Agenda of Upper Harbour Local Board

	Portfolio Activity	Responsibilities	Board Lead/s and Alternate
1	Governance	· Board Leadership · Board-to-Council Relationships · Board-to-Board Relationships · Civic Duties · Advocacy (local, regional, and central government) · Relationships with Maoridom · Relationships with government departments and agencies · Relationship with Property CCO · Relationship with Auckland Waterfront Development · Advocacy with Governing Body (Local Board Plan; Local Board Agreements) · Unitary Plan · Local area plan	Brian Neeson Lisa Whyte
2	Regulatory & Bylaws / Civil Defence Emergency Management .	· Resource consents · Heritage · Liquor · Gambling · Swimming pools fencing · Trees · Bylaws · Relationships with the Civil Defence Emergency Management Group · Community preparedness, disaster response, relief, and recovery	Callum Blair John McLean Christine Rankin-MacIntyre Margaret Miles (Resource Consents only)
3	Events / Arts and Culture	· Community celebration · Community identity · Neighbourhood gatherings and renewal · Event compliance · Relationship with ATEED · Relationship with Regional Facilities CCOs · Tourism · Artistic and cultural service levels · Promoting all aspects of artistic endeavour · Development of public art strategy and policy	Margaret Miles
4	Community and social well-being / Local Facilities	· Community development · Neighbourhood relationships · Funding for neighbourhood projects · Community safety (excl. town centres) · Graffiti removal · Community advocacy · Relationships with Youth · Leisure centres · Community houses · Halls · Community hubs · Arts facilities · Community Partnerships · Asset Management	Callum Blair Margaret Miles

	Portfolio Activity	Responsibilities	Board Lead/s and Alternate
5	Libraries	· Stewardship of libraries · Mobile library	Christine Rankin-MacIntyre Lisa Whyte
6	Sports parks and recreation (active) / Parks, Reserves and playgrounds (passive)	· Stewardship of sports parks · Stewardship of recreation facilities · Relationship with sports clubs · Neighbourhood parks and reserves (incl. esplanade reserves and the coastline) · Design and maintenance · Plantings, playgrounds, bollards, and walkways · Skateparks · Track Network development	Margaret Miles Lisa Whyte
7	Town Centres	· Town centre renewal · Design and maintenance · Community safety within town centres · Business Improvement Districts liaison · Urban design · Built Heritage	Margaret Miles Brian Neeson
8	Transport / Regional Transport and CBD development	· Local transport projects and public transport (incl. roading, footpaths, cycleways) · Liaison on regional Transport matters · 2^nd harbour crossing · Bridge walk cycleway · Inner City Rail Link · Waterfront development · CBD master plan	John McLean Margaret Miles
9	Natural Environment .	· Restoration of wetlands, streams, and waterways · Local priorities in relation to regional environmental management · Costal management including mangrove encroachment and erosion mitigation · Relationships with Watercare · Waste minimisation strategy · Bio security	John McLean Callum Blair Lisa Whyte (waste minimisation only)
10	Economic Development / Financial oversight	· Key relationship with Business Development Manager in Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development team · Establish and promote local opportunities for increased tourism and economic development · Budgets · Project expenditure · Monitor GB strategy and Finance · Service Levels · Local funding policy	Lisa Whyte Margaret Miles

Upper Harbour Local Board

23 February 2016

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 Welcome 7

2 Apologies 7

3 Declaration of Interest 7

4 Confirmation of Minutes 7

5 Leave of Absence 7

6 Acknowledgements 7

7 Petitions 8

8 Deputations 8

9 Public Forum 8

10 Extraordinary Business 8

11 Notices of Motion 9

12 Meeting Minutes Upper Harbour Local Board, Tuesday 9 February 2016 11

13 Governing Body Members' Update 19

14 Hydrodynamic and sediment transport in the Upper Waitemata Harbour 21

15 Request for the granting of a temporary licence to occupy at 121 Clark Road, Scott Point 149

16 New road name approval for the residential subdivision by Hobsonville Limited at 1 Settlers Ave, Hobsonville 177

17 Quarterly performance report 191

18 Upper Harbour Local Board Discretionary Funds Status and consolidation of funding categories for the 2015/2016 financial year 223

19 Governance Forward Work Programme 227

20 Summary of Actions and Reports Requested - Upper Harbour Local Board - February 2016 231

21 Record of the Upper Harbour Local Board Portfolio Briefings held in November 2015 to January 2016 235

22 Record of the Upper Harbour Local Board workshop held on
Tuesday, 2 February 2016 243

23 Holding Report for decisions relating to the Albany Community Hub 247

24 Holding Report for decisions relating to the Albany Stadium Pool 249

25 Board Members' Reports 251

26 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

1 Welcome

2 Apologies

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

3 Declaration of Interest

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

The Auckland Council Code of Conduct for Elected Members (the Code) requires elected members to fully acquaint themselves with, and strictly adhere to, the provisions of Auckland Council’s Conflicts of Interest Policy. The policy covers two classes of conflict of interest:

i) A financial conflict of interest, which is one where a decision or act of the local board could reasonably give rise to an expectation of financial gain or loss to an elected member; and

ii) A non-financial conflict interest, which does not have a direct personal financial component. It may arise, for example, from a personal relationship, or involvement with a non-profit organisation, or from conduct that indicates prejudice or predetermination.

The Office of the Auditor General has produced guidelines to help elected members understand the requirements of the Local Authority (Member’s Interest) Act 1968. The guidelines discuss both types of conflicts in more detail, and provide elected members with practical examples and advice around when they may (or may not) have a conflict of interest.

Copies of both the Auckland Council Code of Conduct for Elected Members and the Office of the Auditor General guidelines are available for inspection by members upon request.

Any questions relating to the Code or the guidelines may be directed to the Relationship Manager in the first instance.

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 9 February 2016, including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

5 Leave of Absence

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

6 Acknowledgements

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

7 Petitions

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

8 Deputations

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

Upper Harbour Local Board

23 February 2016

Hydrodynamic and sediment transport in the Upper Waitemata Harbour

File No.: CP2016/01244

Purpose

1. To present the findings of the hydrodynamic modelling and sediment transport project funded by the Upper Harbour Local Board, and to recommend that the board allocate $29,900 to extended modelling of sediment sources in 2015/2016.

Executive Summary

2. The Upper Harbour Local Board identified a key outcome in their Local Board Plan to achieve ‘safe and clean reserves, parks and beaches.’ In the 2014/2015 financial year the Upper Harbour Local Board commissioned a study to model the sediment loads, sources and sediment deposits in the Upper Waitemata Harbour. This study was undertaken by DHI Limited in collaboration with Auckland Council’s Research and Investigation Monitoring Unit (refer to Attachment A for full report).

3. The objectives of this study were to establish a high resolution Upper Waitemata Harbour model, calibrate the model against existing field data, and quantify the flushing and sediment transport characteristics of the harbour. The findings from the model will be used to inform decisions relating to sediment discharges into the harbour.

4. The modelling results show that Rangitopuni is the most significant sub-catchment regarding deposit of sediments in the harbour. This is because of the high rates of sediment deposits within the Rangitopuni Creek, and the strong connection between the Rangitopuni Creek and other sediment deposits areas in the Upper Waitemata Harbour.

5. Sediment deposits in the upper and middle sections of the Upper Waitemata Harbour can be almost solely attributed to sediments derived from the Rangitopuni catchment. In other areas of the harbour, up to 50 per cent of the predicted sediment deposits can be attributed to sediments emanating from the Rangitopuni catchment.

6. The second most influential catchment in the Upper Waitemata Harbour is the Lucas Creek catchment. Sediments from this catchment deposit either directly into Lucas Creek or within the lower parts of the harbour.

7. Most of the sediments from the Paremoremo Creek catchment deposit within the Paremoremo Creek, itself with very little connectivity with other parts of the harbour.

8. Model results indicate that following a rainfall event, approximately 15 per cent of the total sediment deposited, is deposited in either the central or outer Waitemata Harbour and that, on average, around 25 per cent of sediment remains in the water column. This implies that approximately 575 tonnes of sediment is being delivered to the central or outer Waitemata Harbour during rainfall events. This demonstrates the importance of understanding the connectivity of sediment entering estuaries, and how these are connected with the broader harbour system.

9. The study establishes the need for further work to identify the origins of sediment discharge. This further work could inform plans for changes to land-based activities to reduce sediment loads in the harbour.

10. A draft proposal has been prepared that outlines a modelling based tool that assesses how a range of sediment mitigation actions in the catchment surrounding Lucas Creek, may reduce sediment loads into the harbour (see Attachment B). Lucas Creek has been selected as this is the main contributing estuary arm within the Upper Harbour Local Board’s boundaries.

11. The cost of this proposed modelling tool is $29,900. The final reporting will include a written report, presentation of results and recommendations on sediment control actions will be made to the Upper Harbour Local Board.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receive the hydrodynamic modelling and sediment transport in the Upper Waitemata Harbour report.

b) allocate $29,900 from their environmental response fund budget line to an extended modelling tool to identify the origins of sediment discharging from land, and how differing activities in the catchment may reduce sediment loads.

c) request that any significant changes to the project that may be needed during the delivery stage be bought back to the board for their approval.

Comments

12. Sedimentation is acknowledged as one of the most wide spread and damaging stressors affecting marine systems. This hydrodynamic modelling study was undertaken to determine which catchments, draining into the Upper Waitemata, are the major suppliers of sediment. The study also identifies where this sediment may accumulate in the harbour. This information is critical in reducing sediment runoff into the harbour, with the goal of protecting the marine environment from further degradation.

13. The modelling results show that the Rangitopuni catchment is an important source of sediments in the Upper Waitemata Harbour. The Rangitopuni catchment contributes to high rates of sediment deposits within Rangitopuni Creek itself. There is also a strong connection between Rangitopuni Creek and other sediment deposit areas in the harbour.

14. In order to quantify the connectivity between the catchment sources and various areas of the Waitemata Harbour, a series of model simulations were conducted (i.e. individual runs for the Rangitopuni, Paremoremo, Lucas, Hellyers, Waiarohia, Rawarawa and Brigham sources). For each of these model simulations, the predicted bed level change at the end of the run was extracted from the model output. Using the data from the individual model runs, the total sediment deposited within the Waitemata Harbour was calculated by summing up all of the individual results. From this, the percentage of the total sediment deposits attributable to each sub-catchment of the Upper Waitemata, for each of the sub-estuary areas (refer to Figure 6-43) was calculated (refer to Table 6-3).

15. For this study, the sub-catchments of the Central Waitemata Harbour were not included as sources of sediments for the Upper Waitemata model. Work carried out for the Central Waitemata Harbour (Green, 2008) indicated a net export of sediments from the upper to central harbour consistent with data in Table 6-3, which shows that just over 15 per cent of the sediment sourced from the Upper Waitemata Harbour sub-catchments are deposited in the Central or Outer Waitemata Harbour.

16. Of the sediment loads derived from the Rangitopuni sub-catchment, 10 per cent is deposited in the Central and Outer Waitemata Harbour. For the Lucas sub-catchment, just over four per cent of its sediment load is deposited in the Central and Outer Waitemata Harbour. For the Paremoremo and Brighams Creek sub-catchments, less than one per cent of their sediment load is deposited in the Central and Outer Waitemata Harbour.

17. The results presented in Table 6-3 show the contribution that each of the Upper Waitemata Harbour sub-catchments make to the sediment deposits in various sub-estuary areas, as well as the catchments that contribute to the most overall sediment deposits.

18. The findings indicate that 49.7 per cent of all the sediment deposits, from the Upper Waitemata Harbour catchment, can be attributed to the Rangitopuni catchment. Similarly, 35.8 per cent can be attributed to the Lucas Creek catchment source, and 10.5 per cent can be attributed to the Paremoremo Creek catchment source. All the other catchment sources contribute less than five per cent of the total predicted sediment deposits within the Waitemata Harbour.

19. The data indicates that almost all of the sediment deposits that occur within the Rangitopuni sub-estuary can be attributed to the Rangitopuni catchment sediment.

20. A similar pattern is observed for the Paremoremo and Lucas Creek sub-estuaries. Although, a small portion of the sediment deposits that occurs within these two sub-estuaries can be attributed to the Rangitopuni catchment (Rows 2 and 3, Table 6-3).

21. For the Hellyers sub-estuary the highest contribution to the sediment deposits comes from the Rangitopuni and Lucas Creek catchments, with one-fifth of the sediment deposits in the area being from the Hellyers Creek catchment.

22. Similarly, for the Waiarohia sub-estuary, the highest contribution to the sediment deposits comes from the Rangitopuni and Lucas Creek catchments with only about one-sixth of the sediment deposits in the area being from the Waiarohia catchment itself.

23. Over half of the sediment deposits predicted to occur in the Rawarawa sub-estuary, occurs due to sediments from the Rangitopuni catchment.

24. For the Brigham sub-estuary, about one-quarter of the sediment deposits can be attributed to the Rangitopuni catchment, with the remaining sediment deposits mostly coming from the Brighams catchment itself.

25. The predicted sediment deposits that occurs north of Herald Island is mostly due to sediments from the Rangitopuni catchment, with small contributions from the other catchments.

Discussion

26. Key findings of the study are:

· the need to understand the implications of land use change; and

· to assess sediment control options at a catchment level. For example, what would the reduction in sediment generation be due to planting steeper areas in the Lucas Creek catchment, and what areas within the harbour would benefit from this reduction in sediment load?

27. A draft proposal has therefore been developed to use the existing sediment transport model of the Upper Waitemata Harbour to improve the identification of sediment generation in the surrounding catchment, and how management actions may elevate sources of sediment. The new proposal is attached to this report as Attachment B.

28. Briefly the proposal will look to:

· refine the existing catchment generation model for the Lucas Creek catchment, to allow an assessment of sediment generation at a smaller spatial scale;

· rerun the harbour model based on the refinement of the Lucas Creek catchment and stream network, and the daily time-series of sediment and freshwater delivery to the harbour;

· define sediment deposital zones and rates within the Upper Waitemata for the existing land use (based on the refined catchment model);

· provide quantification of changes in sediment delivery due to a total of four land use change or management options relating to sediment control within the Lucas Creek catchment. The scenarios to be modelled would be developed in consultation with Auckland Council;

· quantifying areas of changes in sediment deposits within the harbour that can be attributed to the options being considered in context of the overall sediment deposits observed in the Upper Waitemata Harbour; and

· write a technical memo and presentation to the local board outlining the methodologies used, and key findings from the land use or management options being considered.

29. It is recommended that the board allocate $29,900 to funding this study. The outputs of the proposed modelling will make it possible to identify the locations and types of actions that it would be most effective for the board to target to reduce sediment loads and discharges from land to the harbour.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

30. This report outlines the results of a project that was funded by the Upper Harbour Local Board to achieve the key initiative outlined in their Local Board Plan to ‘Conduct a study of sediment loads and deposits in the Upper Waitemata Harbour’.

31. It is recommended that the board fund further research into sediment discharges into the Upper Waitemata Harbour, as this will give them the information needed to manage sediment discharges more effectively. This aligns with the Upper Harbour Local Board’s aim to improve the health of the harbour.

Māori impact statement

32. The environmental information obtained from the above programmes will be of interest and empower Māori as kaitiaki and Tangata Whenua. These results can be communicated to the Mana Whenau Kaitiaki Forum as part of ongoing and wider discussions regarding the health of our harbours. This work also has linkages to the Māori Plan and environmental indicators in regards to water quality.

Implementation

33. There is one potential implementation issue regarding the delivery timeframe. We are proposing to complete this study by end of June 2016. However, due to the later than anticipated start to this program, final reporting by the end of June 2016 may not be achievable. Delivery of key findings and draft reporting can be achieved. We will inform the local board as soon as possible of any potential delays.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Technical Report - Upper Waitemata Harbour hydrodynamic and sediment transport modelling	25
b View	Upper Waitemata Land Use Assessment Proposal November 2015	133

Signatories

Authors

Jarrod Walker - Scientist Marine

Authorisers

Lucy Baragwanath - Manager (RIMU)

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

23 February 2016

PDF Creator

Upper Harbour Local Board

23 February 2016

Request for the granting of a temporary licence to occupy at 121 Clark Road, Scott Point

File No.: CP2016/01177

Purpose

1. This report seeks the approval of the Upper Harbour Local Board to grant a temporary licence to occupy from the incumbent lease holder, Whenuapai Pony Club, in favour of land developer, The Neil Group Limited, on behalf of the Clark Road Land Owners Group, to complete a consented wastewater loop under part of the land at 121 Clark Road, Scott Point.

Executive Summary

2. The Neil Group Limited, on behalf of the Clark Road Landowners Group (CRLG), has requested a temporary licence to occupy the park land, in order to construct a drill pit for thrusting the main wastewater pipe for the Scott Point development, from Clark Road to Hobsonville Point Road.

3. 121 Clark Road, Scott Point is a council owned property which is subject to an active periodic community lease to the Whenuapai Pony Club (WPC). Under the current lease terms between Auckland Council and the Whenuapai Pony Club, the council is the only party who can provide a temporary licence to occupy to enable the works to be undertaken.

4. The site is an asset held within the Parks service portfolio. The properties lie within the Scott Point Special Housing Area (SHA), which was given SHA status in December 2013, under the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013.

5. Once the Upper Harbour Local Board approval has been obtained, the works are planned to extend over a relatively short time frame, being one month.

6. The works would create a wastewater main pipe forming the critical link, connecting ‘bulk’ wastewater infrastructure on Hobsonville Point Road to the wastewater infrastructure for the Scott Point SHA, ultimately servicing between 2750-3000 dwellings (refer to Attachment A).

7. The wastewater main would transit land owned by Hobsonville Land Company (HLC), with works required to align with the delivery of infrastructure within the Buckley B Precinct, which is land currently being developed by HLC. Landowner approval has been granted by HLC for this work to proceed.

8. The proposed route of the wastewater main pipe is identified as A/5 to A/0 of the modified plan in Attachment B of the report. The indicative drill pit location is also indicated on the modified plan.

9. Clark Road Landowners Group has obtained the appropriate consents for this work, including Engineering Plan Approval (EPA), with Neil Group Limited been appointed.

10. The Whenuapai Pony Club identified that the main challenges to reaching an agreement with the contractor, were the mitigation of potential noise from the machinery and the disruption to pony club summer activities. The concerns were addressed in an agreement and state the following:

· no work will be conducted on a Saturday, with the agreement that the loss in drilling hours can be made up during the week, i.e. an extra 8 hours therefore 1 to 2 hours per day.

· if works will occur that may cause disruption to the Whenuapai Pony Club’s Rally night activities, CRLG will meet the cost of alternative venue hire for the WPC’s weekly Tuesday Rally nights.

· CRLG will ensure that all contractors on the site are made aware of the need to ensure the safety and wellbeing of both the horses and the riders, and that this is documented in the site hazard, health and safety documents.

11. The council now seeks to formalise site access through a standard temporary ‘Licence to Occupy’ between the Auckland Council, CRLG and the Whenuapai Pony Club. The council cannot execute this document until approval has been obtained from the Upper Harbour Local Board, in their capacity as the decision making authority over matters relating to community leases, as well as local parks and reserves.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) approve the granting of a temporary licence to occupy from the incumbent lease holder, Whenuapai Pony Club, in favour of land developer, The Neil Group Limited, on behalf of the Clark Road Land Owners Group, to complete a consented wastewater loop under part of the park land at 121 Clark Road, Scott Point subject to the following terms and conditions:

i) the above ground area of the land being remediated to the same condition as it was in before the works were undertaken;

ii) Auckland Council’s Legal Services Department approving the form of the document; and

iii) confirmation by Auckland Council’s Principle Development Engineer for the Scott Point development, of the technical sufficiency of the proposed construction methodology for the intended works.

b) recommend that the temporary licence to occupy be approved for the duration of the proposed works, plus a period of contingency, totaling three months.

Comments

12. It is noted that the developer and the pony club have reached agreement to access the park land necessary for the works to occur, and in a manner that does not unduly impact upon the operation of the pony club, and these terms are proposed to be given effect to in the temporary licence to occupy (refer to Attachment C).

Consideration

Local board views and implications

13. Auckland Council staff from Parks and Community Leasing, have been in consultation / discussions with the Whenuapai Pony Club, since early November 2015, to help facilitate an arrangement with CRLG to grant access for temporary works, and these departments support the need for and use of a temporary licence.

14. The recommendations within this report fall within the local board’s decision making authority over matters relating to community leases, as well as local parks and reserves.

Māori impact statement

15. A Cultural Impact Assessment was prepared as part of the Scott Point Special Housing Area (SHA) Plan Variation (refer to Attachment D).

16. Recommendations are identified on pages 14 - 15 of the report and apply to the entire SHA area and not just 121 Clark Road. These include, amongst other matters:

· a request for the opportunity for monitoring by the Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority (TKITA) Resource Management Unit for archaeological features relating to Māori activity on removal of top soil; and

· notification and protection of sub-surface archaeological features until assessed by the TKITA Resource Management Unit or Historical Places Trust.

Implementation

17. Implementation of this temporary licence to occupy remains subject to the above recommendations as part of standard practice for works within the wider Scott Point SHA Plan Variation area.

18. The costs to prepare and issue the licence to occupy are to be recovered from the CRLG.

19. Auckland Council staff have sought input from relevant council departments.

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Clark Road alignment being path of proposed wastewater loop and existing Hobsonville Point infrastructure	151
b View	Map showing proposed drill pit and new proposed wastewater line	153
c View	The Neil Group Limited, Clark Road Landowner Group and Whenuapai Pony Club agreement in principle	155
d View	Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority: Cultural Impact Assessment, November 2013	157

Signatories

Authors

Sean Bignell – Senior Advisor, Development Programme Office & Infrastructure Funding

Authorisers

John Dunshea – General Manager Development Programme Office

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

23 February 2016

New road name approval for the residential subdivision by Hobsonville Limited at 1 Settlers Ave, Hobsonville

File No.: CP2016/01574

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to seek approval from the Upper Harbour Local Board to rescind the decision approved under resolution UH2015/58 as ‘Dowden Lane’ at 1 Settlers Ave, Hobsonville (refer to Attachment A), and approve an alternative name.

Executive Summary

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

Following assessment against the road naming criteria, it is recommended that:

i. the road name ‘Dowden Lane’, which runs parallel to Settlers Avenue, be replaced with Glenae Lane, Ansley Lane or Barnes Lane, because it is too close to the road name ‘Dowdens Lane’ which appears in another development in Hobsonville. This road name was approved by the Upper Harbour Local Board on 9 September 2014 (UH/2014/193).

3. This proposed change has been discussed with the developer and is recommended for approval by the Upper Harbour Local Board.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) rescind the approved road name of ‘Dowden Lane’ made in resolution UH2015/58 on 26 May 2015

b) consider for approval, pursuant to section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974, the following road name change proposed by the applicant in the Settlers Avenue Development, rename ‘Dowden Lane’ the new road Glenae Lane, Ansley Lane or Barnes Lane.

Background

4. On 9 September 2014, the Upper Harbour Local Board approved the road name ‘Dowdens Lane’ for a development next to the Hobsonville Primary School.

5. On 25 May 2015, the Upper Harbour Local Board approved the road name ‘Dowden Lane’ for a development off Settlers Avenue, Hobsonville. The developer has agreed to change the name of ‘Dowden Lane’ to one of the options set out below, given the similarity to ‘Dowdens Lane’, which was approved on 9 September 2014.

Preferred and Alternative names for Dowden Lane

The developer has proposed the the following preferred and alternative road names to replace that of Dowden Lane:

Preference	Proposed new road name	Meaning
Preferred name	Glenae Lane	Name of one of the boats supplying coal and taking product from the pipeworks to Auckland.
First alternative	Ansley Lane	Previous owner of the land.
Second alternative	Barnes Lane	Previous owner of the land.

Comments

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

Decision Making

7. The Auckland Council, by way of the Auckland Council Long-term Plan (2012 - 2022), allocated the responsibility for the naming of new roads, pursuant to section 319(1)(j) of the Local Government Act 1974, to local boards.

Consideration

Significance of Decision

8. The decision sought from the Upper Harbour Local Board does not trigger the Significance Policy, nor is it considered to have any immediate impact on the community.

Māori impact statement

9. The decision sought from the Upper Harbour Local Board on road name changes is linked to the Auckland Plan outcome, “A Maori identity that is Auckland’s point of difference in the world”. The use of Maori names for roads, buildings and other public places is an opportunity to publicly demonstrate Maori identity.

10. It is considered that there is no significance to Māori as a result of the proposed road names and that there will be no adverse effects on Māori communities.

Consultation

11. Consultation with iwi and New Zealand Post was undertaken prior to the report submitted on 26 May 2015, and all names currently proposed were accepted at that time.

Financial and Resourcing Implications

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

Legal and Legislative Implications

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

Implementation

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Dowden Lane location	179
b View	Auckland Council Road Naming Guidelines	181

Signatories

Authors

Andrew Foley - Subdivision Advisor

Authorisers

Ian Smallburn - General Manager Resource Consents

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

23 February 2016

Quarterly performance report

File No.: CP2015/27831

Purpose

1. To update Upper Harbour Local Board members on progress towards their objectives for the year from 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016 as set out in the Local Board Agreement.

Executive summary

2. A financial performance report is presented to the local boards for the accounting quarters ending September, December, March and June.

3. Auckland Council departments also present quarterly performance reports to the local boards.

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

5. Attachment A contains the following reports for this quarter:

· Local Community Services including libraries;

· Local Environmental Management;

· Local Sports, Parks and Recreation; and

· Local Board Financial Performance.

Recommendation

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receive the Performance Report for the financial quarter ending 31 December 2015.

Comments

6. In consultation with local boards, this report provides elected members with an overview of local activities from Auckland Council departments for discussion.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

7. This report informs the Upper Harbour Local Board of the performance to date for the period ending 31 December 2015.

Māori impact statement

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

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Quarterly Performance Report	191

Signatories

Authors

Pramod Nair - Lead Financial Advisor

Authorisers

Christine Watson - Manager Financial Advisory Services - Local Boards

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

23 February 2016

Upper Harbour Local Board Discretionary Funds Status and consolidation of funding categories for the 2015/2016 financial year

File No.: CP2016/00092

Purpose

1. This report provides an update to the Upper Harbour Local Board on the availability of discretionary funding for the 2015/2016 financial year. It also provides a running total of the balances of the board’s various discretionary funds.

2. To consolidate discretionary funding categories to allow the board to have a better indication of the status of their discretionary funding.

Executive summary

3. The Upper Harbour Local Board has a number of discretionary funds available in the 2015/2016 financial year. The current balances of the board’s discretionary funds are as follows:

Fund	Total available in 2015/16 ($)	Amount spent ($)	Balance remaining ($)
Local Discretionary Community Grants	114,000	92,431	21,569
Local Events Contestable Fund	77,000	54,200	22,800
Regional Grants allocated to Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI)	114,000	105,000	9,000
Community Response Fund	50,000	15,000	35,000
Parks, Sports and Recreation Response Fund	103,000	27,000	76,000
Environment Response Fund	35,000	0	35,000
Planning and Economic Development Response Fund	35,000	21,382.50	13,617.50
Local Board Discretionary Capital Fund	355,230	113,000	242,230

4. Following an expressions of interest process and the identification of local board initiatives, the board allocated $298,022 of funding at its business meeting on 15 December 2015. Capital expenditure from the Local Board Discretionary Capital Fund accounts for $113,000 being spent, and Community Grants expenditure accounts for $143,022. Parks Response Fund expenditure accounts for $27,000, and Business North Harbour was allocated $15,000 from the Planning and Economic Development Response Fund.

5. The details of which are listed below:

Organisation/ individual name	Project	Funding category	Amount allocated ($)
Local Board Initiative	Sanders Reserve - Faraway Tree sign	Capital	3,000
Local Board Initiative	Gills Reserve – 60 metre concrete walkway to link to pedestrian bridge from Hooton Reserve	Capital	7,000
Local Board Initiative	Durbin Park – seat	Capital	3,000
Local Board Initiative	Sanders Reserve – metal on the footpaths	Capital	20,000
Local Board Initiative	Hugh Green Drive – playground upgrade to cater for smaller children	Capital	60,000
Local Board Initiative	Unsworth Heights – 3 on 3 basketball court	Capital	20,000
Local Board Initiative	Albany Domain – work stage 2	Parks Response Fund	2,000
Local Board Initiative	Additional maintenance of reserve planting per annum	Parks Response Fund	20,000
Local Board Initiative	Redesign and reprint of the Upper Harbour walking guides	Parks Response Fund	5,000
Albany CoCo	Replacement chairs for Albany Hall	Community Grants	1,472
Albany CoCo	Underfloor insulation	Community Grants	1,595
Greenhithe Resident and Ratepayer Association	Renovation of the Greenhithe Community Hall	Community Grants	45,000
Harbour Badminton	Painting of the outside of the buidling	Community Grants	20,000
Hobsonville West Harbour Resident and Ratepayer Association	Contribution towards Hobsonville Community Hall Insurance	Community Grants	3,000
Hobsonville Community Trust	Community noticeboard	Community Grants	5,500
North Harbour Softball Association	Slowpitch helmets and catchers masks to assist with the growth of the slowpitch league	Community Grants	2,855
Rosedale Pony Club	Repair and replace a roof over the club’s storage container	Community Grants	3,000
Rosedale Pony Club	Full replacement of the surface of one of the riding arenas	Community Grants	15,000
Rosedale Pony Club	The cost of an ambulance for an inter-pony club event	Community Grants	600
Tennis Northern	Annual operational grant	Community Grants	30,000
Tennis Northern	Replace guttering along the entire northern aspect of the main building and along the entrance porch-way on the eastern aspect	Community Grants	10,000
Whenuapai Resident and Ratepayer Association	Contribution towards hall insurance and operating costs	Community Grants	5,000
Business North Harbour	Business Improvement District expansion ballot process	Planning and Economic Development	15,000
Total			298,022

6. Following the Expression of Interest funding round at the 15 December 2015 board meeting, funds were awarded without an obvious category for some items. Therefore, the consolidation of funding categories is proposed to increase the clarity of reporting.

7. It is recommended the board agree to consolidate the Local Discretionary Community Grants, Regional Grants allocated to LDI and Community Response Fund budget lines. This category has been named Local Discretionary Community Grants. All other categories remain unchanged.

8. The Community Response Fund also primarily existed to fund an opening ceremony for the Albany Stadium Pool which will no longer open this financial year. Consolidating this into the Local Discretionary Community Grants funding line allows more clarity on how much discretionary funding is remaining.

9. If the board agrees to the recommended consolidation of funding lines, the board’s status of discretionary expenditure would look as follows:

	Current			Proposed
Fund	Total available in 2015/16	Amount spent	Balance remaining	Shifted to	Amount shifted	New balance
Fund	($)	($)	($)		($)	($)
Local Discretionary Community Grants	114,000	92,431	21,569	n/a	44,000	65,569
Local Events Contestable Fund	77,000	54,200	22,800	n/a	n/a	22,800
Regional Grants allocated to Locally Driven Initiatives (LDI)	114,000	105,000	9,000	Local Discretionary Community Grants	-9,000	0
Community Response Fund	50,000	15,000	35,000	Local Discretionary Community Grants	-35,000	0
Parks, Sports and Recreation Response Fund	103,000	27,000	76,000	n/a	n/a	76,000
Environment Response Fund	35,000	0	35,000	n/a	n/a	35,000
Planning and Economic Development Response Fund	35,000	21,382.50	13,617.50	n/a	n/a	13,617.50
Local Board Discretionary Capital Fund	355,230	113,000	242,230	n/a	n/a	242,230

Recommendation

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) receive the status of the Upper Harbour Local Board Discretionary Funds for the 2015/2016 financial year report.

b) approve the consolidation of the Local Discretionary Community Grants, Regional Grants Allocated to LDI and the Community Response Fund funding categories into one funding line which will be named Local Discretionary Community Grants for future reporting:

Fund	Total available in 2015/16 ($)	Amount spent ($)	Balance remaining ($)
Local Discretionary Community Grants	278,000	212,431	65,569
Local Events Contestable Fund	77,000	54,200	22,800
Parks, Sports and Recreation Response Fund	103,000	27,000	76,000
Environment Response Fund	35,000	0	35,000
Planning and Economic Development Response Fund	35,000	21,382.50	13,617.50
Local Board Discretionary Capital Fund	355,230	113,000	242,230

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors	Jerome Cameron - Graduate Advisor
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Upper Harbour Local Board

23 February 2016

Governance Forward Work Programme

File No.: CP2016/02133

Purpose

1. To present to the Upper Harbour Local Board with a three month governance forward work calendar.

Executive Summary

2. This report introduces the governance forward work calendar. This is a schedule of items that will come before the board at business meetings on a monthly basis and provide the board with an overview of work planned for the coming three months. The governance forward work calendar for your board is included in Attachment A.

3. The calendar aims to support local boards’ governance role by:

· ensuring advice on agendas is driven by local board priorities;

· clarifying what advice is required and when; and

· clarifying the rationale for reports.

4. The monthly updated calendar will be reported back to business meetings and distributed to relevant council staff. It is recognised that at times items will arise that are not programmed.

Recommendation/s

That the Upper Harbour Local Board:

a) note the attached Governance Forward Work Calendar.

Comments

5. Auckland Council’s Quality Advice Programme aims to improve the focus, analysis, presentation and timeliness of staff advice to elected representatives. An initiative under this is to develop forward work calendars for governing body committees and local boards. These provide elected members with better visibility of the types of governance tasks they are being asked to undertake and when they are scheduled.

6. Although the document is new, there are no new projects in the governance forward work calendar. The calendar brings together in one schedule reporting on all of the board’s projects and activities previously approved in the Local Board Plan, Long-term Plan, departmental work programmes and through other board decisions. It includes governing body policies and initiatives that call for a local board response.

7. This initiative is intended to support the governance role of local boards. It will also help staff to support local boards, as an additional tool to manage workloads and track activities across council departments, and it will allow greater transparency for the public.

8. The calendar is arranged in three columns, ‘Topic’, ‘Purpose’ and ‘Governance Role’:

· ‘Topic’ describes the items and may indicate how they fit in with broader processes such as the annual plan;

· ‘Purpose’ indicates the aim of the item, such as formally approving plans or projects, hearing submissions or receiving progress updates; and

· ‘Governance’ role is a higher-level categorisation of the work local boards do. Examples of the seven governance categories are tabled.

Governance role	Examples
Setting direction/ priorities /budget	Capex projects, work programmes, annual plan
Local initiatives/ specific decisions	Grants, road names, alcohol bans
Input into regional decision-making	Comments on regional bylaws, policies, plans
Oversight and monitoring	Local board agreement, quarterly performance reports, review projects
Accountability to the public	Annual report
Engagement	Community hui, submissions processes
Keeping informed	Briefings, cluster workshops

9. The calendar will be updated and reported back every month to business meetings. Updates will also be distributed to relevant council staff.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

10. All local boards are being presented with governance forward work calendars for their consideration.

Māori impact statement

11. The projects and processes referred to in the governance forward work calendar will have a range of implications for Māori which will be considered when the work is reported.

Implementation

12. Staff will review the calendar each month in consultation with board members and will report an updated calendar to the board.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Governance Forward Work calendar for Upper Harbour Local Board, February 2016	227

Signatories

Authors

Neil Taylor - Senior Local Board Advisor

Kris Munday - Senior Advisor - Local Board Services

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Chairperson	Lisa Whyte
Deputy Chairperson	Brian Neeson, JP
Members	Callum Blair
	John McLean
	Margaret Miles, JP
	Christine Rankin-MacIntyre

Authors	Neda Durdevic - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager

Authors	Karen Marais - Local Board Services
Authorisers	Eric Perry - Relationship Manager