Agenda of Great Barrier Local Board

Great Barrier Local Board

09 December 2015

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 Welcome 5

2 Apologies 5

3 Declaration of Interest 5

4 Confirmation of Minutes 5

5 Leave of Absence 5

6 Acknowledgements 5

7 Petitions 5

8 Deputations 5

9 Public Forum 5

10 Extraordinary Business 5

11 Notices of Motion 6

12 Great Barrier new cemetery development next steps 7

13 Resource Recovery and Reuse Trial 21

14 Kaitoke Stream Monitoring (heavy metals) and review of bore monitoring data 25

15 Annual Plan 2016/2017 – local consultation content 47

16 Auckland Transport Report - December 2015 - Great Barrier Island 49

17 Correspondence 55

18 Chairperson's report 59

19 Board Members' Reports 63

20 Great Barrier Local Board Workshop Proceedings 77

21 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

1 Welcome

Chairperson IM Fordham will welcome everyone in attendance. Member JC Cleave will lead a karakia.

2 Apologies

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

3 Declaration of Interest

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

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 11 November 2015 and the extraordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 25 November 2015 as a true and correct record.

b) confirm the ordinary minutes of its Draft Local Board Plan meeting, held on Monday, 29 August 2011 and the ordinary minutes of its Annual Plan Hearings, held on Tuesday, 26 March 2013 as a true and correct record.

5 Leave of Absence

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

6 Acknowledgements

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

7 Petitions

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

8 Deputations

Standing Order 3.20 provides for deputations. Those applying for deputations are required to give seven working days notice of subject matter and applications are approved by the Chairperson of the Great Barrier Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

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

9 Public Forum

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

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

10 Extraordinary Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 Notices of Motion

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

Great Barrier Local Board

09 December 2015

Great Barrier new cemetery development next steps

File No.: CP2015/24683

Purpose

1. To seek approval from the Great Barrier Local Board to investigate local parks for the development of cemeteries in the Okiwi and Claris areas.

Executive Summary

2. The Great Barrier Local Board is now ready to begin investigating the development of cemeteries at Okiwi and Claris as proposed in the Aotea Great Barrier Local Board Plan and using budgets it has approved for this purpose.

3. For the board to make progress in the current financial year, it is recommended that investigation focuses on local park land for which the board has full decision making authority. The investigation will need to include site suitability, planning and regulatory provisions, and preliminary community and iwi engagement.

4. Based on a desk top exercise, the initial focus will be on local park land in the vicinity of the Claris Crossroads and at Okiwi Park. As there are question marks about soil conditions, water tables and flooding over these sites, a geotechnical assessment should be conducted first. Iwi have also requested involvement at this early stage.

5. If these or other local parks prove unsuitable, the investigation will need to be expanded to other land potentially including sites previously considered on Department of Conservation and private land.

Recommendation/s

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

a) approve the detailed investigation of local parks in the Claris Crossroads area and Okiwi Park for the development of new cemeteries for Aotea Great Barrier Island with initial work being a geotechnical study and input from Ngati Rehua Ngatiwai ki Aotea

b) confirm that should the sites in the Claris Crossroads area and Okiwi Park prove unsuitable for cemeteries it will expand its investigation to other council owned or managed land, Department of Conservation land and private land if landowners agree

Comments

Background

6. There are two operating public cemeteries on Great Barrier Island located at Gooseberry Flat and Whangaparapara. A small family cemetery is located on the Medlands Historic Reserve and there are a number of family cemeteries on private land. Gooseberry Flat is the island’s main cemetery. Whangaparapara is a small cemetery on the opposite of the Whangaparapara Harbour to the main settlement and is only accessible by boat.

7. Great Barrier residents are very connected to their specific communities and have over many years asked for public cemeteries in the north and south of the island. Progress was made on identifying suitable sites as part of the (then) Auckland City Council/Department of Conservation land exchange programme up to 2009 but this hasn’t been progressed under Auckland Council, mainly due to ongoing Treaty settlement processes.

8. The current and previous Great Barrier Local Board Plans both included initiatives to develop new cemeteries and Claris and Okiwi. In July 2015, the Great Barrier Local Board obtained authority from the Auckland Council governing body to manage the island’s two cemeteries and to plan for new cemeteries. This has been the catalyst enabling the board to now advance its aspirations to create new cemeteries at Claris & Okiwi.

9. In September 2015 the board agreed to establish a working group of key officers to review and further investigate site options using its $10,000 cemeteries feasibility budget. The investigation will include the assessment of:

- site suitability particularly soil, ground water and flooding conditions

- cemetery development costs

- Hauraki Gulf Islands District Plan and resource consent requirements

- Reserves Act 1977 and Burial and Cremation Act 1964 provisions

- Community, stakeholder and iwi engagement

Site options

10. In order for the board to make progress on cemetery development, officers recommend that the investigation focus initially on local parks in the Claris and Okiwi areas. This is because the board has full decision making authority over use and development of local parks, subject to meeting all regulatory and consultation requirements. In addition its $10,000 cemetery feasibility study budget is only available until 30 June 2016 and investigations beyond local parks are expected to cost more than this.

11. There are ten parcels of local park and reserve land in these areas. Officers recommend the initial investigations focus on three sites. The ten sites including the three preferred sites are listed below:

Sites recommended for initial investigation

· Site 1. Recreation Reserve land opposite the Claris sports club on Whangaparapara Road (Crossroads Reserve)

· Site 2. Recreation Reserve land adjoining the Great Barrier Island Golf Club on Blind Bay Road

· Site 3. Recreation Reserve land at Okiwi on Mabey Road (Okiwi Park)

Other council owned or managed local park land in the Claris and Okiwi areas

· Site 4. Local Purpose Reserve land at the intersection of Aotea and Whangaparapara Roads

· Site 5. Local Purpose Reserve land at 4 Gray Road (Plantation Reserve)

· Site 6. Local Purpose (Aerodrome and Community Centre) Reserve land adjoining the Claris airport at 140 Hector Sanderson Road

· Site 7. Local Purpose (Community Buildings) Reserve land adjoining the Claris airport at 80 Hector Sanderson Road

· Site 8. Recreation Reserve land at 13 Oceanview Road

· Site 9. Recreation Reserve land at 17 Oceanview Road

· Site 10. Recreation Reserve land on Aotea Road Okiwi opposite Okiwi Station

Further details of each site including aerial maps are shown in Attachment A.

12. Sites 1-3 are recommended for initial investigation for the following reasons:

· They are undeveloped

· Their Recreation Reserve status under the Reserves Act means the Reserves Act processes are expected to be the least complicated

· There are no residential properties physically adjoining or in close proximity

· The sites are considered large enough for small cemeteries to be developed out of view of anyone passing by if that is considered desirable

13. Sites 4-10 are not recommended for initial investigation for the following reasons:

· Site 4 is a small triangle opposite Plantation Reserve and adjoining the Crossroads Lodge which would be too small for a cemetery

· Site 5 (Plantation Reserve) is already partially developed and there are plans for future development

· While Sites 6 and 7 are vested in trust Auckland Council (i.e. council has day to day and practical management and decision-making authority), they have an underlying crown ownership and are potentially subject to treaty settlement. These aspects would likely negate the key element of being able to move quickly

· While sites 8 and 9 are Auckland Council owned recreation reserves, they are situated out in the open in a residential community and are not likely to have community support for cemetery development

· While Site 10 is recreation reserve it is actually part of a wider wetland reserve are which is already earmarked for transfer to the Department of Conservation under the land exchange programme referred to in paragraph 6.

14. Sites 6 and 7 could be considered further in discussion with the Department of Conservation and Ngati Rehua Ngatiwai ki Aotea if those parties are amenable.

15. If Okiwi Park proves unsuitable, reconsideration of a site investigated during the Auckland City Council/Department of Conservation land exchange programme 250m east of the Okiwi settlement, could be considered again if the above parties support this.

16. The option of private land is also available but the board neither has budget nor decision making authority to acquire land for a cemetery. Gifting of private land for a cemetery, which has been previously investigated, would still incur considerable survey and legal costs.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

17. The Aotea Great Barrier Local Board Plan includes a section entitled “new cemeteries”. It notes that as the responsibility for cemeteries has rested regionally, priority hasn’t been given to these requests based on the much greater cemetery pressures faced elsewhere in the region.

18. This report is in direct response to the Great Barrier Local Board’s advocacy since the creation of Auckland Council in 2010 for authority over the island’s cemeteries. This has now been agreed, opening the way for the board to make progress on this objective provided it chooses sites on local parks as it has full decision-making authority over these.

Māori impact statement

19. The Aotea Great Barrier Local Board Plan lists Ngati Rehua Ngatiwai ki Aotea as a key agency the local board will work with as it advances its plan to develop new cemeteries on Great Barrier.

20. Ngati Rehua Ngatiwai ki Aotea has indicated it wishes to be involved in this project and awaits further detailed information on site choice before being able to identify if there are any site specific issues.

21. As noted above, should Site 1-3 prove unsuitable for any reason, Ngati Rehua Ngatiwai ki Aotea would be a key party in any discussions with the Department of Conservation on options around any DOC sites.

Implementation

22. Initial research suggests that Sites 1-3 are subject to physical constraints which may or may not be surmountable. They are characterised by sandy soils which are not ideal for digging, potentially high water tables which could create issues for burials and in some cases are prone to flooding. All of these would increase the challenges for cemetery development, but may not be unsurmountable. The first step in investigating these sites is therefore a geotechnical investigation.

23. Currently there are only two burials per annum on average in the island’s public cemeteries. Despite an aging population this suggests an average of one burial per year might be expected in each of the cemeteries developed at Claris and Okiwi.

24. This means that developing a cemetery with (say) a fifty year life would require only a small area which both increases the likelihood of finding a suitable location on these sites and minimizing adverse visual effects.

25. The status of the local park sites under the Reserves Act has already been determined and it is expected that surveying off land for a local purpose cemetery reserve, classification and gazettal processes are all required.

26. Initial consideration of Hauraki Gulf Island District Plan provisions suggest that in most cases cemetery development would be a non-complying activity so a resource consent, possibly publicly notified, would be required. Community consultation around these proposals is in any case proposed.

27. Burial and Cremation Act processes and requirements also need to be considered but this is normal practice in cemetery development.

28. The board has budgeted $20,000 in each of 2015/16 and 2016/17 for cemetery development. Until the above investigations are complete it is not known how adequate or otherwise this budget will be.

29. While a “standard” cemetery is probably the main option, considerations of eco burials and other preferences will need to occur. This would be included in public consultation at the appropriate time.

30. Further down the track, opex costs (to maintain the cemeteries) need to be considered and budgeted for. In addition, internment costs (currently free at Gooseberry Flat as that land is gifted) need to be agreed by the board.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Detailed list of 10 possible cemetery development sites including aerial maps	11

Signatories

Authors	Jacqueline Fyers - Democracy/Engagement Advisor
Authorisers	John Nash - Senior Local Board Advisor

Great Barrier Local Board

09 December 2015

Resource Recovery and Reuse Trial

File No.: CP2015/24878

Purpose

1. To request that the Great Barrier Local Board (the board) endorse a resource recovery and reuse trial on Aotea Great Barrier.

Executive Summary

2. The development of a resource recovery network is a key initiative in working towards Auckland Council’s goal of zero waste by 2040 expressed in the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan. In order to determine the feasibility of operating a recycling centre on Aotea Great Barrier, it is proposed to operate a resource recovery trial in 2016.

3. Board members have expressed interest in looking at ‘on-island’ solutions to addressing waste generated on Aotea Great Barrier, including the option of a “tip shop”. This report recommends the board endorse a trial resource recovery and reuse trial.

Recommendation

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

a) endorse a resource recovery and reuse trial on Aotea Great Barrier.

Comments

Background

4. The Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) is council’s road map towards zero waste by 2040. The focus of the WMMP is ‘Waste to Resources’ and provides for a regional approach to waste services that includes:

· Disposer pays charging for waste to landfill;

· Changes to the way inorganic waste is collected and paid for;

· Developing a Resource Recovery Network;

· The establishment of the Waste Management and Minimisation Fund (WMIF); and

· Increased waste minimisation education and communications.

5. While the WMMP provides for regional consistency to services, it also recognises the need for tailored and integrated solutions for the Hauraki Gulf islands. The emphasis is to work with relevant local boards, community and businesses to foster on-island solutions for waste.

Proposed Resource Recovery Trial

6. It is proposed to establish a 'pop-up' site somewhere on the island for an initial one year trial period to deal with unwanted inorganic material which still has value. A contractor would manage the site ensuring that all material dropped off at the site would be;

· Received;

· Stored;

· Repaired or renovated;

· Upcycled or repurposed; and

· Sold or gifted.

7. The objectives of the trial are as follows;

· To divert as much material as possible from landfill and return goods to the community;

· To provide a site that is easily accessible to the community and becomes a destination in its own right;

· To create opportunities for new and existing community and business organisations to participate;

· To encourage the participation and buy-in of Great Barrier residents and visitors;

· To enable and support on-island capacity and capability in resource recovery activities;

· To maximise opportunities for employment, training and volunteering;

· To avoid inadvertently undermining existing initiatives or relationships; and

· To provide infrastructure (e.g. containers and canopies) to store material, to create a workshop/repair space, and for a shop for displaying/selling items. There may be opportunities for a repair shop/café that teaches the community how to repair their own items.

8. Regional funding is available to support the possible purchase of containers, canopies, transport and fittings to establish the pop up site. In addition, budget is available to assist the operator to build capacity and capability, as well as to support the operation.

9. The table below provides a draft project outline

Date	Action
February 2016	Release an Expression of Interest (potentially launched by the Local Board) setting out the trial's aims and objectives and outline of scope of services required. Invite interested parties to submit ideas and proposals.
March 2016	Proposals received and evaluated by Waste Solutions, and discussion with interested parties.
April 2016	Agreement on trial operation, site preparation and promotion to the local community
June 2016	Open facility and commence trial.

Table 1: Timeline for Proposed Trial

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

10. The Aotea Great Barrier Local Board Plan includes strong reference to the importance of waste minimisation. The establishment of a ‘waste recovery centre’ is listed as a key initiative in that plan.

11. Initial discussions on this proposed trial were held as part of a workshop with the board on the development of the Hauraki Gulf Waste Plan. A separate workshop on this specific topic was held on late November 2015. Any feedback from that workshop will be noted at the meeting.

Māori impact statement

12. Ngāti Rehua Ngātiwai ki Aotea received funding from the regional Waste Minimisation and Innovation Fund to scope opportunities for resource recovery operations on Aotea. The iwi will be welcome to express an interest in operating this trial.

13. No consultation with Maori was undertaken for the purposes of this report.

Implementation

14. There are no implementation issues arising from this report. Regular reporting on the trial will be through the bimonthly report from the Infrastructure and Environmental Services department to the Great Barrier Environment Committee.

15. The outcomes of the trial will support the development of the Hauraki Gulf Waste Plan.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Ian Stupple – Waste Solution Manager

Authorisers

John Dragicevich - Director Civil Defence and Emergency Management

John Nash - Senior Local Board Advisor

Great Barrier Local Board

09 December 2015

Kaitoke Stream Monitoring (heavy metals) and review of bore monitoring data

File No.: CP2015/23281

Purpose

1. To respond to a request from the Great Barrier Environment Committee (the Committee) for information on the cost of monitoring the Kaitoke Stream (the stream) for the presence of heavy metals.

2. To provide recommendations for further water-related investigations and management options to reduce the impact of the Claris landfill and sludge disposal site on groundwater water quality.

Executive Summary

3. The most recent State of the Environment monitoring report card for freshwater streams on Great Barrier rates them as ‘A’ (highest grade). However, the Great Barrier Local Board (the board) have noted that despite this information, community concerns about possible contamination of freshwater streams, particularly Kaitoke Stream, continue to linger.

4. Additional water quality monitoring of the Kaitoke Stream was undertaken by a scientist from Auckland Council’s Research and Evaluation Unit (RIMU) in 2015. A full suite of freshwater quality indicators were monitored as part of this programme. No evidence of poor water quality was detected.

5. The Committee subsequently requested information on the costs of heavy metal testing to determine if there were impacts from the Claris landfill site, or from historic mining activity in the Kaitoke catchment.

6. This report provides a summary of monitoring of the Kaitoke Stream to date, and provides a breakdown of approximate costs to sample the Kaitoke Stream for the presence of heavy metals. The approximate cost of laboratory analysis is $5,017 plus GST for three months. Costs for sample collection and transport would need to be determined as part of a full project scoping process.

7. In addition to the above, a review of groundwater monitoring information from the Claris landfill was undertaken to consider other options for addressing community concerns about the health of the Kaitoke Stream. This review found that further investigation would be needed to better understand and remedy faecal contamination at two consent monitoring bores in the vicinity of the Claris landfill and sludge disposal site.

8. This report therefore recommends the inclusion of a project to develop a management plan for the Claris landfill and sludge site, which would determine the most appropriate long-term management of septic sludge and reduce the likelihood of impacts on water quality.

Recommendations

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

a) note the costs of testing the Kaitoke Stream for presence of heavy metals.

b) consider the development of a management plan for the Claris landfill and sludge disposal site as part of its 2016/2017 local environment work programme.

Comments

9. Additional water quality testing was undertaken in the Kaitoke Stream in 2015 in response to community concerns about contamination in the Stream. A copy of the report on that study is appended as Attachment A. This monitoring included a comprehensive suite of freshwater quality indicators. The conclusion of that study was that overall water quality was good, and there was no difference in water quality between upstream and downstream sites.

10. The Committee subsequently requested information on the costs of heavy metal testing to determine if there were impacts from the Claris landfill site, or historic mining activity in the Kaitoke catchment.

11. It will be difficult to link any heavy metal contamination in the stream with a potential source. For example, it is unlikely that heavy metals from the Claris landfill site (if they exist) would be transported approximately 400 metres to the Kaitoke Stream through groundwater flow. It may also be difficult to distinguish between heavy metals from the natural Kaitoke hotsprings higher up in the catchment and other anthropogenic sources, such as historic mining.

12. While there is no evidence that heavy metal contamination is likely to be an issue in the catchment, a suggested approach to heavy metal testing in the Kaitoke Stream is discussed in paragraphs 13 to 18 below, with indicative costs.

13. Stream monitoring sites should align with the upstream and downstream sites sampled in the 2015 study. A common, comprehensive total heavy metal suite should be selected with the addition of silver, gold, cyanide and mercury in order to detect any impacts from historic mining activity in the Kaitoke catchment.

14. Both stream water and stream sediment samples should be collected. Stream water testing for total heavy metals can detect current impacts, while sediment testing can identify any long-term accumulation of contaminants.

15. Heavy metal monitoring should be carried out at a monthly frequency as in the 2015 study for a period of one year. However, if results do not show a measureable difference at upstream and downstream sites in the Kaitoke Stream, monitoring should be discontinued after three months.

16. A quote has been obtained from Watercare Laboratory Services Ltd for laboratory analysis. This includes a comprehensive suite of nine heavy metals, pH, cyanide, mercury and total organic carbon (needed for comparison to guidelines). Cyanide and mercury have been included as they were commonly used for gold and silver ore extraction. All parameters should be analysed in stream water and sediment samples at two sites in the Kaitoke Stream, consistent with the 2015 study.

17. The approximate costs of laboratory analysis for a three month monitoring programme are $5,017 plus GST (Table 1). Note that these costs would be greater if testing showed a measureable difference between upstream and downstream sites and testing continued for a period of one year.

Tests	Sample type	Cost per sample	Total cost (2 sites, mthly for 3 mths)
Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Copper Cyanide Gold Lead Methyl mercury Nickel Silver Zinc pH Total Organic Carbon	Stream water	$456.30	$2737.80
	Stream sediment	$379.80	$2,278.80
Total cost			$5,017 plus GST

Table 1: Approximate costs for laboratory analysis of Kaitoke stream water and sediment samples for heavy metals for a period of three months.

18. Funding would also need to be made available for the costs of sample collection, and freight to the Watercare laboratory in Auckland. When water quality samples are collected by Council staff on the island, there is no additional cost for this work. The contract value for the person to collect samples as part of the current Tryphena monitoring programme is up to $3,000 plus costs. As an example, the cost to freight the samples collected as part of the Tryphena monitoring programme is approximately $150 per month. Actual costs would be determined as part of a full project scoping process.

Other Options

19. In addition to the above, a review of resource consent monitoring information was carried out for groundwater bores associated with the Claris landfill and septic sludge disposal site. This review discusses exceedances of maximum acceptable levels for faecal bacteria and recommends a number of options for further water-related investigation. A memo summarising the review is appended as Attachment B.

20. The suggested further investigations include;

· Updating groundwater flow direction information to include seasonal variation

· Checking bore-head protection,

· Inspection of on-site wastewater systems and

· A modelling study to inform the future management of septic sludge volume at the Claris landfill site.

21. From a water quality perspective further investigation would be needed to identify the cause of faecal contamination at the two bores. Of the above four options, updating the groundwater flow direction information, and the septic sludge modelling study, would be the most effective options to identify sources of contamination entering the groundwater system. While these investigations would be beneficial in understanding water quality contamination, they are also the costliest of the four options.

22. A range of recommended options to sustainably manage septic sludge at the Claris landfill site have been presented in previous reports. These included a range of sustainable management actions for the site, such as; lime stabilisation treatment, sludge characterisation and purchase of neighbouring Department of Conservation land. If these actions were implemented, the likelihood of long-term groundwater contamination in the vicinity of the Claris landfill site would be reduced.

23. It is recommended that the board considers a management plan for the Claris landfill and sludge disposal site as a more cost-effective, longer term solution to addressing community concerns about water contamination in the Kaitoke catchment. A site management plan would determine the most appropriate management of septic sludge at the Claris site (timing and volume of sludge etc.) and reduce the likelihood of impacts on water quality at the source.

24. This option could be explored further with the board in developing its 2016/2017 environment work programme.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

25. This report is in response to a specific request from the Committee for information on the costs to sample Kaitoke Stream for the presence of heavy metals (resolution number GBESP/2015/32).

26. The establishment of a freshwater quality monitoring programme is noted as a key initiative in the Aotea Great Barrier Local Board Plan. The board is currently funding such a programme in the Tryphena catchment. The Plan also includes reference to undertaking a feasibility study on sludge and septic tank management options.

Māori impact statement

27. No consultation with Maori was undertaken for the purposes of this report. It is noted that freshwater management is of particular interest to Maori, and options for mana whenua to be involved in any monitoring programme around the Kaitoke Stream can be explored when a specific project is developed.

Implementation

28. No regional budget is available to undertake the requested monitoring of samples for the presence of heavy metals. The board’s 2015/2016 water quality monitoring budget is fully allocated to the Tryphena water quality monitoring project. In addition, there may be capacity issues within Infrastructure and Environmental Services to contract manage, and provide technical support and analysis, to a further board-funded water quality project this financial year.

29. Impacts on freshwater quality from poorly functioning onsite wastewater systems are a region-wide problem. Any amendments to the way onsite wastewater is managed regionally will influence how septic sludge is managed on Great Barrier. Options to address this issue are being explored as part of the West Coast Lagoons project, and may be expanded regionally following analysis of outcomes from that project.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Memo - Kaitoke Water Quality	31
b View	Memo - Kaitoke Stream water quality and Claris landfill bore monitoring	41

Signatories

Authors

Kirsten Meijer – Senior Water Quality Advisor

Authorisers

Gael Ogilvie – Environmental Services Manager

Barry Potter – Director - Infrastructure and Environmental Services

John Nash – Relationship Manager

Great Barrier Local Board

09 December 2015

Annual Plan 2016/2017 – local consultation content

File No.: CP2015/25927

Purpose

1. This report seeks agreement of proposed locally driven initiative (LDI) priorities for 2016/2017 and adoption of local content for consultation, as part of the Annual Plan 2016/2017.

Executive Summary

2. Legislation governing the annual plan process has changed - there is no longer a requirement to produce a draft Annual Plan. Instead, council must produce a consultation document which includes:

a) proposed significant or material changes (if any) to year two of the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 (LTP); and

b) content relating to local board agreements.

3. This report seeks agreement of proposed locally driven initiative priorities for 2016/2017 and adoption of local content for consultation.

4. Following this business meeting, the governing body will meet on 17 December to agree consultation topics for the annual plan, and again in early February to agree consultation material, including local content from each local board.

5. Following consultation, a local board agreement with the governing body for 2016/2017 will be developed.

Recommendation/s

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

a) agree indicative locally driven initiative priorities for 2016/2017 (Attachment A – to be tabled at the meeting)

b) adopt local content for consultation (Attachment B – to be tabled at the meeting)

c) agree that the Chairperson be delegated the authority in discussion with other board members, to make any final minor changes to local consultation content for the Annual Plan 2016/2017 prior to publication, including online consultation content.

Comments

6. Legislation governing the annual plan process has changed - there is no longer a requirement to produce a draft Annual Plan. Instead, council must produce a consultation document which includes:

a) proposed significant or material changes (if any) to year two of the Long-term Plan 2015-2025 (LTP); and

b) content relating to local board agreements.

7. Over the last three months local boards have refined local priorities within funding envelopes outlined in year two of the LTP to prepare for consultation. This included consideration of locally driven initiatives and asset based services work programmes.

8. This report seeks agreement of proposed LDI priorities for 2016/2017 and adoption of local content for consultation.

9. Following this business meeting, the governing body will meet on 17 December to agree consultation topics for the Annual Plan, and again in early February to agree consultation material, including local content from each local board.

10. Consultation on the Annual Plan will take place from 15 February to 15 March 2016.

11. Following consultation, a local board agreement with the governing body for 2016/2017 will be developed. The Annual Plan, including 21 local board agreements, is due for adoption in June 2016.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

12. Local board feedback on regional matters for consultation was sought in November business meetings.

13. Advocacy discussions between local boards and the Finance & Performance Committee were held in November prior to decisions being made on Annual Plan consultation topics.

14. The purpose of this report is for local boards to agree local priorities and adopt local content for consultation.

15. Local boards will also have further opportunities to provide information and views as council continues through the Annual Plan process.

Māori impact statement

16. Many local board decisions are of importance to and impact on Māori. Local board agreements and the Annual Plan are important tools that enable and can demonstrate council’s responsiveness to Māori. Local board plans, which were developed in 2014 through engagement with the community including Māori, form the basis of local priorities.

17. There is a need to continue to build relationships between local boards and iwi, and where relevant the wider Māori community. Ongoing conversations will assist local boards and Māori to understand each other’s priorities and issues. This in turn can influence and encourage Māori participation in council’s decision-making processes.

Implementation

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

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Kate Marsh, Financial Planning Manager – Local Boards

Authorisers

Matthew Walker, GM Financial Strategy and Planning

Karen Lyons, Manager Local Board Services

Great Barrier Local Board

09 December 2015

Auckland Transport Report - December 2015 - Great Barrier Island

File No.: CP2015/25440

Purpose

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

Executive Summary

2. This report covers matters of specific application and interest to the Great Barrier Local Board and its community, matters of general interest relating to Auckland Transport activities or the transport sector, and relevant Auckland Transport media releases for the information of the board and community.

3. In particular, this report provides an update on;

· Local Board Transport Capital Fund

· Consultation documents on proposed safety improvements

· Speed limit update

Recommendation/s

That the Great Barrier Local Board:

a) note the Auckland Transport Report – December 2015

Comments

Local Board Transport Capital Fund

4. At the Local Board meeting on the 12 March 2014 the Board were provided with a list of potential Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) projects.

5. The below table outlines an up-date as to decisions by the Board and on the progress of the projects.

Table 1: Great Barrier Local Board project update for Board approval:

Resolution # GBI/2013/234 (2013)

Resolution # GBI/2014/20 (April 2014)

ID#	Project Description	Progress/Current Status
211	Hector Sanderson Road Split into sections for funding purposes	· Resolution GBI/2014/63 (15 May 2014) “The design element of the project will be led by the Local Parks and SLIP’s project team” · Resolution GBI/2014/154 (December 2014) Requests that those parts of projects 221 and 211 currently being progressed by the board be funded from Local Board Transport Capital Fund. Board agreed to fund from the LBTCF April 2015. AT and AC working with Board on this and Board further supported the use of the LBTCF in the May 2015 Board meeting (GBI/2015/53) · Board resolved August 2016 to allocate all available funds from the LBTCF to selected sections of this project ($385,524) · In progress to be constructed in conjunction with road upgrade
222	Fitzroy Wharf parking ROC – Unable to determine at present	Auckland Transport is still looking at options; every option investigated to date suggests huge costs for the benefit of a few cars. The area is very short of available space. Four parking spaces were identified, however the wall above these spaces slipped, forcing a reconsideration of location · This car park extension has been put on hold until the slip has been repaired. There are currently rubbish bins occupying the proposed new car park spaces and these will be relocated once slip work carried out. · Awaiting relocation of power line at new proposed location of bins · Chorus have contracted Daly’s to do trenching work, once completed trellising work will start on the new site, after which the bins will be moved. (By the Christmas break)
	Okiwi School, Aotea Rd Footpath outside school on Aotea Rd	Investigating possible footpath on grass outside Okiwi School (see section below) Looking at possible funding source from; · minor safety budget · regional footpath programme · underspend from LBTCF

Note: ROC = rough order of costs; FEC = firm estimate of cost)

Update On Hector Sanderson Road Footpath (LBTCF)

6. On the 12 August 2015 at the business meeting the Board allocated $385,524, from the LBTCF to carry out the construction of a footpath on the northern side of Hector Sanderson Road with specific reference to the three (3) sections, the Board considered as their top priority.

7. Based on the Frame Group design a Schedule of Price (SOP) was sent to the contractor for pricing, this resulted in Auckland Transport providing a Rough Order of Cost (ROC).

8. During a recent site investigation concerns were uncovered regarding the heights being retained and the underlying soil conditions, a Geo-Tech Engineer was engaged to investigate the soil conditions along the sections where a retaining wall is proposed and if necessary redesign the wall to suit soil conditions.

9. If the design were needed to be changed the Geo-Tech Engineer was asked to provide a Producer Statement 1 (Design), 3 (Construction) and 4 (Construction Review). (Under the Building Act a building consent is not required when the proposed work meets its exempt criteria and supporting Producer Statements are supplied when applying for a Code Of Compliance Certificate.)

10. In the interim, the contractor submitted their “SOP” to Auckland Transport. Their price was 9% higher than the Engineers “Rough Order Cost” however this was put on hold pending the outcome from the geo-tech investigation.

11. Auckland Transport has now received the revised design for the walls based on the Geo-tech Engineers investigation. In summary the design changes are as follows:

· Increases the pole size from 150mm diameter to 250mm diameter;

· Increases the embedment depth due to the soft nature of the underlying fill material;

· Section B&C are now driven poles as opposed to being bored (drilled); and

· Design now includes rock armoury and fill along the front of the retaining wall so that handrails are not required.

12. The contractor has submitted a revised “SOP” based on the new design for the retaining wall. This is now 62% more than the original Engineers “ROC”.

13. The total revised cost of the 3 sections are now $317,859.00 of which is still within the approved budget of $385,524.00 as approved by the Great Barrier Local Board.

Footpath outside Okiwi School

Resolution # GBI/2015/107 (14 August 2015)

14. At the Local Board meeting on the 15 August 2015, the Board made a resolution in that, “it request that Auckland Transport investigate inclusion of a footpath outside Okiwi School on Aotea Road to address safety concerns as part of its new footpath prioritisation programme”

15. Measurements from the site show a possible footpath alongside the school of approximately 100 meters by 1.4 meters wide at a cost of roughly $14,500.00, assuming no hidden complications.

16. This request has been put on the Regional Footpath List for prioritisation, however it is highly unlikely it will be constructed in the 2015/16 or 2016/17 years.

17. Further consideration regarding funding will be required.

Consultation documents on proposed safety improvements

18. Consultation documents for the following proposals have been provided to the Great Barrier Local Board for its feedback. As the board’s transport portfolio holders provide feedback on the board’s behalf, the material below is included for general information purposes only.

19. There were no proposed projects this month.

Speed Limit Review

August 2014 resolutions;

20. On the 13 August 2014, the Great Barrier Local Board made the following resolution;

a. Request an update on the speed limits project.

21. Auckland Transport response is as follows;

22. Auckland Transport’s legislative team has worked with New Zealand Transport Authority (NZTA) on this matter over the last 12 months.

23. NZTA have since released a new draft Speed Management Guide, which shows the direction things are heading on this subject. https://www.pikb.co.nz/assets/Uploads/Documents/Speed-Management-Guide-final-draft-1-September-2015-2.pdf

24. The key changes are;

Ø The guide puts greater emphasis on “safe and appropriate speeds” and is trying to align both the speed limits and the actual operating speeds to a safe speed.

Ø In terms of rural speed limits this means moving from having one rural speed limit (100) and a couple of semi-rural limits (dependent on the development of 80 & 70kph) to a new approach that has 3 rural speed limits, 100, 80 and 60kph which can be set depending on what is most suitable for the particular road.

Ø The intention is that major rural arterials with good geometry and a safety feature will be at the top end of the range (100), while lower traffic roads, roads with more difficult geometry and roads with greater levels of roadside hazards will qualify for the lower speed limits.

Ø For Great Barrier this is likely to mean that the combination of relatively low traffic volumes and the winding associated hazards of many of the roads, will justify the 60km/h end of the range. However there will be some sections of roads, (on the flatter, straight parts) where there will be a need to consider an 80km/h limit, if 60km/h is too low and the community is not willing to comply.

Ø In the urban context the new guide gives some improvement in flexibility to use 40km/h instead of 50km/h in local residential areas, where vehicle movements are minimal and there are significant levels of pedestrian or cyclist activity.

25. The draft guideline is still in an evaluation phase with a trial project being undertaken in the Waikato Region at present.

26. AT are not expecting the Draft Speed Management Plan to be rolled out to the Auckland Region until approximately the middle of 2016, at which time there will be local engagement on the draft plan.

27. Until the plan is agreed upon and finalised NZTA have imposed a moratorium on speed limit changes other than for addressing high crash risk locations.

28. It is to be noted that the Speed Management Plan will largely agree the future speed limits for each area, but is not purely about setting speed limits alone, as it will also identify infrastructure requirements (eg. traffic calming to support lower speeds, safety improvements to make roads safer where the safe speed is in conflict with the desirable speed for an arterial road function) and the need for targeted enforcement (Police) to support speed limit changes.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

26. The board’s views will be incorporated during consultation on any proposed schemes.

Māori impact statement

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

General

28. The activities detailed in this report do not trigger the Significance Policy. All programmes and activities are within budget/in line with the Council’s Annual Plan and Long-term Plan documents and there are no legal or legislative implications arising from the activities detailed in this report.

Implementation

29. All proposed schemes are subject to prioritisation, funding and consultation.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors	Ivan Trethowen – Auckland Transport Elected Member Relationship Manager
Authorisers	Jonathan Anyon – Auckland Transport Elected Member Relationship Team Manager

Chairperson	Izzy Fordham
Deputy Chairperson	Susan Daly
Members	Jeff Cleave
	Judy Gilbert
	Christina Spence

No.	Title	Page
a View	Board Member Susan Daly's report	65
b View	Board Member Judy Gilbert's report	71
c View	Board Member Christina Spence's report	75