Agenda of Whau Local Board - 9 December 2015

1 Welcome

Whakataka te hau ki te uru Cease the winds from the west

Whakataka te hau ki te tonga Cease the winds from the south

kia mäkinakina ki uta Let the breeze blow over the land

kia mätaratara ki tai Let the breeze blow over the ocean

E hï ake an te atakura Let the red-tipped dawn come with a sharpened air

He tio, he huka, he hau hü A touch of frost, a promise of glorious day

Tihei Mauri Ora Let there be life

2 Apologies

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

3 Declaration of Interest

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

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

Members declared conflict of interests as below.

Register:

Board Member	Organisation / Position
Catherine Farmer	· Avondale-Waterview Historical Society – Committee Member · Blockhouse Bay Historical Society – Member · Portage Licensing Trust – Trustee · Blockhouse Bay Bowls - Patron
Susan Zhu	· Chinese Oral History Foundation – Committee member · Auckland Regional Migrant Resource Centre (ARMS) – Board member
Derek Battersby	· Whau Coastal Walkway Environmental Trust –Trustee · New Lynn Tennis Club – Patron · West Lynn Gardens – Patron · Tag Out Trust – Chairman
Ami Chand	· Kelston Community Trust – Trustee · Portage Licensing Trust – Deputy Chair · Rupa Aur Aap Trust – Trustee · Kelston Community Hub – Chair · Community Organisation Grants Scheme (COGS) Waitakere City Local Distribution Committee– Committee Member
Duncan Macdonald	· Avondale Business Association – Chairman · Avondale Community Society – Chairman · Avondale RSA – Committee Member · Historical Society - Member · Avondale Jockey Club – Member
Ruby Manukia-Schaumkel	· Wesley College - Trustee · Kelston Girls College – Trustee
Simon Matafai	· Pacific Events and Entertainment Trust - Trustee · WAS Collective Trust - Trustee · Williams Creative Trust - Trustee · Majesty Productions Trust - Trustee · Nexfit Trust - Trustee · Aspire Community Trust - Trustee

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Whau Local Board:

a) Confirms the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 18 November 2015, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

5 Leave of Absence

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

6 Acknowledgements

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

7 Ward Councillor’s Update

An opportunity is provided for the Whau Ward Councillor to update the board on regional issues he has been involved with since the last meeting.

8 Deputations

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

Whau Local Board

09 December 2015

Maintenance of herbicide reduction parks and community gardens

File No.: CP2015/24871

Purpose

1. This report seeks commitment from the Whau Local Board for funding to enable the retention of limited levels of mechanical edging in community gardens.

Executive Summary

2. As a result of the last Long Term Plan (LTP) budget review, changes have taken place with regards to Local and Sports Parks (LSP) service levels. This has included a shift from mechanical to increased chemical edging practices for paths and gardens in Local and Sports Parks.

3. The Whau Local Board has indicated that they wish to retain mechanical edging within existing herbicide reduction parks and community gardens. This will require the allocation of additional funds to enable the higher levels of service.

4. Additionally, the local board has indicated a desire to slightly increase the reach of mechanical edging practices.

5. This report recommends the approval of an additional funding allocation to retain mechanical edging within existing herbicide reduction parks and community gardens, and also provide capacity to slightly extend the reach of mechanical edging practises.

6. The inclusion of additional sites will be agreed through consultation with the local board Parks Portfolio Holders. This will be limited to the extent of any budget allocation arising from this report.

Recommendations

That the Whau Local Board:

a) Allocates $10,000.00 operational funding from the Community Response Fund 2015/2016 financial year to a new budget line Additional Weed Management Programmes in Local and Sports Parks.

b) Notes that the finalisation of additional sites receiving this service will be agreed in consultation with the local board Parks Portfolio Holders.

c) Considers an ongoing allocation for additional weed management programmes in Local and Sports Parks in the development of the 2016/2017 and 2017/2018 annual plans.

Comments

7. The Local Board has indicated a desire to retain a discreet amount of, and also increase the reach of, mechanical edging practices.

8. The sites relevant to this report, in the Whau Local Board area are the following herbicide reduction parks:

· Manuka Park

· Community Gardens:

· EcoMatters Community Allotments

· Riverbank Road Community Garden

· La Rosa Community Orchard

· Orchard Reserve.

9. A specific funding allocation would enable the provision of higher service levels, utilising non-chemical methodologies, to specified sites particularly herbicide reduction parks and community gardens.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

10. The Whau Local Board Plan environmental priority seeks a healthy Whau river and valued environment where all are protecting and restoring our natural environment. A key area to be achieved is that everyone can learn about and participate in environmental activities and more community stewardship. This would be delivered through more community environment programmes including weed and pest removal. This allocation will enable staff to provide a limited response to requests from community organisations working on Parks for non-chemical methodologies.

11. The recommendations within this report fall within the local board’s decision-making and oversight responsibilities relating to management of parks.

12. LSP staff members have worked with the Local Board Advisory Team in the development of the proposed approach. The Elected Member Parks Portfolio Holders will be consulted on any new sites proposed and will receive regular updates on delivery.

Māori impact statement

13. Park management practices and weed control programmes contribute to improving the wellbeing of Maori and delivering on iwi aspirations for improvement the natural environment. No dialogue between Auckland Council and iwi or mana whenua has taken place regarding the specific content of this report. In general, mana whenua support a spray free approach in line with the intent of this report.

Implementation

14. Subject to approval of the report, staff will consult with Elected Member Portfolio holders on any new sites proposed and existing herbicide reduction and community garden sites will be retained.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author

Mark Maxlow - Team Leader Parks Operations

Authorisers

Mace Ward - Group Manager Regional and Specialist Parks

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

Whau Local Board

09 December 2015

Outcomes of Local Environmental Work Programme 2014/2015

File No.: CP2015/15783

Purpose

1. To provide the Whau Local Board with a summary of outcomes from projects delivered through their 2014/2015 environmental work programme ($204,500), by the Infrastructure and Environmental Services Department (I&ES).

Executive Summary

2. The Whau Local Board allocated budget in the 2014/2015 financial year of $204,500 to 18 local environmental projects to deliver on its local board aspiration to achieve ‘a healthy Whau River and valued environment.’

3. A brief summary of key outcomes and achievements from the 18 projects delivered for the board across the three environmental budget lines is provided below in Table One.

Table One: Key achievements from environmental work programme in 2014/2015

Catchment Care Projects – Budget $37,000

Oakley Creek – Friends of Oakley Creek was provided a grant of $3,000 to support their plant nursery and advice and support to the community on restoration of the Whau section of Oakley Creek.

Whau River knowledge sharing – A symposium entitled Our River Our Future was held on 13 May 2015 and the Te Whau BioBlitz was held on 29 July 2015.

Practical assistance to community groups –Support provided to the Manukau Harbour Forum, volunteer support for the Rosebank Esplanade Project and to the West Lynn Gardens.

Whau Environmental Action Report – An inventory of environmental action in the Whau Local Board area was updated and validated in conjunction with 26 contributing organisations who are currently delivering 200 individual projects.

Sustainable Initiatives – Budget $79,000

Clear the air campaign - 280 face-to-face conversations were undertaken with households in the Glenavon area assessing householders’ needs with regard to energy efficiency and air quality.

Sustainable Neighbourhoods funding – Allowed for four additional groups to be supported, contributing to 20 tonnes of weeds being removed in the board area.

Sustainable Living Modules – Two workshops with 80 participants in total were delivered in New Lynn and Blockhouse Bay.

Ethnic communities’ engagement – Provided support for initiatives undertaken by Auckland Environmental Protection Association, Avondale Community Gardeners and the NZ Ethnic Women’s Trust, as well as translation services for a sustainable living education initiative.

Greening the markets – Waste management at the New Lynn Night Market diverted 550 kg of food waste from landfill and the washing of nearly 15,000 plates prevented the generation of 185 bags of rubbish. Ecomatters and Avondale Creative Action delivered an Avondale Market patron litter project.

Community Environmental Services Projects – Budget $88,500

Sustainable Living Centre – 2,539 people visited the centre and 917 hours were worked there by volunteers. To meet the growing need for people to have access to high quality information and resources about how they can practically make their households, neighbourhoods and lives more sustainable, the centre has undergone a significant revitalisation.

EcoWest festival – A month long festival was held, with 2,500 people attending over 40 events.

Little Sprouts – 740 children and their families were involved in this childhood environmental education project across west Auckland.

Sweet Streets & Sweet Spots – Four beautification initiatives were undertaken by communities in the board area.

Operation Spring Clean – Nine clean ups were delivered in the board area.

Wars on Weeds – Approximately 13 tonnes of weeds were deposited by the public in free weed bins and removed from the board area. This was a similar amount to that collected in previous years.

Ecowise Awards – 200 people attended this event, which recognises the voluntary work of those living in the west for the environment. There were 68 nominations and nine winners.

Waitakere Festival – As a zero waste event, a 79 percent diversion of waste from landfill was achieved.

Reuse Repair Innovation projects – Two workshops were held that were open to residents from across west Auckland: a mending or clothing up-cycling workshop in New Lynn and a recycled fabric bunting workshop in Henderson-Massey.

Recommendation

That the Whau Local Board:

a) Notes the outcomes achieved through their local environmental work programme for the 2014/2015 financial year.

Comments

4. The Whau Local Board identified an aspiration in their Local Board Plan 2014-2017 for ‘a healthy Whau River and valued environment.’

5. To give effect to this aspiration the local board allocated $204,500 to 18 local environmental projects to be funded through three main budget lines in 2014/2015.

6. A summary of the key achievements and outcomes from each of these projects is provided below.

Catchment Care – Budget $37,000

7. To achieve their aspiration of ‘a healthy Whau River and valued environment,’ the Whau Local Board committed $37,000 towards four projects focused on catchment care. A brief summary of each project is highlighted below.

Oakley Creek - $3,000

8. A key objective of the board as emphasised in their Local Board Plan is ‘Our work in the Whau River and Oakley Creek contributes to the health of the Waitematā.’

9. To give effect to this objective, the board provided $3,000 to the Friends of Oakley Creek. This was used to support their plant nursery and to give advice and support to the community on their restoration of the Whau section of Oakley Creek.

Whau Environmental Action Report - $5,000

10. The board in its first term commissioned the Whau Environmental Action Report, which provides a living inventory of environmentally focused projects and programmes in the Whau Local Board area to help inform local board investment and activity.

11. In 2014/2015, this inventory was updated and validated in conjunction with 26 contributing organisations. This update found that the organisations are currently delivering 200 individual projects or programmes, an increase of 30 new projects or programmes since 2013.

12. The comprehensive database and assessment framework helps staff and the board plan and support environmentally beneficial initiatives.

Whau River knowledge symposium and community knowledge projects - $19,000

13. The Whau River is a higher priority for the board and the board has shown a strong desire to encourage the use of the river and clean up the water quality of the Whau and coast line to help return the river and the Waitemata Harbour to health.

14. Two key achievements that the Whau River Catchment Trust (WRCT) accomplished with the board’s support were holding a symposium entitled “Our River Our Future” and the Te Whau BioBlitz event

15. The focus of this year’s symposium, which was held on the 13 May 2015 at the West End Rowing Club, was ‘The role of Citizen Science in the Whau River Catchment.’

16. The symposium focused on how citizen science can play a strong role in fresh water monitoring and surveillance of biodiversity in New Zealand as well as looking at success stories for freshwater and biodiversity monitoring and embracing the challenge of creating transformational changes within Whau communities.

17. The symposium featured speakers from NIWA, Landcare Research, University of Auckland, Waikato and Otago, Golder Associates, Kiwipedia, Wai Care, Friends of the Whau, Council and the Whau Coastal Walkway Trust.

18. The Te Whau BioBlitz was held at Kurt Brehmer Reserve on the 29 July 2015. A BioBlitz is a way for scientists, students and the public to work together to identify the vast array of species living in an urban reserve.

19. The Bioblitz was well attended, with many scientists, experts and helpers volunteering their time. The following schools and community organisations were also in attendance.

· Avondale Intermediate

· Immanuel Christian School

· Rosebank School

· St Mary's Primary School

· Chinese Conservation Education Trust

· United Chinese Association

· One hundred and sixty species were identified across the reserve.

20. The purpose of the Bioblitz was to build interest and capacity in the community to participate in citizen science monitoring of the biodiversity within the Whau River catchment. The Bioblitz was a starting point for compiling a list of species present within the reserve area, which the Friends of the Whau and Whau River Catchment Trust have been restoring for over 12 years.

21. The Bioblitz was held over nine hours and served as a pilot to assist with development of a 24 hour Bioblitz in the area panned for 2017 with Auckland Museum.

22. In Auckland, a 24 hour Bioblitz can result in tallies of more than 1000 species, depending on the habitat types, time of year and the number of participants involved. The 160 species identified in the nine hour Bioblitz was in line with expectations, given the duration, habitat types, time of year and weather conditions on the day.

Practical assistance as community needs identified - $10,000

23. The board has made a commitment in their Local Board Plan 2014-2017 to work with the nine local boards around the Manukau Harbour on working together ‘to create an environment that is great for swimming and recreation, where wild life thrives and fish flourish.’

24. The board allocated $4,000 from this budget line to the Manukau Harbour Forum at its business meeting on 17 September 2014 (Resolution number WH/2014/140). This was to enable an agreed action plan and the 2014/2015 work programme to progress.

25. A report back on the achievements of the 2014/2015 work programme was presented to the forum at its 10 August 2015 meeting.

26. In addition to the Manukau Harbour Forum’s work, $3,000 was contributed to an Avondale community nursery, development of Te Whau pathway-related initiatives, and volunteer support for the Rosebank Esplanade Project

27. A further $3,000 was allocated to the West Lynn Gardens to assist with restoration of a stream bank following a slip.

Sustainable Initiatives Projects – Budget $79,000

28. The Whau Local Board committed $79,000 towards five projects through this budget line. A brief summary of outcomes from these five projects is provided below.

Sustainable Living Modules - $10,000

29. The board area has approximately 70,000 residents, with many communities of new arrivals. Ten percent of the board’s residents are of Maori heritage, 45 percent European and almost a third identify as Asian – mainly Indian and Chinese. About 17 percent are from the Pacific.

30. To build on the community and civic participation by new migrants, EcoMatters Environment Trust were contracted to develop a pilot outreach project that engaged with ethnic communities within the board area on ways to minimise waste and reduce their water and energy consumption. This project was in line with the board’s outcome within their Local Board Plan to create ‘Great local communities across the Whau’.

31. Project HomeWise was designed to deliver workshops to specific ethnic groups, such as Chinese, Indian and Samoan communities, in the Whau Local Board area to improve sustainable practice and create awareness of environmental values. The key goals of the project were to:

· Conduct a series of sustainability related workshops targeting ethnic communities.

· Identify needs of communities to fulfil improved sustainable practices and how best to facilitate change.

· Identify areas of interest within ethnic communities.

· Identify areas of underdeveloped sustainability awareness amongst ethnic communities.

32. Two workshops were performed in New Lynn and Blockhouse Bay, which focused on water saving and energy efficiency. There was a total attendance of 80 people, with representatives from Chinese, Indian, Samoan, Russian and other asian communities present.

33. The main learning outcome from this pilot is that there needs to be an individual approach to each community. EcoMatters have identified a need to understand each culture and their needs and willingness in order to deliver a successful workshop, be respected and understood.

34. Another key finding is that participants had a high interest and demand for EcoMatters lead counterweights, aerators and flow restrictors for water saving.

35. This pilot project was able to establish interest from ethnic communities and that there is a need for further workshops amongst the community to improve sustainable practice and create awareness of environmental values.

36. The Whau Local Board has allocated a further $10,000 towards the continuation of this project in the 2015/2016 financial year.

Ethnic Group Support - $17,000

37. As described above, the Whau Local Board area has a very diverse ethnic community. A key initiative in the local board plan is ‘to support ethnic and local community advocacy groups.’ The board has shown a commitment to build on this by ‘supporting more community led place-making projects that will develop leadership in our neighbourhoods and ethnic communities.’

38. Support was provided to the Auckland Environmental Protection Association, who continue to maintain the New Lynn Friendship Garden and meet regularly with and support other environmental groups.

39. A $5,000 grant supported a suite of projects delivered by the Avondale Community Gardeners.

40. Translation services were provided for various environmental programmes in the board area.

41. The NZ Ethnic Women’s Trust manufactured 200 draft excluder ‘snakes’ and 550 reusable shopping bags that were used for sustainable living initiatives funded by the board.

Greening the Markets - $22,000

42. This project delivers on the board’s local board plan aspiration - ‘Working with the markets to reduce waste and delivering on the Auckland Plan’s desire of zero waste to landfill.’

43. EcoMatters were contracted to deliver environmental education and the Wash against Waste service (washing cutlery and dishes) at the New Lynn Market. Over 49 weeks, nearly 15,000 plates were washed, which avoided the generation of 185 rubbish bags of waste.

44. Of the total amount of waste (approximately 763 kg):

· 70% was food waste which was composted and distributed to community gardens;

· 15% composed other recyclable items, for example aluminium cans and plastic bottles

· 11% was compostable packaging, for example chopsticks, brown paper bags and napkins

· The remaining material (less than 5%) was sent to landfill.

45. The initiative was delivered with a contribution of 562 volunteer hours.

46. A patron litter project was also undertaken at Avondale Market, with Ecomatters providing bin covers and manned stations at waste separation bins over a six week period, and Avondale Creative Action providing creative engagement at market exits.

Sustainable Neighbourhoods - $15,000

47. Sustainable Neighbourhoods is a programme in which facilitators provide communities with advice, practical help and resources to improve their natural environment. The board’s support of these groups delivers on one of its key initiatives from their local board plan, to ‘develop more community environment programmes including weed removal and pest eradication.’

48. The focus of the programme is on biosecurity and biodiversity, in particular, weed control to improve neighbourhood ecology.

49. The board’s funding contributed to the support of four Sustainable Neighbourhoods groups in addition to the 10 that are supported by regional funding.

50. The following activities were conducted by the neighbourhood groups, with facilitation assistance from The Whau River Catchment Trust, as part of the Sustainable Neighbourhoods Programme in the 2014/2015 financial year:

· Approximately 20 tonnes of weeds were removed

· 445 plants were planted on private land

· 1,704 plants planted on public land

· 38 working bees were held with 210 people in attendance.

Let's Clear the Air project - $15,000

51. Air quality is an issue that the board has a specific interest in. The board acknowledged this in their Local Board Plan, stating ‘Our part in improving our air is that we will work with our local media to remind Whau residents to use good wood, not treated or wet wood, and to upgrade our fireplaces to be more efficient.’

52. The board has addressed this issue in previous years by supporting a media campaign focusing on air quality. However this financial year it was decided that contractors would be engaged to run an air quality and energy efficiency pilot programme targeting households in the Glenavon area. This project ran from April 2015 to June 2015 and engaged 280 households in face to face conversations.

53. Householders’ needs with regard to energy were assessed and they were referred to appropriate services that council provides including; Retrofit Your Home and Eco Design Advisors. Homeowners were also referred to local curtain banks and given options for cleaner heating. Energy advice was tailored to each home.

Community Environmental Services - $88,500

54. The Local Board Plan states that the board has a strong focus on partnering with community organisations and ‘values its relationship with EcoMatters Environment Trust and Keep Waitakere Beautiful.’ In line with this, in 2014/2015 the board allocated $88,500 towards the community environmental services budget line, for projects to be delivered by two community partners, EcoMatters Environment Trust ($37,000) and Keep Waitakere Beautiful ($51,000).

Ecomatters - $37,000

55. The board allocated $37,000 to EcoMatters Environment Trust in the 2014/2015 financial year. This funding was put towards operation of the trust’s Sustainable Living Centre and delivery of the EcoWest Festival and below is a brief summary of the outcomes of these two projects. For a more detailed summary EcoMatters annual report can be read as attachment A

Sustainable Living Centre – $28,000

56. The Sustainable Living Centre is part of the EcoMatters Environment Trust project hub based in New Lynn. The Centre is the community ‘coalface’ for dealing with practical household solutions around environmental issues including climate change and sustainable development.

57. The board contributed $28,000 towards the operation of the Sustainable Living Centre in 2014/2015. This was in collaboration with the Waitākere Ranges and Henderson-Massey Local Boards, who also provide funding to the centre.

58. A number of initiatives were run from the centre, in particular workshops on a diverse range of topics related to sustainable living.

59. A significant outcome in the 2014/2015 financial year was the relocation of the Sustainable Living Centre to where the EcoMatters Ecohouse is situated. The sustainable living centre has also had a significant refresh, repaint and re-design as a result of this. The centre is now an ‘up-cycled’ sustainable office space.

EcoWest Festival – $9,000

60. EcoWest Festival is a month-long festival of diverse events aimed at creatively engaging people in environmental action and sustainable lifestyles.

61. This year EcoWest was held from Saturday 14 March to Sunday 12 April 2015 (over five weekends). Over 40 events hosted by various community groups were delivered across the three western boards, with the total number of participants exceeding 2,500.

62. The largest attendances were for EcoDay 2015, Tunes for Trees, Whau Waka Walk, the ‘Sustainable Infrastructure in an Integrated Development’ tour of Hobsonville Point, the New Lynn Night Market, and West Bike and Sports Festival.

Keep Waitakere Beautiful – $51,500

63. The board allocated $51,500 to Keep Waitakere Beautiful (KWB) to deliver a suite of projects in the 2014/2015 financial year. The key outcomes of these projects are highlighted below. A more comprehensive summary can be read as attachment B.

Little Sprouts

64. This programme provides environmental education to not-for-profit early-childhood education centres and was delivered across the three western boards. Through this programme, children, teachers and their families learn hands on skills including waste minimisation, composting and growing and preparing food.

65. This year 740 children and their families were involved with the Little Sprouts projects across West Auckland. This included the following kindergartens in the Whau Local Board area:

· New Lynn Kindergarten

· Avondale Kindergarten

· Blockhouse Bay Playcentre

Sweet Streets and Sweet Spots

66. This is a community street-pride campaign delivered to help residents clean up and beautify their streets.

67. KWB supported community groups to clean up litter, illegal dumping and pest plants throughout the west. Events in the board area took place in Avondale and the Rosebank business area.

Operation Spring Clean

68. This programme encourages schools, service organisations, sports clubs, churches, community groups, businesses and individuals to take an active role in cleaning up our environment. Individuals, groups, schools and businesses are equipped with rubber gloves, bags and jumbo bins to clean up their streets, parks, beaches and reserves.

69. This programme ran in the spring of 2014 and was completed on 12 October 2014. Across the three western board areas, 39 clean ups took place, with nine delivered in the Whau Local Board area.

Ecowise awards

70. This project provides an annual recognition of voluntary work in the environment.

71. The event was held on 14 November 2014 at the Council Chambers in Henderson. 200 people attended; with 65 finalists and nine winners.

War on Weeds

72. The War on Weeds programme was delivered in March 2015 by WeedFree Trust and KWB. Weed bins were distributed throughout the three western local board areas for the public to use, including three bins in the board area.

73. 12 bins of weed were removed from the Whau Local Board area, each bin equating to roughly one tonne of weeds. The amount of weeds collected was similar to previous years.

Waitakere Festival

74. This event was held on 2 November 2014 at Corban Estate Arts Centre. An environmental hub was set up to promote environmental education. The event used a zero waste methodology, achieving 79 percent diversion of waste from landfill.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

75. This is a report prepared specifically to inform the local board about the delivery of local board projects in the 2014/2015 financial year.

Māori impact statement

76. While this report is for information only and does not require any decision making, it is recognised that environmental management, water quality and land management has integral links with the mauri of the environments and concepts of kaitiakitanga.

Implementation

77. There are no implementation issues arising from this report.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	EcoMatters Sustainable Living Centre annual report	23
b View	Keep Waitakere Beautiful annual report	27

Signatories

Author

Matthew Foster - Relationship Advisor

Authorisers

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

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

Whau Local Board

09 December 2015

New Road Name Approval for the residential subdivision by Housing New Zealand at 11-13 Busby Street and 34-36 Crowther Street, Avondale

File No.: CP2015/25357

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to seek approval from the Whau Local Board, for a new road name for a private accessway created by way of a subdivision at 11-13 Busby Street and 34-36 Crowther Street, Avondale.

Executive Summary

2. Auckland Council has a road naming guidelines which sets out the requirements and criteria of the Council for naming a new road and private accessways. These requirements and criteria have been applied in this situation to ensure consistency of road naming.

3. Following assessment against the road naming criteria, the road names ‘Kumanu Lane’ (preferred name) and ‘Pākau Lane’ (alternate name) were determined to meet the road naming policy criteria.

4. Local iwi groups, Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua, Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei, Te Kawerau a Maki, Ngāti Tamaoho, Te Akitai Waiohua and Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua, were consulted and raised no objections.

Recommendation

That the Whau Local Board:

a) Considers for approval, pursuant to section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974, the road name ‘Kumanu Lane’ proposed by the applicant for the new private accessway created by way of subdivision at 11-13 Busby Street and 34-36 Crowther Street, Avondale.

Comments

5. The Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines allow that where a new road or private road/accessway 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 names for the Local Board’s approval.

6. Housing New Zealand (the applicant) has a preferred name ‘Kumanu’ and alternate names ‘Pākau’ and ‘Huihui’ for a private accessway created by a way of subdivision. The site is located at 11-13 Busby Street and 34-36 Crowther Street, Avondale and is legally described as Lot 3 DP 22071, Lot 2 DP 38370, Lot 2 DP 196466 and Lot 1 DP 196466 (respectively). Council granted a land use consent for the construction of 13 new dwellings on 19^th December 2014. The subdivision consent around the 13 approved dwelling including provision of a private accessway associated with the development on 7^th July 2015. As the private accessway serves more than 5 dwellings/lots, a street name is required. This application relates to the one private accessway created under the subdivision consent as shown on the following plans.

7. It is noted that the names to reflect the culture that Housing New Zealand seeks to foster in the new developments across Auckland region.

Figure 1: Location of the subject accessway

Figure 2- Scheme Plan with Road Named

Decision Making

8. The Auckland Council, by way of the Auckland Council Long Term Plan (2012 – 2022), allocated the responsibility for the naming of new roads or private accessways, pursuant to section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974, to Local Boards.

Assessment

9. The applicants proposed road names have been assessed against the criteria set out in the Auckland Council road naming guidelines.

Proposed Names & Meaning	Which road names meets the criteria which ones do not, and why
Kumanu Lane (to tend, carefully, foster, care for cherish)	Meets the criteria; Accepted by NZ Post and LINZ
Pākau Lane (Wing of a bird, army and building)	Meets the criteria; Accepted by NZ Post and LINZ
Huihui Lane (to put or add together)	‘Huihui’ does not meet the criteria as it is an approved street name used in a subdivision at Petrie Place and Ronaki Road Otahuhu.

10. Given the reasons in the table above, the acceptable names were concluded to be ‘Kumanu’ and ‘Pākau’.

11. The proposed use of ‘Lane’ accurately reflects the type of the private accessway named.

12. As the applicant’s preferred name (Kumanu) meets the criteria, it is recommended for consideration for approval.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

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

Māori impact statement

14. The decision sought from the Whau 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 the private accessway is an opportunity to publicly demonstrate Maori identity.

Consultation

15. The applicant has put forward the proposed names to local iwi - Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua, Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei, Te Kawerau a Maki, Ngāti Tamaoho, Te Akitai Waiohua and Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua. No objection was raised from the local iwi.

16. New Zealand Post and Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) have commented that the preferred name ‘Kumanu’ and alternate name ‘Pākau’ meet their criteria and standards.

Financial and Resourcing Implications

17. The cost of processing the approval of the proposed new name for the private road is recoverable in accordance with Council’s Administrative Charges. The applicant is responsible to install the road name signage as per conditions of the approved resource consent.

Legal and Legislative Implications

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

Implementation

19. The Development Programme Office – SHA Consenting Team is involved in ensuring that appropriate 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

Author

Jian Chen - Senior Subdivison Advisor

Authorisers

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

Ree Anderson - Project Director for Housing

Whau Local Board

09 December 2015

Disposal recommendation report

File No.: CP2015/24688

Purpose

1. This report seeks the Whau Local Board’s endorsement for Panuku Development Auckland (Panuku) to recommend to the governing body the divestment of three council owned properties at 10 Ambrico Place, New Lynn, 72B Delta Avenue, New Lynn and 211 Blockhouse Bay Road, Avondale.

Executive Summary

2. The council-owned properties at 10 Ambrico Place, New Lynn, 72B Delta Avenue, New Lynn and 211 Blockhouse Bay Road, Avondale have been identified as potentially surplus to council requirements through a review process.

3. 10 Ambrico Place, New Lynn is a 3,061m² property. The New Lynn Kindergarten is located on half of the property, which is to remain in council ownership. The other half of the property is vacant and is going through the rationalisation process. The property was acquired by the Waitakere City Council in 2001 for development purposes. The rationalisation process for the vacant half of this property commenced in May 2015. Consultation with council and its CCOs, Iwi authorities and the Whau Local Board has now taken place. No alternative service uses have been identified for this property through the rationalisation process and feedback received has been supportive of the proposed divestment of the vacant half of this site. The subject site has development potential, and should a resolution be obtained to divest of this site, Panuku Development Auckland will investigate using this site for a medium density housing development. Site specific detail, including information and feedback gathered through the rationalisation process is contained in Attachment A of this report.

4. 72B Delta Avenue, New Lynn is a 361m² vacant site. This property was originally owned by the New Lynn Borough Council. The rationalisation process for this property commenced in August 2013. Consultation with council and its CCOs, Iwi authorities and the Whau Local Board has now taken place. No alternative service uses have been identified for this property and the feedback received during the rationalisation process has been supportive of the proposed divestment. Due to the size and shape of this property, Panuku Development Auckland recommend disposal of this property to the adjoining landowner if the proposed divestment is approved. Site specific detail, including information and feedback gathered through the rationalisation process is contained in Attachment B of this report.

5. 211 Blockhouse Bay Road, Avondale is a 219m², vacant strip of land. It is the residue of a parcel of land that was acquired by Auckland City Council in 1960 for street purposes. The owner of the adjacent property has expressed an interest in purchasing the subject property. The rationalisation process for this property commenced in September 2014. Consultation with council and its CCOs, Iwi authorities and the Whau Local Board has now taken place. No alternative service uses have been identified for this property through the rationalisation process and feedback received has been supportive of the proposed divestment of this site. Due to the size and shape of this property, Panuku Development Auckland recommend disposing of this property to the adjoining landowner if the proposed divestment is approved. Site specific detail, including information and feedback gathered through the rationalisation process is contained in Attachment C of this report.

6. A resolution approving the sale of these sites is required from the Finance and Performance Committee before any disposal can be progressed.

Recommendations

That the Whau Local Board:

a) Endorses Panuku Development Auckland’s recommendation to the Finance and Performance Committee to dispose of 10 Ambrico Place, New Lynn.

b) Endorses Panuku Development Auckland’s recommendation to the Finance and Performance Committee to dispose of 72B Delta Avenue, New Lynn.

c) Endorses Panuku Development Auckland’s recommendation to the Finance and Performance Committee to dispose of 211 Blockhouse Bay Road, Avondale.

Comments

7. Panuku Development Auckland and Auckland Council Property department work jointly on a comprehensive review of council’s property portfolio. One of the outcomes of the review process is to identify properties in the council portfolio that are potentially surplus to requirements and that may be suitable to sell. The subject sites were identified as potentially saleable through the review process.

8. Once a property has been identified as potentially surplus, Panuku Development Auckland engages with council and its CCO’s through an expression of interest process, to establish whether the property must be retained for a strategic purpose or is required for a future funded project. Once a property has been internally cleared of any service requirements, Panuku Development Auckland then consults with local boards, ward councillors, mana whenua and the Independent Maori Statutory Board. All sale recommendations must be approved by the Panuku Development Auckland Board before it makes a final recommendation to the Auckland Council governing body.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

9. Local boards are informed of the commencement of the rationalisation process for specific properties. Following the close of the expression of interest period, relevant local boards are engaged with.

10. Panuku Development Auckland has consulted with the Whau Local Board about the subject properties. The Whau Local Board provided informal feedback that it was supportive of the proposed disposal of the subject properties. Site specific feedback from the Whau Local Board is contained in the Local Board Views section of the property attachments to this report. This report is intended to provide the Whau Local Board with an opportunity to formalise its views regarding these properties.

Māori impact statement

11. The importance of effective communication and engagement with Māori on the subject of land is understood. Panuku Development Auckland has a robust form of engagement with mana whenua groups across the region. Each relevant mana whenua group is contacted independently by email based on a contact list which is regularly updated. Each group is provided general property details, including a property map, and requested to give feedback within 15 working days. Confirmation of any interest expressed is sent in writing and recorded for inclusion in the disposal recommendation report.

12. Panuku Development Auckland’s engagement directs mana whenua to respond with any issues of particular cultural significance the group would like to formally express in relation to the subject properties. We also request express notes regarding any preferred outcomes that the group would like us to consider as part of any disposal process.

13. Mana whenua groups are also invited to express potential commercial interest in any sites and are put in contact with Panuku Development Auckland’s Development team for preliminary discussions if appropriate to the property. This facilitates the groups’ early assessment of the merits of a development opportunity to their Iwi. In the event a property is approved for sale all groups are alerted of the decision, and all groups are alerted once a property comes on the market.

14. Consultation with mana whenua groups has now been completed. Property specific feedback received is included in the Mana Whenua Engagement section of the property attachments to this report.

Implementation

15. Following receipt of the Whau Local Board’s resolutions regarding these properties, the properties will be presented to the Finance and Performance Committee with a recommendation to dispose of them. If the governing body approves the proposed disposal of these properties, Panuku Development Auckland will seek to provide an optimal return to council.

16. The terms and conditions of any disposal would be approved under appropriate financial delegation.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	10 Ambrico Place, New Lynn property information	57
b View	72B Delta Avenue, New Lynn property information	61
c View	211 Blockhouse Bay Road, Avondale property information	65

Signatories

Author

Letitia McColl - Senior Advisor Portfolio Review, Portfolio Strategy, Panuku Development Auckland

Authorisers

Marian Webb – Team Leader Portfolio Review, Portfolio Strategy, Panuku Development Auckland

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

Whau Local Board

09 December 2015

Part revocation of recreation reserve at 42 Bancroft Crescent [Bancroft Park], Glendene

File No.: CP2015/25514

Purpose

1. To obtain endorsement of a recommendation to revoke the reserve status as a recreation reserve over that part of Bancroft Park currently occupied by the West Auckland Remote Control Car Club [‘WARCCC’, ‘the land’] .

Executive Summary

2. The Finance and Performance Committee resolved in June 2014 [FIN/2014/26] the balance of the land [being 4,740m2 more or less] was cleared for sale [the ‘balance’]. To carry out this approved disposal a reserve revocation process will need to be completed. See Attachment A for a diagram showing the two areas of Bancroft Park [‘the site’] noted as WARCCC and balance.

3. The site was vested as a recreation reserve in the Mayor, Councillors and Citizens of the City of Waitemata subject to the Reserves and Domains Act 1953 around 1975 as part of a subdivision undertaken by Neil Construction Limited.

4. The site has never been developed by the council for any use. Development has been restricted to the land and carried out by the WARCCC for their specific needs. It is surrounded by industrial properties and the recreational needs of the immediate community have alternatively been catered for within the Akatea Reserve located 100m along Akatea Road.

5. The revocation of the reserve will not compromise the WARCCC’s use of the land.

6. By agreeing to this recommendation the council achieves greater flexibility of ownership for the land while maintaining the current use of the land by the WARCCC for as long as the council considers this desirable. In addition the costs incurred in the revocation process can be met by the proceeds of sale from the balance area.

7. The endorsement of the local board is sought for the recommendation below to the Regional Development and Operations Committee.

Recommendation

That the Whau Local Board:

a) Endorses the revocation of the reserve status over part of a recreation reserve at 42 Bancroft Crescent, described as part Lot 8 DP 75336 and comprising 3,062m2 more or less.

Comments

8. In August 1987 the WARCCC gained consent to occupy the land on the basis of a proposal to use some 1,800m2 of the land for electric powered remote control cars with on-site parking for up to 20 vehicles.

9. In March 2009 the council wrote a letter to the WARCCC agreeing to the resumption of their activities on the land [the club having been inactive for a number of years] noting the term of this use was uncertain as the future of the site was not decided. See Attachment B for photos of the land and the balance area.

10. The site is not included within the Whau Local Board draft Whau Neighbourhood Greenways Plan nor any other online documentation available. There are several reserves within the area that can provide open space for the local community including the nearby Akatea Reserve which has had some development by the council. This reserve is proposed to form part of a coastal walkway.

11. Should the reserve status be revoked the current use of the land is retained by the current zoning of Open Space and the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan zoning of Public Open Space – Informal Recreation.

12. As the site is subject to the Reserves Act 1977, the reserve status of the balance will have to be revoked.

13. Parks and Recreation Policy [North/West] have given their support to the proposal to seek revocation of the reserve status over the land at the same time, on the basis that the ability of the WARCCC to remain is unaltered.

14. All costs incurred are able to be offset against the proceeds of sale of the balance.

15. The land is secured by a high boundary fence and is only accessible to the public during the club’s racing events. It is not recognisable as public land and it does not provide any linkages to other public land. CDAC is currently proposing to offer the WARCCC a community lease over the land.

16. Public consultation and iwi consultation are a requirement of the reserve revocation process. Therefore both the public and iwi will have an opportunity to consider the proposal and submit comments or objections.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

17. The local board view is being sought through a recommendation to endorse the revocation of the reserve status of the land at the same time as the balance.

Māori impact statement

18. A Maori Impact Statement is not considered necessary for this decision. Iwi consultation will be required as part of the Reserves Act 1977 revocation process and will be incorporated in a recommendation to the Regional Development and Operations Committee.

Implementation

19. If the local board supports the revocation of the reserve status of the land a report will be submitted to the Regional Development and Operations Committee for approval to revoke the reserve status subject to the completion of Reserves Act 1977 requirements. Under s.24 of this act these requirements include public advertising, iwi consultation and Department of Conservation approval.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Diagram of the site - 42 Bancroft Crescent	73
b View	Photos of the site - 42 Bancroft Crescent	75

Signatories

Author

Linda Holdaway – Senior Acquisitions and Disposals Advisor, Panuku Development Auckland

Authorisers

Nigel Hewitson – Team Leader, Property Acquisitions and Disposals, Panuku Development Auckland

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

Whau Local Board

09 December 2015

Historic St Andrew's Sunday School Hall, 40 Rankin Avenue, New Lynn

File No.: CP2015/24539

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to (a) outline the historic value of St Andrew’s Sunday School Hall and (b) propose that the Heritage Unit of Auckland Council explores options to ensure that there is a future for the historic building as a heritage asset for generations to come.

Executive Summary

2. New Lynn’s built heritage form over the past years has slowly been eroded, due partly to historic bricklaying methodology which produced lesser quality bricks and also due to purposeful demolition to accommodate new builds.

3. The old St Andrew’s Sunday School Hall has a historic classification and is in danger of falling down due to structural issues.

4. It is one of few buildings remaining that relates to early brickmaking and the pioneering culture of early Auckland. St Andrew’s hall has a close association with its originator and builder, Rev W P Rankin; it is an example of the work of H Clinton Savage, a noted architect, whose work of a non-residential form is uncommon in terms of the region. It is also associated with the development of the Presbyterian Church in New Lynn, and is an example of a surviving purpose-built structure for Sunday School use in West Auckland and the suburbs of the Auckland region – most likely an uncommon remnant. It hosted meetings and activities staged by members of the wider New Lynn community which helped the suburb develop and thrive during the Depression period of the 1930s. The bricks used in its construction, from the nearby Gardner works, plus its location overlooking the rest of the former NZ Brick, Tile & Pottery Company land (owned by the company begun by Albert Crum, and later Amalgamated Brick and Tile) ensures the building’s enduring association with New Lynn’s brickmaking heritage. It was also constructed right at the point in time when the Clark family, the Gardner family and Fletcher Construction were forming Amalgamated Brick and Tile; the documented assistance provided by Fletcher Construction management and personnel underlines this aspect.

5. This building is in private ownership and working with the current owner to have the building historically restored and preserved is proving difficult. As this report is written, there is significant pressure on Auckland’s built heritage. As the region moves to accommodate more and more homes on the existing land and there is little protection for the old historic houses, and there is an ever increasing loss of this history.

Recommendations

That the Whau Local Board:

a) Requests that the Heritage Unit of Auckland Council explore options to secure the future of the Historic St Andrew’s Sunday School Hall at 40 Rankin Ave, New Lynn.

b) Requests that the Heritage Unit of Auckland Council considers the option to purchase through the Built Heritage Acquisition Fund and progressing this to the governing body for their decision.

Comments

6. The local board have been advocating over a number of years in an attempt to save this building. These efforts had generated media and public interest but it has proven difficult to find a private developer willing or able to take on such a major and potentially expensive project. The property is now on the market.

A brief history associated with St Andrew’s Sunday School Hall

· By mid-January 1929, Rev Rankin had laid between 20,000 and 30,000 bricks. Foundation stones were laid on 19 January, one by C F Gardner for Gardner Brothers & Parker and one by Thomas E Clark, for the NZ Brick and Tile Company which donated the land to the church for the building. On the second stone there was also “an acknowledgment of the fact that the joinery was given by the Fletcher Construction Company, and that the carpentry work was the voluntary labour of Messrs G E McWhirter and Albert Overington, of New Lynn. The first stone will also state that the school was built by Mr Rankin, and that the architect was Mr Clinton H Savage.”

· The hall was officially opened 20 October 1929, in front of around 500 people.

· The total number of bricks used was somewhere between the figure of 90,000 quoted in the newspapers, to 210,000 quoted by Mary Taylor (neé Gardner).

· Certain initialed bricks were set in place during construction.

· The land, just over a quarter-acre, was transferred in 1942 to the Presbyterian Church Property Trustees. Around 1959, a brick manse was added to the site, and more land transferred to the Presbyterian Trustees by Amalgamated Brick and Pipe Company Limited in 1962.

· In 1987, the site was transferred to the Methodist Church Board of Administration, then sold to a succession of private owners from 2003.

· By then, it had been included on the Waitakere City Council list of scheduled buildings in the 2003 district plan as Category II.

· In 2008, local resident Paul Duncan appealed for the building to be restored.

· In April 2012, Auckland Council affixed a notice to the front of the hall advising that it is considered a dangerous building in terms of the Building Act 2004, as well as being earthquake prone under the same act, “likely to cause injury or death (by collapse or otherwise) to any persons in it”.

· The notice required that the building be vacated, the entrance sealed and that the building cease to be used as a place of assembly. The building is to remain locked until an engineer’s appraisal of any possible remedial action is received, and such work carried out to the Council’s satisfaction.

7. The Whau Local Board, in its economic direction, is committed to a historic brand that reflects this heritage. In recent weeks, Lynn Mall has rebranded its entertainment quarter as the Brickworks; Te Toi Uku, home of the Portage Ceramic Trust, reflects the history of the clay industry in the area. In the recent Heritage Festival, the board supported heritage activities in New Lynn that reflected the claywork industry.

8. The development of the Whau Local Board Plan saw feedback urging the board to make a stand wherever possible to protect the built history in the Whau area. Community interest has been expressed with interested persons it is now advocating for the Heritage Unit of Auckland Council to pursue every/any opportunity to save this former Sunday School Hall and have it restored to its former glory.

9. All historical research information on St Andrew’s Sunday School Hall provided in this report has been sourced through, Lisa Truttman, Historian, Avondale-Waterview Historical Society. For more information on St Andrew’s go to: http://timespanner.blogspot.co.nz/2012/11/two-old-churches-and-sunday-school-hall.html

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

10. “Whau’s local heritage, arts and cultures are cherished.” In the consultation period leading up to the drafting of the Whau Local Board Plan 2014, much discussion was entered into with the public who made it very clear that heritage should be a key element in the board’s points of advocacy. This led to heritage being added as one of the key items to advocate on:

Our history, design legacy, and our ethnic diversity and creativity enrich our places and our lives, we celebrate our arts and cultures and we are recognised as an outstanding creative community that cherishes its heritage.

Whau Local Board Plan 2014

Māori impact statement

11. There are no particular impacts on Maori which are different from general public heritage access.

Implementation

12. It is requested that the Heritage Unit of Auckland Council:

· considers the option to purchase St Andrew’s Sunday School Hall through the Built Heritage Acquisition Fund and

· progresses this matter to the governing body for their decision.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author	Antonina Georgetti - Local Board Advisor
Authoriser	Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Whau Local Board

09 December 2015

Annual Plan 2016/2017 – local consultation content

File No.: CP2015/26030

Purpose

1. This report seeks agreement of proposed locally driven initiative 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.

Recommendations

That the Whau Local Board:

a) Agrees indicative LDI priorities for 2016/2017 (Attachment A).

b) Adopts local content for consultation (Attachment B).

c) Agrees that the Chair be delegated the authority 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 locally driven initiative 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.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

17. 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

No.	Title	Page
a View	2016/2017 LDI priorities	83
b View	Local consultation content	85

Signatories

Author

Kate Marsh - Financial Planning Manager - Local Boards

Authorisers

Matthew Walker - GM Financial Strategy and Planning

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

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

Whau Local Board

09 December 2015

Scope for local dog access rule review

File No.: CP2015/22567

Purpose

1. To determine the timing and scope of the Whau Local Board’s review of local dog access rules in 2015/16.

Executive Summary

2. In 2012, Auckland Council’s Governing Body made the Dog Management Bylaw and the Policy on Dogs. The governing body delegated the review of the dog access rules on local parks, beach and foreshore areas to local boards.

3. The governing body delegation requires local boards to review their beach and foreshore dog access rules. The Whau Local Board has full discretion on whether to review other local dog access rules, including those on local parks.

4. The governing body has established a standard process to assist local boards with the review. The current review process started in September 2015 and is due to end in October 2016.

5. The Whau Local Board’s decision on the review scope is the first step in determining what aspects of dog access rules are reviewed and consulted on in 2016.

6. Staff recommend that a review of the local dog access rules commence in 2015/16 as scheduled (Option A1), as it allows for the implementation of dog access rules that are in keeping with the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 which are more practical and simpler to understand by the general public.

7. If the board confirms the review of the local dog access rules in 2015/16 it is recommended that a review of local dog access rules incorporate a targeted review of parks (Option B2) and a high level review to identify practical “under control off-leash” parks (Option B3). This would strike the most appropriate balance between implementing the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012, the complexity and scope of the review and the resource required to undertake that review.

Recommendations

That the Whau Local Board:

a) Confirms the review of its local dog access rules in 2015/16 (Option A1).

b) Confirms the inclusion of the following additional matters within the scope of the review:

i. confirms a targeted review of park rules (Option B2)

ii. confirm a high level review to identify practical “under control off-leash” parks (Option B3)

Comments

Responsibilities

8. In 2012, the governing body made the Policy on Dogs, and delegated the review of the dog access rules on local beaches, foreshore and parks to local boards. This includes a requirement to review all local beach and foreshore areas by a date determined by the local board (resolution number GB/2012/157).

9. Responsibility for areas of regional significance (including regional parks) and Tūpuna Maunga are delegated to the Auckland Council Parks, Sport and Recreation Committee and the Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority respectively. The Regulatory and Bylaws Committee has overall responsibility for the Policy on Dogs 2012 and region-wide dog access rules (e.g. council playgrounds, sports surfaces, roads, car and boat parking areas, cemeteries, campgrounds and holiday parks).

Process and funding

10. In August and September 2013, local boards were consulted on the level of priority for the local board dog access rule review within their local board areas. As a result of this prioritisation, the Whau Local Board is scheduled to commence its review of local dog access rules in 2015, with any changes effective from Labour Weekend 2016.

11. In order to facilitate the local board’s review of their dog access rules and take advantage of economies of scale, a regionally funded standard process has been established. The standard process timeline is structured around council’s annual dog registration process which takes place in June each year.

12. The Dog Control Act 1996 requires all dog owners to be notified of any proposed changes to the dog access rules and to follow special consultative procedure under the Local Government Act 2002 (see Attachment B). Therefore, the standard process for this review consists of the following phases and timeline:

· summer 2015/16: staff will gather information and community views to inform the development of proposed changes

· April/May 2016: proposed changes will be adopted by the local board

· June 2016: proposed changes are notified for consultation to align with the dog registration process

· August and September 2016: public hearings and deliberations will be held and a final decision is made.

13. The regional funding provides for the review of beach and foreshore dog access rules, generic public notification initiatives and generic signage to implement decisions. These activities include:

· desktop research

· site visits (beach and foreshore areas and high-use parks only)

· on-line survey of beach and foreshore areas

· internal stakeholder engagement with staff from parks, animal management, and biodiversity

· statutory consultation process (which includes public notification, submission collation, analysis and associated reporting, staff support at hearings and deliberations).

14. Local boards are required to resource:

· any additional external workshops or engagement not included in the standard process outlined above

· advertisements, media / social media releases not included in the standard process outlined above

· the organisation and running of hearings

· funding of non-standard signage.

15. Further details of the process and funding are provided in Attachment C.

Existing local board rules

16. The existing dog access rules in the Whau Local Board area consist of both local dog access rules and regional dog access rules.

17. The regional rules were considered as part of the 2012 review of the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs and apply to all local board areas. The regional rules take precedence over any local dog access rule for common public places such as playgrounds, sports fields, roads, car and boat parking areas, cemeteries, campgrounds and holiday parks.

18. Within the Whau Local Board area, the following access rules apply:

· two different sets of default rules (some off-leash, some on-leash) across the two legacy council areas

· different access rules for beaches across the two legacy council areas

· two sets of generic rules relating to picnic areas, fitness apparatus and wildlife areas

· twelve dog exercise areas.

19. The full list of dog access rules for the Whau Local Board area is included as Attachment A.

Options for the local board to consider

20. The first decision for the local board is to consider when to commence the review of their local dog access rules, that is, in 2015/2016 or 2016/2017.

21. If the local board resolves to undertake a review of the local dog access rules in 2015/16, the local board then needs to consider what, if any, rules that relate to local parks will be reviewed (in addition to local beach and foreshore areas which is required).

Start of review

Option A1: Commence the review of the local dog access rules in 2015/16 as scheduled

22. This option involves commencing the local dog access review in 2015/16 as currently scheduled. Under the delegations to the local board, the local board must review their beach and foreshore areas.

23. As part of the beach and foreshore areas review, the local board must consider whether the regional time and season standard is appropriate for each beach and foreshore area.

24. The benefits of this option are that:

· it allows for the implementation of dog access rules that are in keeping with the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012, community preferences, and wildlife considerations by October 2016 as currently scheduled

· it allows for the consideration of access rules that are simpler to follow and enforce on the ground

· it aligns with the expectation created in the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 that the local board will consider whether or not the regional ‘time and season’ standard is appropriate to be applied to the beaches and foreshore areas within their jurisdiction.

25. The disadvantages of this option are that:

· local board resource is required to investigate options or undertake formal special consultative process with hearings in 2016

· it adds to the workload of local board members during the 2016 pre-election period.

Option A2: Defer the review of the local dog access rules until 2016/17

26. This option involves deferring the local dog access review until 2016/17. Under this option staff will bring a second report to the local board in 2016/17 to consider what will be included within the scope of the local dog access review.

27. It is noted that while the local board may defer the review of the local dog access rules, it is required by the delegations to undertake a review of their local access rules.

28. The benefits of this option are that:

· no local board resource is required to investigate options or undertake the formal special consultative process with hearings in 2015/16

· there is no additional workload for local board members during the 2016 pre-election period.

29. The disadvantages of this option are that:

· resource required in 2016/17 may conflict with 2017 local board plan reviews

· confusing or inappropriate dog access rules remain in effect until October 2017

· there may be unmet expectations of dog owners that the local board will consider whether or not the regional ‘time and season’ standard is appropriate to be applied to the beaches and foreshore areas within their jurisdiction, from the review of the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012.

Recommendation

30. Staff recommend that a review of the local dog access rules commence in 2015/16 as scheduled (Option A1), as it allows for the implementation of dog access rules that are in keeping with the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 which are more practical and simpler to understand by the general public.

31. Furthermore, the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 has created an expectation that the local board will consider whether or not the regional ‘time and season’ standard is appropriate to be applied to the beaches and foreshore areas within their jurisdiction.

Scope of local dog access review

32. As discussed above, where the local board resolves to undertake a review, the board must review the local beach and foreshore area rules but the board has the discretion as to whether or not the local board considers any rules that relate to local parks. The scope of the review may include either a single option or a mix of options:

· target review of parks (Option B2)

· a high level review to identify practical “under control off-leash” parks (Option B3), or

· a detailed review of all local parks (Option B4).

Option B1: No review of local parks (status quo)

33. This option involves only reviewing the beach and foreshore areas with no local park rules being considered as part of this review.

34. The benefits of this option are that:

· any consultation carried out around the beach and foreshore rules will be simpler with fewer issues for the public to consider

· any changes or impacts of the changes to the local dog access rules will be limited to the beach and foreshore areas

· no additional resource is required to investigate or assess local parks.

35. The disadvantages of this option are that it:

· retains multiple sets of general rules that are often confusing and difficult to communicate and enforce

· does not allow for an integrated approach to be taken between beach and foreshore areas and the adjacent parks and reserves

· does not allow for a review of high-use parks or areas of potential concern to the local board or the community

· does not allow for the identification of practical under control off-leash parks within the local board schedules.

Option B2: Targeted review of park rules

36. This option involves three parts; a review of generic rules on parks (i.e. dog access around picnic areas and fitness apparatus etc.) and dog exercise areas, a review of parks adjacent to beaches and foreshore areas, and a review of all high-use parks and parks with identified concerns.

37. The reviews of the generic rules are technical reviews and will consider the appropriateness and applicability of the dog access rules for where there are fitness apparatus and picnic areas which are typically difficult to define on the ground and enforce.

38. The review of the dog exercise areas is to evaluate whether or not the existing dog exercise areas meet the definition of ‘dog exercise area’ within the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012 as a dog priority area or whether it is better described as a shared space for multiple users.

39. The review of the parks adjacent to beaches ensures an integrated approach to the activities within the coastal environment.

40. The review of high-use parks and the parks with identified concerns is a targeted review of selected parks to identify conflicting use and the appropriateness of the dog access rules which will include site visits and internal workshops as required.

41. The benefits of this option are that:

· it allows for an integrated approach to be taken to the review of the dog access rules on the beach and foreshore areas and the adjacent parks and reserves

· a targeted review of high-use parks and parks with identified issues will limit areas affected by any changes in the dog access rules

· it removes or replaces confusing rules that are difficult to communicate and enforce

· it will result in generic rules being replaced with site specific rules where appropriate which will be easier to understand and better provide for public safety and comfort or protection of wildlife

· it will result in the reclassification of ‘dog exercise areas’ as either ‘designated dog areas’ (where the dog owner is the priority user) or under control off-leash areas in accordance with the criteria in the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012

· a targeted review allows for resources to be concentrated on areas with the greatest impact on users.

42. The disadvantages of this option are that:

· it may result in parks adjacent to the beach and foreshore having different access rules than other local parks

· it may result in high-use parks and other local parks having different dog access rules

· it will increase the complexity of the issues considered as part of the review

· changes to the access rules will affect a number of parks, given the general nature of the generic access rules and the dog exercise areas

· it may be perceived by dog owners as a reduction in dog access in popular or high amenity parks.

Option B3: High level review to identify the existing practical ‘under control off-leash and on-leash’ parks

43. This option involves a desktop study of all parks in areas where there is a default ‘off-leash’ rule to identify the existing practical ‘under control off-leash’ areas. In areas where there is an existing default ‘on-leash’ rule, all parks where the default rule applies will be identified.

44. The intent behind this option is to make it easier for dog owners and other users to know where dogs could be exercised under control off-leash and where dogs must be on-leash.

45. This option would allow the local board to consider adopting one default rule, or relying on the default rule in Schedule 1, instead of the differing default rules which are currently in place over the Whau Local Board area. Identifying existing ‘under control off-leash’ and ‘on-leash’ parks means that if the board chose to modify the underlying default rules across the local board area for consistency, the ‘rules on the ground’ will not be significantly changed in these specified parks.

46. The benefits of this option are that:

· the identification and listing of ‘under control off-leash’ areas/parks that have sufficient characteristics (e.g. size and shape) for undertaking typical under control off-leash activities (e.g. throwing a ball, etc.) which will be easier to communicate and understand

· it allows for a consideration of whether or not the existing default rules are appropriate for the local board area

· it allows for the creation of one default rule across the local board area without significantly impacting the ‘rules on the ground’.

47. The disadvantages of this option are that:

· the inclusion of a number of additional parks within the consultation documents will increase the complexity of the documents

· it is not a detailed review of all parks, as this option only seeks to identify areas with existing practical under control off-leash areas

· it may be perceived by dog owners as (or if the default dog access rule is changed may result in) a reduction of under control off-leash dog access areas.

Option B4: Detailed review of all local parks

48. This option involves a detailed review of all parks (both high and low use) in accordance with the ‘Dog Access Rule Change Procedure’ and implements the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012.

49. This option would involve site visits to all parks with consideration as to what dog access rules are best suited to activities occurring on the park, and a network-based approach to the wider provision of dog access.

50. This option would also allow the local board to consider adopting one default rule for the local board area.

51. In contrast to the target review of parks (Option B2) and a high level review to identify practical “under control off-leash” and “on-leash” parks (Option B3), the local board would be required to co-ordinate and fully fund this option.

52. The benefits of this option are that it:

· allows for a detailed site-specific review of all parks based in accordance with the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012, community preferences and wildlife considerations

· allows for an integrated approach to be taken to the review of the dog access rules on all parks and reserves

· provides greater certainty in all parks and reduces the potential for conflict in these areas

· removes or replaces confusing rules that are difficult to communicate and enforce.

53. The disadvantages of this option are that:

· the local board will be required to co-ordinate and fund this detailed review of all parks and reserves which will be resource intensive^{^[1]}

· it will increase the complexity of the issues to be considered by the local board and the community as part of the consultation on any proposed changes to the dog access rules

· a detailed review is likely to result in changes to a larger number of parks

· additional local board resources would be required when the target review of parks (Option B2) and a high level review to identify practical “under control off-leash” and “on-leash” parks (Option B3) are likely to achieve the same outcome in most areas of interest.

Recommendation

54. Staff recommend that a review of the local dog access rules incorporates both the target review of parks (Option B2) and a high level review to identify practical “under control off-leash” and “on-leash” parks (Option B3) as a targeted approach to the review which strikes the most appropriate balance between implementing the Auckland Council Policy on Dogs 2012, the complexity and scope of the review, and the resource required to undertake the local dog access review.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

55. The views of other local boards have not been sought on the scope of this review. In the 2013/14 and 2014/15 reviews, other local boards chose to review their beach and foreshore areas and adjacent parks, high-use parks, generic rules and dog exercise areas.

56. Consistency with other local board dog access rules is also a factor that the Whau Local Board may want to take into consideration. Staff will provide advice on decisions made by other local boards during the options analysis and deliberations stages of the review.

Māori impact statement

57. The views of 23 iwi in relation to dog access were sought as part of hui consulting on a range of bylaws held in October 2013 and in March 2015.

58. Feedback from the hui related to the ability of iwi to determine dog access on marae, and focused on control, responsible dog ownership, and ensuring the protection of sensitive ecological areas. The review of areas with protected wildlife is a matter recommended to be included in the review.

Implementation

59. Staff will work with local board members, engagement advisors and communication advisors to develop a more detailed engagement plan in accordance with the decisions of the local board and existing budgets.

60. Implementation costs, such as updating basic standard signage, are expected to be from existing regional budgets.

61. Potential implementation issues to come from local board budgets include; additional research, engagement, and public notification initiatives, and any non-standard signage.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Current Whau Local Board dog access schedule	95
b View	Dog access review decision-making framework	101
c View	Process and timelines for local dog access review	107

Signatories

Authors

Kimberly Rees - Policy Analyst

Justin Walters - Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

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

Whau Local Board

09 December 2015

Draft Regional Pest Management Plan Review

File No.: CP2015/24724

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to:

· inform local boards about the first stage of public consultation on the Regional Pest Management Plan review

· request local boards to provide any initial feedback on pest management issues in preparation of the draft Regional Pest Management Plan (RPMP)

· note that informal and formal local board engagement will be undertaken in early 2016 to inform the final draft RPMP.

Executive Summary

2. The Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan is undergoing a major review, driven by legislative and operational changes. Council is now inviting public comment on pest management issues in the region, as part one of a two-stage consultation process. Public comments close on 27 November 2015.

3. Pest management is important at a local as well as a regional scale. Local board views have been sought through meetings and a combined local board workshop on 20 April 2015. Following local board and mana whenua engagement, a discussion document and a brief summary brochure have been prepared for the first stage of consultation. These documents are presented for your information, dissemination, and further feedback if desired.

4. Comments from this consultation will inform the proposed Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan which will be developed for the second stage of consultation (formal public submissions and hearings) in 2016. Comments can be made on the topics raised in the document or on any other pest management issue.

Recommendations

That the Whau Local Board:

a) Provides any initial feedback on pest management issues impacting their area.

b) Notes the October 2015 Regional Strategy and Policy Committee report and attachments titled Regional Pest Management Plan Review – approval of discussion document

c) Notes that informal and formal local board engagement will be undertaken in early 2016 to inform the final draft Regional Pest Management Plan.

Comments

5. The Auckland Regional Pest Management Plan is the main statutory document implementing the Biosecurity Act 1993 in the region. It provides a strategic and statutory framework for the effective management of plant and animal pests. Auckland Council is reviewing its plan (which dates from 2007). The purpose of the review is to update the council’s approach to pest management, especially with regard to changes in pest species, distribution, and issues arising from their control; along with community expectations and available resources.

6. It is also necessary to incorporate new provisions which come from the reform of the Biosecurity Act in 2012. Among other changes, the Act now requires councils to be consistent with the National Policy Direction on Pest Management (NPD), which was gazetted on 24 August 2015 and introduces new pest programme categories.

7. A two-stage consultation process is being used for the review. The first stage includes an informal public consultation on pest management issues in the region. The attached discussion document and summary brochure have been prepared for this first stage. Following local board comments and feedback in the early part of 2015 and a combined workshop on 20 April 2015. Feedback from this consultation will help to inform the content of the review and the drafting of a Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan in 2016.

8. The first stage of consultation also includes hui with mana whenua, and meetings with community groups and industry. Materials have been distributed widely via email, social media, and the Auckland Council website. Copies of the discussion document have has also been sent to libraries and service centres as well as Local Board offices.

9. The second stage of consultation will commence once the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee adopts a proposed draft plan. The second stage will comprise a formal submission period followed by hearings.

10. The discussion document and summary brochure were approved by the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee on 8 October for a six week consultation period, ending on 27 November 2015. The discussion document summarises proposed changes and key issues, including:

· Feral goat exclusion zones

· Contolling widespread weeds

· Red-eared slider turtles

· Bangalow palms

· Community pest control

· The Hauraki Gulf

· Marine pests

11. Both documents seek to encourage comments from a broad cross-section of the community and technical detail has been kept to a minimum. Comments can be made on the topics raised in the document or on any other pest management issue.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

12. To date, local boards have provided input into the discussion document through two briefing sessions in April 2015.

13. This report requests local boards provide initial feedback on pest management issues impacting their area to provide guidance and direction to staff.

14. Local boards will have a further opportunity to inform to the development of the proposed Regional Pest Management Plan informally and formally in the first half of 2016.

Māori impact statement

15. One of the primary purposes of pest management is to manage the effects of pests on the relationship between Māori and their culture, traditions, ancestral lands, waters, sites, wāhi tapu and taonga. Initial consultation with māori has occurred through a series of individual and combined hui. A further combined hui was held on 15 October.

16. Ongoing consultation with iwi authorities and tribal rūnanga will occur throughout the review process.

Implementation

17. The review of the Regional Pest Management Plan (including producing and distributing the discussion document) is funded through existing Biosecurity and Natural Environment Strategy budgets.

18. Any changes to the plan arising from the review are likely to have operational cost implications. These will be considered during the cost-benefit and cost-allocation stages of the review, and in subsequent annual plan and LTP processes.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Regional Pest Management Plan – Have Your Say material	113
b View	Regional Strategy and Policy Committee report – Regional Pest Management Plan – Approval of Discussion Document	121
c View	Regional Pest Management Plan – Discussion Document	123

Signatories

Author

Helen Sharpe - Biodiversity Specialist

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

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

Whau Local Board

09 December 2015

Review of the Food Safety Bylaw 2013

File No.: CP2015/25993

Purpose

1. To seek the local board’s views regarding proposals to retain the grading provision of the Auckland Council Food Safety Bylaw 2013 and require the display of food safety grade certificates.

Executive Summary

2. From 1 March 2016 the Food Act 2014 (“the Act”) will replace the Food Act 1981 and Food Hygiene Regulations 1974 over a three year transition period. The Act also requires the amendment of existing food safety bylaws to ensure consistency. A formal public consultation process is not required for this bylaw review.

3. Staff analysis has identified that most of the existing Food Safety Bylaw 2013 (“the Bylaw”) provisions can be revoked and will be regulated by the Act and subsequent regulations.

4. National food safety grading will not be implemented through the new Act.

5. Staff propose to retain the grading provision of the Auckland Council Food Safety Bylaw 2013 and require the display of food safety grade certificates. Staff consider that the mandatory display of food safety grade certificates provides an incentive for food operators to proactively improve and maintain the safety of their food and enables customers to make informed choices.

6. A proposed amended bylaw will be presented to the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee in February 2016 followed by the Governing Body for consideration. The views of local boards will be presented in the accompanying report.

Recommendation

That the Whau Local Board:

a) Endorses the proposal to retain the grading provision of the Auckland Council Food Safety Bylaw 2013 and require the display of food safety grade certificates.

Comments

Background

The Food Act 2014

7. The Food Act 2014 (“the Act”) will come into effect on 1 March 2016. It will replace the Food Act 1981 and the Food Hygiene Regulations 1974 over a three year transition period. The Act will introduce significant improvements to the way that food safety is addressed by food businesses across New Zealand.

8. The primary duty of ensuring food safety will be the responsibility of food businesses, including food operators of mobile shops and food stalls at markets. For most businesses, this will involve a new requirement to document their procedures which will be audited by the council.

9. Businesses that prepare food with a high risk to food safety will be required to operate under a Food Control Plan. In most cases, a business subject to a Food Control Plan will be required to register with their local council. This enables councils to manage compliance activities and identify operators’ understanding of food safety.

10. The Act introduces new registration and auditing requirements for food businesses that operate from school tuckshops, childcare centres, work cafeterias and marae.

11. Businesses or charities that sell food for community purposes or to raise funds will be exempt from registration and auditing requirements for up to 20 occasions per year (e.g. sausage sizzles or home baking at school fairs).

Auckland Council Food Safety Bylaw 2013

12. On 23 May 2013, the council’s Governing Body adopted the Auckland Council Food Safety Bylaw 2013 (“the Bylaw”) to replace seven legacy council food safety bylaws (Resolution Number: GB/2013/47).

13. The Bylaw was introduced to minimise potential food safety risks associated with the sale of food. The Bylaw provides the council with powers related to:

· the closure of unhygienic or unsafe food premises

· minimum standards for staff training in basic food hygiene

· grading of food premises

· standards for preparing, handling and labelling food sold to private premises, and

· operating food stalls and mobile food shops.

14. The Bylaw requires each registered food business to display a food safety grade certificate, which the council issues following its inspection of the premises, pursuant to the Food Hygiene Regulations 1974. The certificate shows customers the premises’ food safety level.

Discussion

Impact of the Food Act 2014 on the Food Safety Bylaw 2013

15. The new Act requires the council to amend its Bylaw to ensure consistency with the new regulatory regime for food businesses. In June 2015, the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee directed council staff to undertake a review of the Bylaw (Resolution Number: RBC/2015/19).

16. Staff have now completed this review and recommend that the council revoke most of the Bylaw as the relevant activities will instead be regulated by the Act and subsequent regulations. The exception to this is the food grading system.

17. National food safety grading will not be implemented through the new Act, although there is potential for the development of a national scheme after 2019. Staff recommend retaining the grading provision (with minor amendments) of the Bylaw and require the display of food safety grade certificates.

18. There would be no additional cost to businesses for a food safety grade certificate. The grade assessment would be undertaken at the same time as the audit required by the new Act.

19. The benefits of a food safety grading scheme is that it provides:

· food operators with an incentive to take responsibility for the safety of the food they sell and to proactively improve and maintain the safety of their food

· the public with concise information on a business’ level of food safety so that customers can make informed choices.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

20. This report seeks the views of local boards on retaining the Food Safety Bylaw 2013 to require the display of a food safety grade certificate for food businesses registered with the council.

21. The views of local boards will be presented to the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee and the Governing Body in February 2016.

22. Local boards were engaged on the consolidation of legacy food safety bylaws in 2011 and feedback received at the time indicated there was general support for the grading of food premises. Some local board members expressed concern about the standards applying to food sold from stalls at markets.

Māori impact statement

23. Engagement with mana whenua and mataawaka is currently underway.

24. Food prepared and served on a marae that is not provided as part of a commercial activity is outside the scope of this bylaw review. In addition, registration and auditing requirements of the new Act do not apply to the preparation and sale of food for the purpose of raising funds up to 20 times a year.

25. Food businesses that operate from marae, for instance catering at events more than 20 times per year, will be subject to registration and auditing requirements under the Act in the same way as other food businesses.

Implementation

26. The Governing Body is responsible for making a decision on the review of the Food Safety Bylaw 2013. A proposed amended bylaw will be presented to the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee in February 2016. It will then be considered by the Governing Body. The views of Local Boards and targeted stakeholders will be presented in the accompanying report.

27. The method for determining the criteria of food safety grades is an operational matter and is outside the scope of this bylaw review.

28. Registration fees for food businesses are also out of scope of this bylaw review. For information purposes, proposed fees under the new Act were presented to the Finance and Performance Committee at their meeting on 19 November 2015. The consultation period on proposed fees will be from 20 November to 21 December 2015. Current registration and inspection fees will continue to apply for existing food businesses until they transition to the new regulatory regime.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Emma Pilkington - Policy Analyst

Belinda Hansen - Principal Policy Analyst

Authorisers

Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

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

Whau Local Board

09 December 2015

Amendment to Whau Local Board meeting schedule for 2016

File No.: CP2015/26020

Purpose

1. To amend the Whau Local Board meetings schedule for 2016.

Executive Summary

2. A schedule of meetings was adopted for the 2013/2016 electoral term on 20 November 2013 (Resolution # WH/2013/184). Subsequently, it has been decided that the 20 January 2016 meeting will not proceed and the first meeting for the 2016 calendar year will take place on 17 February 2016.

3. This report is for the Board’s information only.

Recommendation

That the Whau Local Board:

a) Notes the following meetings scheduled for the 2016 calendar year:

· Wednesday, 17 February 2016

· Wednesday, 16 March 2016

· Wednesday, 20 April 2016

· Wednesday, 18 May 2016

· Wednesday, 15 June 2016

· Wednesday, 20 July 2016

· Wednesday, 17 August 2016

· Wednesday, 21 September 2016

Discussion

4. Clause (5)(d), Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 requires a local board to adopt a schedule of business meetings for the electoral term.

5. A meeting schedule allows for a planned approach to workloads and ensures local board members have clarity about their commitments. It also gives an indication to the public of when meetings are to be held and meets the requirement of clause 19, Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002.

6. In addition to local board meetings, local boards will hold workshops that are closed to the public. The proceedings of every workshop are recorded and considered at the next business meeting of the local board in accordance with current local board standing order provisions.

Consideration

Local Board Views

7. This decision falls under the local board’s delegated authority.

Māori Impact Statement

8. There is no specific impact for Māori arising from this report.

General

9. Clauses 19(4), 19(5) and 19(6), Schedule 7, of the Local Government Act 2002 states that:

“(4) A local authority must hold meetings at the times and places that it appoints.

(5) Unless clause 22 (extraordinary meeting) applies, the chief executive must give notice in writing to each member of the time and place of a meeting -

(a) not less than 14 days before the meeting; or

(b) if the local authority has adopted a schedule of meetings, not less than 14 days before the first meeting on the schedule.”

(6) If a local authority adopts a schedule of meetings, -

(a) the schedule –

(i) may cover any future period that the local authority considers appropriate; and

(ii) may be amended; and

(b) notification of the schedule or of any amendment to that schedule constitutes a notification of every meeting on the schedule or amendment.”

10. Similarly, the statutory requirement pursuant to clauses 46, 46(A) and 47 of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 mentions that:

· meetings of a local authority are publicly notified

· agendas and reports are available at least two working days before a meeting

· local board meetings are open to the public.

Implementation Issues

11. Meetings of the local boards are supported by Auckland Council’s Local Board Services Department.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author	Riya Seth - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Glenn Boyd - Relationship Manager Henderson-Massey, Waitakere Ranges, Whau

Whau Local Board

09 December 2015

Whau Local Board Workshop Records

Date of Workshop: Wednesday, 4 November 2015

Time: 10.04am – 1.00pm

Venue: Whau Local Board Office, 31 Totara Avenue,

New Lynn

Present: Catherine Farmer, Susan Zhu (from 10.13am, item 1), Ami Chand, Simon Matafai (from 10.28am, item1 until 12,06pm, item 2), Derek Battersby (from 12.10pm, item 3)

Apologies: Derek Battersby (for lateness), Ruby Manukia-Schaumkel (for absence), Duncan MacDonald (for absence)

Item	Topic/presenter(s)	Time
1.0	Annual Plan - Workshop Two Led by Glenn Boyd and David Rose Supported by: Parks: Tracey Hodder, Helen Biffin, Grant Jennings Infrastructure & Environmental Services: Matthew Foster, Robbie Sutherland CDAC: Barbara Cade, Gail Fotheringham, Xanthe Jujnovich Purpose of workshop To refine draft LDI priorities for 2016/17 to enable local board to consult on key priorities and/or options with the community. This includes identifying requests for indicative LDI pricing of new projects, or updates to existing pricing. Notes: Workshop included discussions on both LDI opex and the new LDI capex fund available to the local board. Parks: Herbicide reduction – Orchard, Manuka and Riversdale parks to get $7k more from community response fund. This is to start immediately once report from parks comes to the board meeting. Archibald destination park - $25k towards scoping and feasibility study and detailed designing in 16/17 followed by build in 17/18. It was noted that there is no opex budget to support restoration and planting associated with Te Whau pathway. Infrastructure and Environment Governing body funding cut to Sustainable Neighbourhood programmes comes into effect cutting support to ¾ of Whau programmes ($22k for Whau). Under current this requires LDI of $22k. It was noted that Heritage protection project should come under local planning and development as I&E does not deliver this. This changes total funding from $227 to $216 ($11k for heritage to go to local planning and development). Events Youth connections – request additional $4k to make funding $25k, which will be ongoing. Fees and charges review is currently underway, new changes will be made available in Feb 2016. Arts broker – support to continue $75k arts broker allocation. Local community assistance fund – look to allocate to community grants ($100k). NOTE: At the first Annual Plan workshop libraries were asked to provide any feedback on the impact of the Board’s support for increased hours at local libraries. This has been considered through the Library Portfolio.	10.04 – 11.10am
2.0	Whau Open Space Network Plan Presenters: Wendy Rutherford, Jenny Macdonald and representatives from Captivate research and communications A presentation was made to local board members introducing the Whau Open Space Network Plan development project. It was noted that Henderson-Massey local board has adopted an Open Space Network Plan for their local board which will be used as a template for Whau Open Space Network Plan. Representative from Captivate research and communications made a presentation on a research survey they did for Auckland Council on neighbourhood parks. The objective of this survey was to gain an understanding of the awareness, usage and attitudes of people in the Whau Local Board area and Glen Eden to neighbourhood parks. Across this area there are 22 key neighbourhood parks. Detailed research survey report was made available to board members.	11.10am – 12.06pm
3.0	Quarterly Performance Report Presenter: David Rose The board was updated on quarterly performance which will be coming on November Local Board agenda.	12.10pm – 1.00pm

Relationship Manager: Glenn Boyd

Whau Local Board

09 December 2015

Whau Local Board Workshop Records

Date of Workshop: Wednesday, 11 November 2015

Time: 10.10am – 1.40pm

Venue: Whau Local Board Office, 31 Totara Avenue,

New Lynn

Present: Catherine Farmer, Ami Chand (until 12.20pm, item 3), Derek Battersby (from 10.20am, item 1), Simon Matafai (from 10.42am, item 1; until 1.10pm, item 4)

Apologies: Susan Zhu (for absence), Duncan MacDonald (for absence), Ruby Manukia-Schaumkel (for absence), Ami Chand (for early departure)

Item	Topic	Time
1.0	Annual Plan Workshop - Workshop Three Presenters: Glenn Boyd, Steve Wilcox and Mark Allen Annual Plan 2016/2017 - Local Consultation Content was discussed with members. It was noted that the public consultation for annual plan will start from 15 Feb 2016; members were made aware that “Our Auckland” will get distributed to public in early March under its regular distribution cycle. Members agreed to have one have your say event at Bay Olympic with round table style set-up. Informal meetings with public (or Clinics) can be arranged for eg: at Kelston (St Leonard School – need to book school hall soon for clinic in early Feb). It was suggested that a survey can be send to stakeholders. Board members were happy to held HYS event either on 2^nd March or 9^th March 2016.	10.10am – 11.00am
2.0	Panuku Development Auckland Rationalisation of 10 Ambrico Place, New Lynn Presenter: Letitia McColl A presentation was made on the rationalisation of council property at 10 Ambrico Pl. Board members agreed that any development need to be complimentary to the needs of New Lynn Kindergarten. Staff were reminded that the board wishes to retain the vacant piece of land at 1b Rankin Ave in council ownership for community garden use. Part revocation of recreation reserve at 42 Bancroft Crescent, Glendene Presenter: Linda Holdaway A presentation was made on the revocation of recreation reserve at 42 Bancroft Cre. Options are to revoke reserve statues for either full lot or part of the site (this won’t affect the use of the site for the radio-controlled car club). Staff advised that it would be more efficient to revoke reserve status for the entire site at once. This will give longterm flexibility for council in future use of the land. A formal report will come to the local board meeting in December 2015.	11.00am – 11.30am
3.0	Fast grants Presenter: Fua Winterstein Fast Grants applications were discussed with the board. A formal report will come to the Nov board meeting.	11.40am – 12.20pm
4.0	Economic Development Presenter: Jonathan Sudworth Following topics were discussed with board members. 1. Rosebank 2030 refresh – A report will come to board meeting in the first quarter next year to sign off Rosebank 2030 refresh document. 2. Migrant Business Support - Jonathan to talk to other local boards to discuss a collaborative multi board approach on this topic. LBS to convene an ethnic portfolio meeting to discuss further. 3. New Lynn value proposition – it was discussed that staff will monitor investment group work and consider how to make value proposition work more available.	12.20pm – 1.40pm

Relationship Manager: Glenn Boyd

[1] It is expected that a detailed review would take approximately 3 months at 1 FTE per board.

Chairperson	Catherine Farmer
Deputy Chairperson	Susan Zhu
Members	Derek Battersby, QSM, JP
	Ami Chand, JP
	Duncan Macdonald, JP
	Ruby Manukia-Schaumkel
	Simon Matafai