside community.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Early Childhood Facility, Jolson Reserve	141

Signatories

Authors

Robyn Campbell - Community Lease Advisor

Authorisers

Graham Bodman - Manager - Community Development, Arts and Culture

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

17 September 2015

Central Joint Funding Committee for the 2015 / 2016 financial year

File No.: CP2015/18204

Purpose

1. To seek the local board’s endorsement to re-establish the Central Joint Funding Committee for the 2015 / 2016 financial year.

Executive Summary

2. Community grants are one of a suite of tools to provide financial support to community groups who propose activities, events and programmes across the Auckland region.

3. Between 2011 and 2015, approximately $3.2 million per annum was distributed to community groups across Auckland via geographically-aligned joint funding committees. These were established as part of the interim approach to community funding until a new policy was developed. The budgets to support the joint funding committees were held regionally, and were described as ‘multi-board funding’.

4. The Central Joint Funding Committee (the committee), between 2011 and 2015 was responsible for allocating three former Auckland city funding schemes, the Community Group Assistance Fund, Accommodation Support Fund and Cultural Heritage Fund, totalling approximately $1.1m.

5. The community grants policy, adopted in December 2014, introduced a new framework to guide the provision of grants. The policy supports local boards to create their own ‘local grants programme’ and form joint funding committees, which allocate grants that deliver benefits across multiple local board areas. The new policy also replaced all previous legacy council funding schemes.

6. As part of decisions made for the Long-term Plan, all multi-board funding budgets were devolved to local boards via the local boards funding policy. This provided options for local boards to top-up their community grants budget, allocate the funds to another priority area, or contribute their allocation to continue a joint funding committee.

7. Through informal engagement, the central local boards have indicated a preference to:

· re-establish the committee

· provide the same funding schemes for the 2015 / 2016 financial year as an interim measure

· contribute their entire multi-board funding budget to support the funding schemes

· develop a new approach for the 2016 / 2017 financial year, and onwards.

8. Membership on the committee for 2015 / 2016 will consist of one member from the Puketapapa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Albert-Eden and Waitemata local boards. The Orakei Local Board chose to not contribute their multi-board funding budget to support the committee.

9. Based on the contribution of the four central local board’s multi-board funding budgets, there is $626,427 available to support the committee’s funding schemes.

10. For the 2015 / 2016 financial year, it is proposed the committee undertake two funding rounds for the Community Group Assistance Fund, and one for the Accommodation Support Fund.

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a) approves the continuation of the Central Joint Funding Committee as an interim measure for the 2015 / 2016 financial year

b) approves that the Central Joint Funding Committee will have decision-making responsibility for the following funding schemes:

i) Accommodation Support Fund

ii) Community Group Assistance Fund

c) approves the following amendments to the funding schemes:

i) the community group assistance funding rounds will be undertaken between October and November 2015 (round one) and February and March 2016 (round two)

ii) the accommodation support funding round will be undertaken between October and November 2015

iii) that both funding schemes have a minimum threshold of $2,000

d) allocate the ‘Multi Board Grant (Regional fund transferred to local board)’ locally driven initiatives budget line, totalling $152,000 to support the implementation of the Central Joint Funding Committee for the 2015 / 2016 financial year

e) approves the terms of reference to guide the Central Joint Funding Committee

f) appoints one local board member, and one alternate to the Central Joint Funding Committee

g) notes that staff will engage central local boards and the Central Joint Funding Committee to develop a new approach to guide multi-board funding for the 2016 / 2017 financial year and onwards.

Comments

Background

11. Between 2011 and 2015, approximately $3.2 million per annum was distributed to community groups across Auckland via joint funding committees. The entities were established as part of the interim approach to community funding as a way to administer legacy community funding schemes with as little disruption to the community as possible.

12. These funding schemes were once ‘city-wide’, and post-amalgamation the budgets to support these funds were held regionally. The governing body delegated decision-making over these budgets to multi-board joint funding committees comprised of local board members to ensure that community groups continued to have access to legacy funding schemes.

13. For the central local boards, the funding available through the committee totalled $1,185,000 per annum across three funding schemes:

· Community Group Assistance Fund: $435,000

· Accommodation Support Fund: $700,00

· Auckland City Cultural Heritage Fund: $50,000

Community grants policy

14. The community grants policy, which was adopted in December 2014, introduced a new framework to guide the provision of grants to community groups across the Auckland region. The policy supports:

· local boards to create their own ‘local grants programme’ which are guided by local board plans

· the governing body’s committees to create regional funding schemes based on the priorities identified in the Auckland Plan and council strategic action plans (e.g. the Sport and Recreation Strategic Action Plan).

15. The policy also includes provisions to enable local boards to form joint funding committees, and allocate grants that deliver benefits to community groups across multiple local board areas.

Benefits and challenges of joint funding committees

16. Joint funding committees have proved to be an effective mechanism to provide financial support to community groups who are not considered ‘local’ or ‘regional’ in the activities, events and programmes that they propose to undertake.

17. A high-level analysis of the three funding schemes that the committee managed has highlighted that between 2013 and 2015:

· approximately 301 community groups, totalling $2.3 million have benefitted from a grant from the committee

· 75 percent of applicants are physically located in the Albert-Eden, Waitemata and Maungakiekie-Tāmaki local board areas

· 77 percent of all grants have benefitted the five central local boards

· 11 percent of allocated grants were made to community groups that were physically located outside the five central local boards

· in addition to benefitting the five central local boards, the funding schemes have provided benefits to communities from neighbouring local boards such as Māngere-Ōtāhuhu, Howick and Whau

· it has been a successful mechanism which has ensured continuity and minimal disruption to community groups since the commencement of Auckland Council.

18. The amount of funding requested compared to availability of funds (i.e. over-subscription) has been a significant challenge for all joint funding committees. The following table outlines the amount requested by the amount allocated between 2013 and 2015:

Funding scheme	Amount requested	Amount allocated
Community group assistance fund	$2,729,232	$869,995
Accommodation support fund	$3,027,238	$1,365,243
Cultural heritage fund	$148,278	$104,052
Total	$5,904,748	$2,339,290

19. Other challenges the joint funding committees include:

· the funding schemes the committees managed reflect legacy council, rather than local board priorities

· prior to the adoption of the grants policy, many applicants who proposed to undertake activities that were ‘local’ or ‘regional’ in nature applied to the committees because there were limited, or no options provided by council.

Allocation of multi-board funding budgets to local boards

20. As part of decisions made for the Long-term Plan in June 2015, all multi-board funding budgets, totalling $3.2 million have been devolved to local boards via the Local Boards Funding Policy. 90 percent of funding was devolved on the basis of local board population, five percent based on the average level of social deprivation in a local board area, and five percent based on the level of geographic isolation. As a result of this allocation, all local boards have ‘multi-board funding (or similar) budget lines within their locally driven initiatives budgets.

21. It is important to note that the devolving of multi-board funding budgets to local boards has created financial implications that impact on the amount of available funding for the committee. This is outlined in the Budget allocation to support the committee section of this report.

Approach for the 2015 / 2016 financial year

Committee and funding schemes

22. Staff propose that the committee be re-established, and continue to manage the community group assistance and accommodation support funds as an interim measure for the 2015 / 2016 financial year. This approach is recommended because it:

· reduces the impact of change on community groups and ensures continuity for funding applicants

· provides an opportunity for staff to work with the committee and the central local boards to develop a new approach to guide the committee for the 2016 / 2017 financial year. This will also allow sufficient time to communicate any changes to previous applicants and the wider public (e.g. the committee provides different types of funding schemes).

23. The implications of this approach result that the criteria, guidelines and eligibility associated with both funding schemes will remain the same as previous years.

24. Two amendments are required to successfully deliver both funding schemes for the 2015 / 2016 financial year. The following table outlines the amendments that are required:

Amendment required

Rationale

Recommended approach

Funding rounds

The process to re-establish the committee could not commence until confirmation of multi-board funding budgets were devolved to local boards. This means that funding round one will be undertaken later than previous years

Community Group Assistance Fund:

· Round one: opens early October, closes mid November 2015

· Round two: opens early February, closes mid-March 2016.

Accommodation Support Fund:

· Round one: opens early October, closes mid-November 2015.

Fund thresholds

Section 144 of the grants policy states that Quick response grants are not available to multi-board applicants. Therefore the committee will need to provide local grants, which as outlined in section 125 are generally for requests over $2,000.

That both funding schemes have a minimum threshold of $2,000.

25. Staff also propose that the Cultural Heritage Fund be discontinued, and the associated budget be evenly allocated to the community group assistance and accommodation support budgets. This is recommended because:

· the scope and budget for the funding scheme restricted the number of applicants, and limited the amount that could be granted to community groups. Between 2013 and 2015, the funding scheme:

- received nine applications per round

- on average allocated $3,700 to successful applicants

- did not fully-fund any proposed projects.

· the projects the fund supported are local in nature, and could be supported by individual local boards.

26. If the proposal to discontinue the Cultural Heritage Fund is supported by the four central local boards, staff will ensure the public are informed of the change, and work with them on alternative funding opportunities.

Committee membership

27. Membership on the committee for the 2015 / 2016 financial will consist of one member from the Puketapapa, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki, Albert-Eden and Waitemata local boards.

28. The four local boards who will form the committee are requested to recommend one local board member, and one alternate to the committee.

29. The Orakei Local Board chose to not contribute their multi-board funding budget to support the committee. The local board will not be represented on the committee for the 2015 / 2016 financial year.

Budget allocation to support the committee

30. Based on the contribution of the four central local board’s multi-board funding budgets, there is $626,427 available to support the committee.

31. The devolving of multi-board funding budgets to local boards and Orakei’s decision to not contribute their multi-board funding budget has resulted in a $558,573 or 47 percent reduction of total budget to support the committee.

32. It is proposed that the available budgets account for the reduction, and is topped-up by evenly splitting the Cultural Heritage Fund budget. For the 2015 / 2016 financial year, it is proposed the Community Group Assistance Fund budget will be $384,250 and the Accommodation Support Fund $242,177.

33. Staff note the reduction in available funds will have an impact on community groups, particularly those who have historically relied on either funding scheme for support. Staff will work with affected community groups to determine alternative funding opportunities (i.e. applying to a local board or regional grants programme).

Other matters

34. A terms of reference has been drafted to guide the committee for the 2015 / 2016 financial year. It will guide the committee’s purpose, decision-making responsibilities, membership and other administrative components.

35. The four local boards who will form the committee are requested to endorse the terms of reference, which is included as Attachment A.

Approach for 2016 / 2017 financial year and onwards

36. Due to the devolving of multi-board funding budgets, the central local boards and the committee have an opportunity to consider how they provide this type of funding to community groups for the 2016 / 2017 financial year, and onwards. A suite of options are available to consider, such as:

· addressing funding gaps across central local grants programmes

· identifying mutually beneficial priorities

· providing multi-year, strategic relationship grants

· providing match funding

· partnering with other funding providers.

37. Staff will engage the central local boards and the committee to seek their input and feedback on the new approach in preparation for 2016 / 2017 financial year.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

38. The local boards who will form the committee for 2015 / 2016 received a workshop in August and September 2015 to provide input, and comment on the proposed approach.

39. This report seeks to formalise the views of the local boards, which will inform the final structure of the committee.

40. The committee will have positive implications and outcomes for the four local boards, as well as neighbouring local boards. The committee will:

· encourage collaboration across the central local boards

· fulfil a funding gap to support community groups who are not considered ‘local’ or ‘regional’ in the activities, events and programmes that they propose to undertake

· act as a mechanism to support outcomes and initiatives identified in local board plans.

Māori impact statement

41. Community grants have the potential to make a significant impact on Māori and can respond to Auckland Council’s commitment to improving Māori wellbeing by providing grants to organisations delivering Māori outcomes.

42. The re-establishment of the committee will continue to provide positive outcomes for both Māori community groups and other community groups who provide opportunities for Māori. For example the:

· Accommodation Support Fund can support rates payments of marae

· Community Group Assistance Fund can support events and programmes relating to Matariki.

Implementation

43. This report addresses a number of implementation components associated with the re-establishment of the committee.

44. The committee will be supported by council’s:

· Community grants operations team, who will be responsible for administrative components (i.e. receiving and processing funding applications), providing advice to applicants and working with subject matter experts on funding applications

· Local Boards Services Department, who will be responsible for democracy support and meeting management.

45. The committee will also align to council processes, such as using Smartygrants as a grants management tool.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Terms of reference for the committee	151

Signatories

Authors	Tristan Coulson – Senior Policy Advisor, Policy and Planning, Local Board Services
Authorisers	Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

17 September 2015

Auckland Transport Monthly Update Report - September 2015

File No.: CP2015/18742

Purpose

1. The purpose of the report is to respond to Local Board requests on transport-related matters and to provide information to Elected Members about Auckland Transport (AT) activities in the Local Board area since the last transport report.

Executive Summary

2. The monthly catch-up meeting was held on 10 August, 2015. Board Member Clark was present and received updates on:

· The consultation on the “Links to Glen Innes Station” cycling and walking project

· The proposed double decker bus route from Howick to the CBD and the route through the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board area and its effects.

· Orpheus Drive cycleway

· Local Board transport capital fund projects.

3. Auckland Transport attended a workshop on 25 August, to outline its approved programme in the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board area for the next three years.

4. Auckland Transport’s newly developed “Berm Planting Guidelines” was discussed with the Local Board on 1 September and feedback on the guidelines has been requested.

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a) receives the Auckland Transport report, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board, September 2015

b) allocates the remaining $170,000 from their 2015-16 Local Board Capital Fund budget for tetratrap installation in the Onehunga Bay Catchment (Maungakiekie-Tāmaki portion only) and that $97,000 is allocated from the 2016-17 Local Board Transport Capital Fund budget towards this project, giving a total of $267,000 and requests Auckland Transport to deliver the project.

Reporting Back

Consultation Report

5. Consultations have been forwarded to the Local Board for comment regarding:

· Safety improvements along West Tāmaki Road which support the Travelwise programme for Sacred Heart College and general community safety outcomes.

· Safety improvements around Glen Innes, Glenbrae, Glen Taylor, St Pius X Catholic and Te Kura Kaupapa Maori o Puau Te Moananui a Kiwa Schools.

6. Further details are available in Attachment A.

AMETI Update

7. Lodgment of the Stage 2A Notice of Requirement for the busway from Panmure to Pakuranga is pending resolution of the cultural mitigation process.

8. A joint review of the AMETI delivery strategy with regards to the timing of the Reeves Road flyover and Stage 2B (busway between Pakuranga and Botany) components continues to be carried out between Auckland Transport, Auckland Council and the NZ Transport Agency.

Van Dammes Lagoon

9. Three tenders have been successfully shortlisted for the second stage of tendering for Van Dammes Lagoon.

10. Additional planning regarding tree removal and reserve access is currently taking place to supplement tender information prior to commencing the second stage.

Panmure

11. Disestablishment of Fletchers from the site near Panmure Station has commenced and once site offices have been removed (toward the end of September), contaminated land removal will commence and it is expected to be completed by the end of October.

Sylvia Park

12. Further investigation into the Mount Wellington Highway Sylvia Park entrances and cycle lanes is in progress (some changes to the concept layout are likely). Commercial negotiation with Kiwi Property will soon commence with a target construction start of October 2016.

Local Board Capital Projects

13. The Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board has access to the Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) for the construction of transport related projects in its area. This fund is administered by Auckland Transport. Each year, the Local Board’s allocation is $494,757 and this amount can be accumulated within each electoral term.

14. At the time of writing Maungakiekie-Tāmaki’s LBTFC budget for the current electoral term was $1.183 million. This has been allocated to the Onehunga Mall project, the Princes Street pedestrian refuge and the Beachcroft Avenue improvement, leaving a balance of $170,000 uncommitted. The Local Board can also allocate up to $494,757 from the LBTCF in the 2016/17 financial year.

Tetra Trap Installation (MT/2015/105)

15. In 2013, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki commissioned a report from GHD to undertake a study of the catchment areas in their local board area in order to implement the Local Board’s environmental and sustainability vision and to identify where storm water quality devices (tetratraps) should best be fitted.

16. This resulted in 291 tetra traps being fitted in Panmure Basin, Captain Springs Reserve and Bycroft Reserve catchments for a cost of $306,000.

17. In July, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board sought advice and a rough of order of costs from Auckland Transport to deliver tetra traps to the next priority of catchment areas indicated in the Local Board’s 2013 GHD study. Auckland Transport has responded with the following information:

There are four catchments identified in the original GHD report that have not yet been fitted with tetra traps.

Catchments	No of traps	Rough 0rder of Costs
Point England	854 tetra traps required	$1,050,000
Mutukaroa	341 tetra traps required	$415,000
Onehunga Bay (M-T portion only)	218 tetratraps	$267,000
Grotto St	9 tetratraps	$11,000

18. The Maungakiekie - Tāmaki Local Board still have $170,000 of funding to be allocated or spent by the end of the current electoral term. AT’s estimate is that each tetra trap will cost approximately $1,225 to purchase and install. This would purchase nearly 140 tetratraps.

19. GHD’s recommendation is that the Onehunga Bay Reserve (map attached) is the best candidate for the next roll-out of tetra traps as there is a direct contributory area to the foreshore / beach works currently being built there. It is noted that part of this area does cover Albert-Eden and Puketapapa Local Board areas.

20. The available amount of funds unallocated is not expected to cover the catchment entirely even taking into consideration that there may be catchpits with issues, making them unsuitable for tetratraps or that there may be catchpits that are unable to be located. Therefore Local Board may wish to look at bringing money forward from its 2016-17 LBCF allocation to complete the work.

21. Auckland Transport’s recommendation is that the Local Board allocate the remaining $170,000 from the 2015-16 LBCF budget to fund tetratrap installation in the Onehunga Bay Catchment (MT portion only) and that $97,000 is allocated from the 2016-17 LBTCF budget towards this project, giving a total of $267,000 to complete the project.

22. Auckland Transport officers will discuss this with the transport portfolio leads at the September monthly catchup.

Update on the Delivery of Current Transport Capital Projects

23. The Princes Street Pedestrian Refuge Project was delivered in August.

24. Onehunga Mall Upgrade Progress

April 2014 resolutions MT/2014/57:

c) allocates $645,000 from the Board’s 2014-2017 Transport Capital Fund.

May 2015 update:

· Updates to the LB are being managed by Auckland Council who are leading the upgrade project. Detailed design is expected to be completed by June and construction is due to begin in mid-August and to be completed by November 2015.

August 2015 update:

· This project is being delivered by Auckland Transport with Local Board funding. Work started on the project in August with footpath work.

25. Beachcroft Avenue Pedestrian Improvements

March 2015 resolutions MT/2015/28:

c) authorises Auckland Transport to proceed with Option 1 and 4 for Beachcroft Avenue – Princes Street pedestrian improvement at a cost of up to $280,000 subject to consultation with adjacent landowners and further investigation of the need to relocate services, noting that if detailed design and costing is greater than the allocated amount this will come back to the board in a further report.

July 2015 resolutions MT/2015/105:

c) agrees that the financial allocation for the Beachcroft Avenue project be extended to $360,000.

May 2015 update:

· A project manager has been appointed to this project and he has appointed a consultant to undertake design work.

· A meeting with an affected landowner has been arranged to discuss the project.

June 2015 update:

· The meeting with the affected landowner was very positive. The Local Board confirmed the preference for the design by the Beachcroft/Church Street roundabout to be to construct a new 3m wide shared path cutting across the existing grass berm on the corner, removing the existing footpath and replacing it with grass berm. The project team is now working up some firm cost estimates to come back to the Local Board.

July 2015 update:

· The completed design work has indicated some extension to the budget is necessary.

August 2015 update:

· Consent is being obtained for tree work so there will be a small delay to the project starting. It should be completed in line with the foreshore project.

Links to Glen Innes Station – Change of Focus

26. The scope of this project changed again with a refocus to improvements in the Glen Innes area. Glen Innes has been identified as a future growth zone under the Auckland Unitary Plan and this project aims to improve walking and cycling facilities in the area. This is part of an NZTA/AT initiative to align public transport hubs with employment and education centres and other key destinations and has attracted funding from NZTA’s Urban Cycleway programme.

27. The Urban Cycle Fund made available an amount of funding to develop cycle networks around key public transport hubs in Auckland. Glen Innes, as a spatial priority area and area of focus for transport improvements, has been identified as a location for investment. Auckland Transport propose to run some preliminary engagement in Glen Innes to identify the key barriers to cycling to the rail station and to find out from local people which routes would be most beneficial for improvement. It is proposed to develop a project for investigation in 15/16, to be constructed in 17/18. A time frame for the initial consultation is not yet confirmed.

28. A briefing paper on the revised project will be discussed at portfolio level and is attached as Attachment D.

East West Connections

29. This project aims to provide road connections between SH20 and SH1 to improve traffic flow, particularly for heavy trucks. The southern component of the project seeks to provide improved bus travel and cycling connections between Mangere and Otahuhu Town Centres and Sylvia Park.

30. As reported last month, NZ Transport Agency and Auckland Transport undertook public engagement on the preferred approach for the East West Connections project. The overall aim of engagement was to seek public and stakeholder feedback on the East West Connections Preferred Approach which includes two parts – the Onehunga-Penrose connections and bus priority from Māngere and Ōtāhuhu to Sylvia Park.

31. About 1,700 feedback responses were received and approximately 250 people came to the open days. The key themes noted include:

· Suggestions regarding the design of the route with the aim of improving transport performance. Key points include the desire to reduce the number of traffic lights and intersections (particularly to assist with heavy vehicle movements), changes to the design of the Neilson Street Interchange and also the interchange at SH1.

· The East West Connections project continues to maintain opportunities for achieving future rail connections in the area, including rail to the airport.

· That the project should improve access to the harbour and Onehunga Wharf.

· Walking and cycling facilities should be provided along the seaward side of the new foreshore road (with connections in the area, back into Onehunga). Opportunities for improved walking and cycling connections should also continue to be explored. For example, connections to Mangere Bridge, Onehunga Mall, Mutukaroa-Hamlins Hill and Orpheus Drive.

· Natural features such as Anns Creek and the Hopua tuff ring should be protected and that potential impacts from the project on water quality, air quality and noise need to be carefully considered and managed.

· Support for proposed bus and cycle lanes between Mangere, Otahuhu and Sylvia Park, but some concerns that the bus lanes would be shared with freight vehicles.

32. This feedback will help NZTA to make decisions as they move forward from concept design to detailed design, for example, identifying where cycle lanes should be located and things that need to be considered when designing intersections and how access to the harbour can be improved.

33. Auckland Transport is pleased with the level of support shown for the proposed improvements to speed up bus journeys between Mangere, Otahuhu and Sylvia Park. It will be used to help develop the designs for the bus priority lanes and cycle improvements.

34. The next steps will be to undertake further investigations on the preferred approach and confirm the land needed to protect the route.

Regional Signage Project

35. Recently the team progressing the new regional signage project presented to Local Boards. The new signage will apply across the region and is a cross-council initiative led by Auckland Transport. An update is attached to this report as Attachment C.

Proposed New Network Public Transport Network for Central Auckland

36. Over the next few years Auckland Transport is moving to a simpler and more integrated public transport network for Auckland. This will deliver a New Network of buses, trains and ferries that will change the way people travel – including the need for some passengers to transfer at key interchanges. In return, the New Network will allow more passengers to simply ‘turn up and go’ rather than plan trips around a timetable. It will offer flexible travel options over large parts of the city, making public transport more useful for a range of travel purposes.

37. Although the New Network describes the new way in which buses, trains, and ferries will work together – AT is currently consulting only on proposed changes to bus services across Auckland. The consultation for the central area will run from Thursday 1 October to Thursday, 10 December 2015.

38. The Local Board have had several updates on this project and members will also receive a consultation package from Auckland Transport.

39. A public meeting on the changes, will take place on Wednesday 14 October from 6pm at the Glen Innes Community Hall - Main Hall, Line Road, Glen Innes.

Auckland Transport News

North Shore New Network Consultation

40. Public feedback closed on the new bus network proposed for the North Shore last month with more feedback received than any previous New Network consultation.

41. Over 2,400 formal submissions were received and more than 750 discussion forum comments were received. AT attended 32 consultation events helping AT to engage face to face with more than 3,400 people.

42. The next stage is analysis, which includes evaluating feedback and investigating issues raised. This can include test-driving any route changes suggested, further research into geographical conditions such as changes to road layout, or in some cases, further consultation with specific communities.

43. Implementation is planned for 2017.

New Network Hibiscus Coast Launch

44. Implementation of the New Network for the Hibiscus Coast, including the extension of the Northern Express to Silverdale, has now been confirmed for Sunday 18 October. Locals will be able to look forward to a more frequent and better connected bus network.

City Rail Link Appeals Over

45. The City Rail Link (CRL) has reached a major milestone with all appeals to its land designation now resolved by agreement or dismissed. Five of the six appeals were settled and the only appeal that went to the Environment Court has been dismissed.

46. The designation is now confirmed subject to finalisation of the conditions by the Court. Early works start in November 2015 and while there are some other planning processes to work through in relation to regional consents and Britomart, a start on the cut and cover tunnel in Albert Street is anticipated in May 2016.

47. The now confirmed designation identifies the land in the district plan for rail purposes and protects the route for the future.

Grafton Bridge Taxi Trial

48. Taxis are getting access to Grafton Bridge on a trial basis to make it easier for people to get to Auckland City and Starship Children’s Hospitals, the City Centre and Newmarket. The year-long trial will allow taxis to use the bridge 24 hours a day giving them the same access as buses, motorcycles and bikes.

49. The existing bus lanes operate 7am to 7pm, Monday to Friday, at other times the bridge is open to general traffic. Auckland Transport will be converting the existing bus lanes to ‘bus and taxi’ lanes and the signs and road markings will be updated.

50. There will be rules around taxis using the bridge such as no overtaking of cyclists and the taxis must give bikes space when following them. Taxis won’t be allowed to pick-up or drop-off passengers and u-turns will be banned. The taxis will only be able to use the special lanes when they are in service.

51. Auckland Transport will be using video cameras to enforce the rules during the year-long trial which starts on 31 August. The trial does not permit private hire vehicles to use the bridge.

Nelson Street Overbridge

52. The first of the sections of the Canada St Bridge which will form a vital link in Auckland’s inner city cycle network have been successfully transported onto site within the Central Motorway Junction. Two of the seven mammoth sections were moved by truck along State Highway 1 from Pukekohe to the CMJ overnight on Sunday (30 August).

53. When fully erected the Canada St Bridge will span 160m and will weigh 260 tonnes. It will connect Canada St with the old Nelson St off-ramp by crossing the Central Motorway Junction. The Nelson St Cycleway, connects the Northwestern Cycleway, Grafton Gully and the waterfront.

54. Phase 1 of the Nelson Street Cycleway from Upper Queen Street to Victoria Street West is expected to be completed in December. Phase 2, from Victoria St West to Quay Street and a section on Pitt St, will be open for public consultation in early September. More information is available at www.at.govt.nz.

55. The Nelson Street Cycleway is being funded through the Urban Cycleway Programme (UCP) and is being jointly delivered by the NZ Transport Agency, Auckland Council and Auckland Transport. The UCP will accelerate key projects over the next three years and help establish cycling as an integral part of Auckland’s transport network. For more information on the project www.nzta.govt.nz/projects/nelson-street-cycleway/

56. Issues Raised through/by Board Members

Location or Name of Issue

Description

AT Response

Elstree Avenue

Concern over speeding on Elstree Avenue between Taniwha Street and Pt England Roundabout. Children are crossing here (walking out from behind parked cars) and there is concern for their safety.

Tube counts for speed were completed and the 85% speed was found to be 48.8 k/hr. This is under the posted speed limit of 50 k/hr so no changes are proposed at this time in regard to speed control. Other improvements proposed for Elstree Avenue as part of the “Safety Around Schools” programme are noted below.

Elstree Avenue is being investigated as part of the Safety Around Schools programme. Improvements proposed on Elstree Street and being consulted on currently include:

· Installing a new pedestrian splitter island at the intersection of Overlea Road and Elstree Avenue including upgrading the existing pram crossing with tactile paver and a No Stopping at all Times (NSAAT) parking restriction.

· Marking the bus stops outside private properties No. 7 at Elstree Avenue and No.1 at Overlea Road. This will include appropriate road markings and signage

Auckland Transport will also look at the possibility of cycle lanes on Elstree Avenue as part of the The West Tāmaki Road and Sacred Heart College Safety in the Community Project.

Speeding Issues in Beachcroft Avenue /Church Street

Several car crashes have been reported at the roundabout at the intersection of Beachcroft Avenue and Church Street, with speed being suspected as the main factor. A request for speed counts at this location has been received.

The Beachcroft Avenue roundabout was first looked at by our rapid response team and then passed to a senior AT traffic engineer for further assessment. It is noted that while the current roundabout design is not ideal as it doesn’t encourage low vehicle speeds through the roundabout, it does not appear to be causing a significant safety issue. The recent crash reported by the resident is acknowledged, however there has only been one other reported crash at the roundabout in the past 5 years, which is an excellent safety record. As such Traffic Operations do not propose to progress any changes at the intersection as the significant costs of an upgrade could not be justified.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Consultations	161
b View	Onehunga Bay catchment area	167
c View	Regional signage update	169
d View	Briefing note on links to Glen Innes Station	171

Signatories

Authors

Lorna Stewart - Elected Member Relationship Manager, Auckland Transport

Authorisers

Jonathan Anyon - Elected Member Relationship Team Manager, Auckland Transport

Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

17 September 2015

Appointment of a mana whenua member to the Te Oro Committee

File No.: CP2015/18278

Purpose

1. To appoint a mana whenua member to the Te Oro Committee of the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

Executive Summary

2. Throughout the process of establishing Te Oro, there has been a desire amongst stakeholders to ensure that both the local community and mana whenua have a strong voice in decision-making for the facility.

3. In 2014, ahead of Te Oro’s opening, Terms of Reference were developed to make provision for a governance committee which would be a committee of the local board comprised of: three local board members; two members of the local community to be appointed by a competitive expressions of interest process; and one mana whenua member to be appointed by the three iwi that have an interest in Te Oro – Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki and Ngāti Paoa.

4. The local board and community members have been appointed by resolution of the local board but it was not possible to appoint a member to the mana whenua seat in time for the inaugural meeting of the Te Oro Committee on 4 September 2015. This report seeks the appointment of a mana whenua member to ensure that the mana whenua seat is filled in time for the Te Oro Committee’s second meeting in December 2015.

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a) appoint Ken Kerehoma of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei to the mana whenua seat on the Te Oro Committee for its first term, noting the preference expressed by mana whenua that this appointment remain in place until the end of the next triennium (four years in total)

b) appoint Emily Karaka of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki as the alternate for the mana whenua seat on the Te Oro Committee for its first term, noting the preference expressed by mana whenua that this appointment remain in place until the end of the next triennium (four years in total)

c) note mana whenua’s intention that after the initial four-year term, the subsequent term will be held by an appointee from Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, followed by Ngāti Paoa, before returning to Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei

d) note that, following discussions with the Chairperson of the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board representatives of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki and Ngāti Paoa, a mana whenua reference group will be established by the three iwi to support the appointed mana whenua member on the Te Oro Committee

e) note that mana whenua have expressed a desire for a review of Te Oro’s governance arrangements to take place after four years of its operation.

Comments

5. In August 2014, the board approved a draft terms of reference for the proposed Te Oro Committee. This outlined committee membership as three board members, two community members and one mana whenua member, and accords decision making to the committee over Te Oro’s work programme. Staff were also asked to present these Terms of Reference to Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki and Ngāti Paoa and to obtain agreement from the three iwi concerning management of the one mana whenua seat.

6. In November 2014, following discussions between staff and mana whenua, the board approved the terms of reference for the committee, which had no substantive changes from the draft approved in August 2014.

7. Mana whenua were invited to determine how the mana whenua member would be chosen, and advise the local board of their nominee for the first term of the Te Oro Committee. Mana whenua came back to the board nominating Mei Hill of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei for the first term, and advising that Ngāti Paoa no longer wished to be involved in the process. Mei Hill was formally appointed by the local board at its business meeting of 19 March 2015.

8. However, following this appointment, staff were advised that a new candidate would need to be appointed as Mei Hill no longer wished to take up this role. Ngāti Paoa, who had previously advised that they did not wish to be involved in the committee, subsequently advised that they did wish to be involved.

9. The three iwi were not able to resolve the question of how the mana whenua member should be selected and who would be nominated for the first term in time for the 16 July 2015 business meeting of the local board at which the two community members, Georgie Thompson and Tara Moala, were appointed. The mana whenua seat was left vacant until this could be resolved.

10. Several hui were convened between the three iwi and the Chairperson of the local board with the support of Local Board Services staff in an attempt to resolve the question. After further advice from officers a proposal was agreed in principle whereby:

· Ken Kerehoma of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei would be appointed as the mana whenua member on the committee for a term of four years, to be followed by a representative of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, then Ngāti Paoa, noting that the local board will need to reappoint Ken following local government elections in October 2016.

· Emily Karaka of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki would be appointed as the alternate mana whenua member for the same term in the event that Ken Kerehoma is unavailable to attend a meeting.

· after the initial four-year term to be held by the appointee of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei, that the subsequent term will be held by an appointee from Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, followed by Ngāti Paoa, before returning to Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei.

· the mana whenua member will be supported by a mana whenua reference group, whose number, composition and frequency of meetings will be established at the discretion of mana whenua, noting that Local Board Services have agreed to support such a group through the provision of Te Oro Committee meeting documentation, venue bookings (at no cost during business hours) and provision of basic refreshments at meetings.

· a review of Te Oro’s governance arrangements take place at the end of the next triennium (in four years’ time, coinciding with the end of Ken Kerehoma’s proposed term) take place, noting that staff have given advice that the organisation would be prepared support a review sooner than that, potentially as soon as the beginning of the new electoral term in October 2016.

11. While it was not be possible for the mana whenua member to be appointed in time for the committee’s inaugural meeting on 4 September 2015, both Ken Kerehoma and Emily Karaka attended the inaugural meeting. A large number of mana whenua representing the three iwi also attended the inaugural meeting.

12. This appointment will enable the mana whenua member to take up the currently vacant seat on the committee in time for its second meeting, expected to occur in December 2015.

13. At a recent hui, mana whenua sought assurance from the local board that the mana whenua appointment to the committee in no way replaces or detracts from the local board’s existing and future relationships with the three iwi (and other iwi) on matters other than those delegated to the Te Oro Committee. This is acknowledged and was never intended.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

14. Local board views and implications are discussed throughout this report.

Māori impact statement

15. The target area for the centre (Glen Innes, Pt England and Panmure) has a relatively high percentage of Maori residents (24%) compared to the rest of Auckland (11%). The centre is expected to have positive impacts on the area’s Maori population

16. The recommendations of this report are likely to have a positive impact on Maori as they involve locals with experience in youth and/or community development in the Glen Innes area.

17. The provision for a mana whenua member to sit on the committee with the support of a proposed mana whenua reference group comprised of members of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki and Ngāti Paoa will have a further positive impact on Maori.

Implementation

18. Non-elected members of the committee are entitled to claim for meeting attendance and mileage allowances. These can be met within existing budgets.

19. Once the board appoints mana whenua members to the committee, staff will make the necessary arrangements to support the appointed member and provide him/her with all necessary information.

20. Staff advise that there is capacity to provide basic support as per paragraph 9 above to the proposed mana whenua reference group noting that there is no additional budget or staff resource available to provide financial or administrative support to this group.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors	Mary Binney - Local Board Advisor - Maungakiekie-Tāmaki
Authorisers	Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

17 September 2015

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board re-allocation of portfolios and other appointments

File No.: CP2015/18146

Purpose

1. To adopt revised portfolio allocations and other appointments for members of the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board.

Executive Summary

2. Portfolios are established by local boards to oversee local board work programmes and consider issues relating to key council activities.

3. As part of its mid-term review, members of the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board have agreed in principle to re-allocate a number of portfolio and alternate positions, with the intention that these re-allocations will come into effect on 1 October 2015.

4. Elected members participate on management, governance or networking groups in outside organisations for a number of reasons. As part of the mid-term review, board members have also considered existing appointments to external organisations, community networks and Mainstreet or Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) and have agreed in principle to a number of changes.

5. This report requests the re-allocation of the portfolio and alternate positions and other appointments as agreed in principle by members of the local board in the context of its mid-term review, noting that all existing portfolio and other appointments will remain unchanged unless formally re-allocated by the local board in response to this report.

6. Current portfolio allocations and other appointments are appended as Attachment A.

Recommendation/s

That the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board:

a) nominate members as lead and alternate for those portfolio areas where changes have been agreed in principle by the local board for the remainder of the political term

b) nominate members to those appointments to external organisations and community networks where changes have been agreed in principle by the local board for the remainder of the political term

c) note that that any existing portfolio allocations and other appointments appended in Attachment A and not formally re-allocated by the local board in response to this report will remain unchanged

Comments

7. In the current electoral term, local boards have established their priorities in local board plans and the organisation has aligned itself to reflect these priorities and meet the needs of local boards.

8. In the first half of 2015, the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board undertook a mid-term review to consider various aspects of how local board business is undertaken, including business meetings, workshops and portfolios. As part of this process, members of the Local Board collectively considered current portfolio allocations and appointments to external organisations, community networks and Mainstreet or Business Improvement Districts (BIDs). Members have agreed in principle to re-allocate a number of portfolio and alternate positions and some other appointments, with the intention that these re-allocations will come into effect on 1 October 2015.

9. A portfolio approach can assist board members in having a strategic overview of programmes and activities, provides for a consistent approach that is familiar to staff working to these delegations and assists with the running of the portfolio (e.g. regular portfolio briefings/workshops with staff from one activity). No change is proposed to the current portfolio areas.

Appointments to external and community networking organisations

10. A number of external organisations provide for the formal participation of elected members in their affairs. Elected member appointees will have a variety of duties. Board members may provide updates of their activities with their allocated organisations at local board meetings.

11. In respect of external appointments, Members are delegated in their capacity as elected local board members. Should they no longer be a local board member, their nominations would be automatically repealed.

12. Elected representatives may be part of any organisation in their private capacity and personal interests. Elected representatives are required to disclose memberships to external organisations in the conflict of interest register.

13. The reasons for participation in external organisations can be described in a number of ways:

· a trust deed of an organisation providing for the council to appoint a trustee

· an organisation of interest to the council simply inviting representation at its meetings

· associations entered into by the council which provide for representation - such as Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ)

· organisation governance, or project or programme oversight, such as regional or local parks management groups

· a statutory or regulatory provision (for example a regulation providing for a community liaison committee)

· a resource consent requiring the formation of a representative committee

Appointments to Mainstreet or Business Improvement Districts

14. There are three local Mainstreet or Business Improvement District (BIDs) in the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki area. The BID programme provides a focal point for local business clusters to assist and help themselves in creating local employment opportunities. It provides a means for local innovation and economic growth.

15. The local board has a day-to-day relationship with the business associations as a joint partner in the BID Partnership Programme The local board works with the business associations to align the direction for the BID programme and local priorities expressed in the Local Board Plan and receives regular reporting on the BID Partnership Programme against objectives.

16. The business association may invite the appointed member onto the BID Governance Board or Executive Committee. The discretion on whether this member has voting rights lies with each business association under the rules of its constitution.

The role of portfolios

17. A useful starting point for board members is to consider their role as portfolio holder as that of a “sounding board” on behalf of the board. Staff from departments across the organisation need to regularly talk to board members for a number of reasons. This may be to provide a progress up-date to the board on projects and work programmes that have been agreed with the board, to test the level of interest a board has on a particular issue so the department can consider how best to progress matters, or to advise on any issues that may be arising from a project/activity.

18. Portfolio holders are the key board member contacts for departmental staff and in that way assist staff to progress the work programme. Board members are not required to give advice to staff on the operational details of projects or activities. The important consideration for members is that they are appointed to be the local board representative on a particular area – they represent the views of the board (not their own views) to give direction/steer to staff.

19. If there is no known board view on an issue, board members will need to canvass views of fellow board members and then form the view on what the board position is. If it is likely to be a contentious issue with competing views, it is best referred to a full workshop to allow board members to discuss the issue and formulate a position.

20. Portfolio holders can have an alternate appointee for the majority of portfolios to assist the portfolio holder with the workload and fill in for that member when he/she is unavailable.

21. Portfolio holders have a responsibility to provide a feedback loop to other board members – this includes updating on how issues are progressing (or not), putting issues on the radar for all members, bringing issues to the table if guidance is needed from other board members. Local board advisors can provide assistance and advice about how to progress these types of issues.

22. Communication needs to be regular (for example, monthly) and can be done in a range of ways – scheduled slots on workshop agendas can be an effective way to keep everyone informed about the key things that are happening in the portfolio.

23. The work on portfolio areas will often eventuate in formal reports to the whole board requesting a decision or providing an update – so it is important for portfolio holders to provide regular and clear communication on the portfolio area so that all board members are briefed and there are no surprises.

24. Decision-making is carried out at formal board business meetings. However in some cases – generally quite limited – decision-making has been delegated to the portfolio holder – for example when it is a straight forward issue and a decision may be needed quickly such as landowner consents. If a portfolio-holder has delegated decision-making and is asked to consider a significant/complex decision it is advisable to refer the issue to the full board. This report does not seek any change to existing delegations.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

25. These re-allocations of portfolios have been discussed by the full board in the context of its 2015 mid-term review. Discussions have taken place over several months within board member-only workshop sessions.

26. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Act 2013 provides for local boards to delegate to committees, sub-committees members of the local board or Auckland Council officers, any of its responsibilities, duties and power, with some specific exceptions.

Māori impact statement

27. There is no specific impact for Māori arising from this report, therefore views of Māori have not been sought.

28. In all areas of their work, including appointments to outside organisations and community networks, local board members are expected to represent the view of local communities, including Māori.

Implementation

29. Staff anticipate being able to implement changes to portfolio allocations prior to 1 October 2015, on which date any adopted re-allocations will come into effect.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Current portfolio allocations and other appointments	201

Signatories

Authors	Mary Binney - Local Board Advisor - Maungakiekie-Tāmaki
Authorisers	Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

17 September 2015

MTLB Appointments and Portfolios

Appointment to currently active outside organisations and networks

Organisation	Primary	Alternate
Advance Onehunga @ Risk Group	Bridget Graham	Obed Unasa
Aircraft Noise Community Consultative Group	Simon Randall
Citizens Advice Bureau, Glen Innes	Simon Randall	Brett Clark
Citizens Advice Bureau, Onehunga	Simon Randall	Brett Clark
Citizens Advice Bureau, Panmure/Ellerslie	Simon Randall	Brett Clark
Citizens Advice Bureau, Sylvia Park	Simon Randall	Brett Clark
Dunkirk Road Activity Centre	Alan Verrall	Chris Makoare
Hamlins Hill Management Trust	Brett Clark
Old Mangere Bridge Project Reference Group	Simon Randall	Brett Clark
Onehunga Combined Sports Trust	Brett Clark	Alan Verrall
Onehunga Community House	Bridget Graham	Simon Randall
Onehunga Fencible and Historic Society	Bridget Graham	Obed Unasa
Onehunga Senior Citizens	Bridget Graham	Simon Randall
Oranga Community Committee	Brett Clark	Simon Randall
Panmure Basin Advisory Committee	Josephine Bartley	Simon Randall
Panmure Historical Association	Obed Unasa	Alan Verrall
Tāmaki Estuary Environmental Forum	Alan Verrall	Josephine Bartley
Community Network	Primary	Alternate
Onehunga District Council of Social Services (ODCOSS)	Bridget Graham	Simon Randall
Panmure Community Action Group	Alan Verrall	Chris Makoare
Panmure Community Network	Chris Makoare	Alan Verrall
Tāmaki Community Liaison Group Meeting on Policing and Security	Josephine Bartley	Obed Unasa
Mainstreet or Business Improvement District	Primary	Alternate
Glen Innes	Brett Clark	Josephine Bartley
Panmure	Brett Clark	Chris Makoare
Penrose	Brett Clark	Simon Randall
Onehunga	Brett Clark	Chris Makoare
Local Government New Zealand	Primary	Alternate
	Simon Randall	Chris Makoare
Community Partnerships	Primary	Alternate
The Onehunga Foreshore Working Group	Brett Clark
The Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Youth Connections Steering Group	Simon Randall, Chris Makoare, Obed Unasa

Portfolio appointments

	Lead	Alternate
Arts and Culture	Obed Unasa	Chris Makoare
Civil Defence	Bridget Graham
Community Development	Simon Randall
Community Facilities	Chris Makoare
Community Leases	Alan Verrall	Brett Clark
Community Safety	Jo Bartley	Obed Unasa
Economic Development	Brett Clark
Environment	Jo Bartley	Simon Randall
Events	Obed Unasa	Bridget Graham
Grants	Bridget Graham	Obed Unasa
Heritage	Bridget Graham	Obed Unasa
Libraries	Chris Makoare	Bridget Graham
Parks and Recreation	Brett Clark	Alan Verrall
Planning	Bridget Graham
Strategy and Finance	Simon Randall	Chris Makoare
Transport	Alan Verrall	Jo Bartley
Youth	Chris Makoare

Other appointments:

	Lead	Alternate
Central Joint Funding Committee	Bridget Graham	Obed Unasa
Manukau Harbour Forum	Bridget Graham	Brett Clark
Resource Consents (input into notified decisions)	Bridget Graham	Simon Randall
Urban Design Champion	Bridget Graham
World War 1 Centenary	Bridget Graham
Maunga Local Board Forum	Brett Clark	Chris Makoare
Te Oro Committee	Simon Randall, Chris Makoare, Obed Unasa
Swimming Pool Fencing Exemption Committee	Simon Randall, Chris Makoare, Bridget Graham

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

17 September 2015

RECORD OF WORKSHOPS

Record of workshop proceedings for 4 August 10am-5pm

Held at the Local Board office, 7-13 Pilkington Road, Panmure

Members present for all or part of the workshops:

Simon Randall (Chairperson)

Chris Makoare (Deputy Chairperson)

Josephine Bartley

Brett Clark

Bridget Graham

Obed Unasa

Apologies: Alan Verrall

1.0	Capital Fund
	To discuss the capital fund
	Officers present: Sugenthy Thomson

2.0	Panmure Library Building Space
	To discuss the Panmure Library building
	Officers present: Tanya Mead, Antonia Butler, Peter Loud

3.0	NZTA – East West Connections
	To discuss East West Connections
	Officers present: Scott Wickman, Sarah McCormick, Joe Schady

4.0	SLIPs
	To discuss small local improvement projects
	Officers present: Vandna Kirmani

RECORD OF WORKSHOPS

Record of workshop proceedings for 11 August 11am-2pm

Held at the Local Board office, 7-13 Pilkington Road, Panmure

Members present for all or part of the workshops:

Simon Randall (Chairperson)

Chris Makoare (Deputy Chairperson)

Brett Clark

Bridget Graham

Obed Unasa

Apologies: Josephine Bartley

Alan Verrall

1.0	Auckland Council Property Limited (ACPL)
	To provide the board with an update from ACPL
	Officers present: Caitlin Borgfeldt, Alan McGregor

2.0	Waikaraka Park Concept Plan
	To discuss the Waikaraka Park concept plan
	Officers present: Steve Owens, Vandna Kirmani, Chris Felton

RECORD OF WORKSHOPS

Record of workshop proceedings for 25 August 10am-5pm

Held at the Local Board office, 7-13 Pilkington Road, Panmure

Members present for all or part of the workshops:

Simon Randall (Chairperson)

Chris Makoare (Deputy Chairperson)

Josephine Bartley

Brett Clark

Bridget Graham

Obed Unasa

Alan Verrall

1.0	Onehunga Foreshore Project
	To discuss the project
	Officers present: Greg Hannah, Steve Owens, Beverley Rogers, Andrew Simon Pickering

2.0	Auckland Transport work programme
	To discuss the Auckland Transport work programme
	Officers present: Lorna Stewart, Jonathan Anyon

3.0	Tāmaki Redevelopment Company
	To discuss Tāmaki redevelopment
	Officers present: Gavin Peebles, Karen Cooke, Peter Fa’afiu

4.0	Auckland Council Property Limited (ACPL)
	To provide the board with an update from ACPL
	Officers present: Gavin Peebles, Karen Cooke, Caitlin Borgfeldt

5.0	Central Joint Funding Committee
	To discuss the Central Joint Funding Committee
	Officers present: Tristan Coulson, Marion Davies

6.0	Te Waka Angamua relationship agreements
	To discuss relationship agreements
	Officers present: Bernard Te Paa, Shane Ta’ala, Ebony Duff

Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board

17 September 2015

Chairperson’s Report Simon Randall: September 2015

Key meetings

7 August	Closing event for Te Epetoma o te Reo Kuku Airani - Cook Islands language week
8 August	Civic Ceremony - Toia - Otahutu Recreational Precinct
16 August	Onehunga People’s Garden Planting #2
19 August	Joint Governing Body and Local Board Chairs meeting
21 August	Koroneihana 2015
24 August	GI CAB gathering at Te Oro
24 August	Citizenship ceremony (Town Hall)
26 August	Youth Connections Steering Group
28 August	Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority workshop with the Tupuna Taonga Trust

LGNZ 2015 Conference Report

The 2015 LGNZ conference in Rotorua was a useful gathering of elected members and key staff across local and central government. It focussed on a number of key themes. There were two major aspects of the conference that got a lot of attention. The first was the release of LGNZ’s Local Government Funding Review 10 point plan. This has been worked on for some time by a cross sector group including Cr Penny Webster, and aimed to tackle the issues faced by Local Government with regards to sustainability of funding in the face of a number of challenges. The second was the Minister of Local Government Hon Paula Bennett’s strong messaging on future approaches towards shared services and CCO establishment.

Young Elected members

This was the second time that the under 40s group of elected members gathered at an LGNZ conference. The main part of the meeting was centred on the future direction and purpose of the group. It was agreed that the group should, rather than be representatives of younger people in general, shift conversations with LGNZ to encompass the values of young people, such as the need to address climate change.

Stephen Yarwick, former Lord Mayor of Adelaide

Stephen’s presentation was particularly useful in considering the immediate challenges faced by the board from the new empowered communities approach as well as taking a wider perspective on leadership and place-making. He impressed upon the conference that from his perspective leadership is about getting results. He cited a number of challenges and opportunities for local government, in particular meeting the ‘urban challenge’ given the growth of populations in cities, and the need to building innovation in leaders and communities given the certainty of change. He had two suggestions on the latter firstly the right culture was needed. The right council culture (as defined by the mayor and CEO) and community culture (which results from staff interaction with community). The second suggestion was to flip the traditional big council: small community model to a small council: big community model, much along the lines of an empowered communities approach.

He placed particular emphasis on place-making, as this was the best way to support and build communities. His slogan for this was ‘great streets make great cities’ and suggested that all councils should have a tool kit of initiatives to activate spaces, particularly when improvement was needed. In Adelaide their tool kit including using food trucks, murals, and temporary activations. This is something that perhaps the Local Board may wish to look at.

Finally, Stephen summarised his advice to leaders in the following four points: 1. Articulate a vision, 2. Focus on Strategy, 3. Innovation and respect, 4. Be the change.

Funding sustainability

This session was with Councillor Penny Webster, Oliver Hartwich, and Hugo Ellis all giving a different perspective on this issue.

Penny Webster outlined the current issues with the current approaches to funding (rates, debt, development contributions, and other sources) and the implications of this current model.

Oliver Hartwich made the point that not much funding is actually delivered through local government versus through central government compared to the rest of the world. He also made the observation that the current situation presents the wrong incentives in the way in which we are funded, and that local government should be better incentivised to support economic growth.

Hugo Ellis presented his view that there are essentially four levers in local government for revenue that need better utilisation by local government. You can change plans, you can increase revenue sources, the use of debt instruments, and capital release through either capital restructuring or equity sale.

The report is available on the LGNZ website.

Brenda Halloran, former Mayor of Waterloo, Canada

Brenda outlined the challenges faced by the City of Waterloo in her time as Mayor, and gave some insights into these. There were several parallels with the experiences of Waterloo and Auckland, in particular dealing with population growth and so the need to put in good urban planning allowing for density increases; issues with addressing liveability; dealing with age friendly infrastructure and services; and addressing environmental issues and related infrastructure such as cycleways.

Waterloo had a number of challenges such as aging infrastructure, funding constraints in an environment of increasing costs, an aging population (the ‘silver tsunami’), housing affordability, quality public transport infrastructure and services, neighbourhoods in transition, and citizen engagement and participation. Waterloo has adopted a knowledge economy approach (calling themselves ‘Canada’s Innovation Hub’) and have utilised international agreements and relationships in order to drive this forward.

Brenda did not present many answers to the issues faced by Waterloo but it seems that it is worth looking at in more depth as a model for addressing some of the current issues facing Auckland.

Hon Paula Bennett MP, Minister of Local Government

The conference saw the announcement of the set of shared priorities agreed to at the Central-Local Government Forum, and are set to guide shared work between Local and Central Government over the next few years. They are: creating strong regional economies, resilient local infrastructure, and ensuring strong resilient communities across New Zealand.

The minister reflected on many aspects, although most of these were more relevant for the rest of the country as it focussed on shared services and the role and functions of regional councils. There was also the strong message that legislated for large scale amalgamations were not on the agenda, although multi TLA CCOs might be.

The key theme from the minister’s speech of relevance for Auckland is that the minister feels that local government “needs to demonstrate that it can live within its means” making the point that “ratepayers are not willing to pay more for services while they see waste”. This seems to not bode well for a serious look at the funding issues that have been raised as there was a suggestion that a perception of waste reflected a reality.

[1] A master plan is a detailed plan for a defined area that involves the integration of all elements (including social, cultural, economic and environmental considerations) into one overall design and can include the final expected physical form of buildings and spaces.

[2] A master plan is a detailed plan for a defined area that involves the integration of all elements (including social, cultural, economic and environmental considerations) into one overall design and can include the final expected physical form of buildings and spaces.

6 August	Meeting with Onehunga Senior Citizens’ Foundation
8 August	Site visit 8 Faber Place
10 August	Manukau Harbour Forum
11 August	Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board workshops
12 August	Maungakiekie catch up with Onehunga Community News Monthly ODCOSS meeting
13 August	Local Board Urban Design Champions’ meeting
14 August	CABAC monthly meeting
15 August	Site visit 715 Mt. Albert Road
17 August	Catch up with Simon Library portfolio quarterly catch up
18 August	Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board workshops Local Alcohol Ban Hearing
19 August	CABAC AGM
20 August	Events portfolio catch up Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board business meeting
21 August	Site visits: - 23 Greenpark Road 74 Namata Road
24 August	Glen Innes CAB morning tea at Te Oro Community house meeting with representative from Te Papa Museum
25 August	Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board workshops Onehunga Community House management Committee Meeting
31 August	Site visit 11 Campbell Road
1 September	Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board workshops

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

Authors	Philippa Hillman - Democracy Advisor, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board
Authorisers	Victoria Villaraza - Relationship Manager