Agenda of Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

Portfolio	Description	Local Board Members
Local planning, policy and governance	Relationship with governing body, Chairs meeting, protocols, code of conduct, local area plans, structure plans, Unitary Plan, RUB, plan changes	Julia Parfitt –Chairperson Greg Sayers - Deputy Chairperson
Arts and culture	Arts centres, art programmes	Greg Sayers – Lead Julia Parfitt -Alternate
Events	General oversight of events programme music in parks, movies in parks	Greg Sayers and Julia Parfitt
Community services and facilities	Community development and safety, grants and funding, community facilities, community houses, community leases, Youth Connections	Julia Parfitt –Lead Janet Fitzgerald - Alternate
Youth	Local board Youth Forum, Youth Representative	Lovisa Rasmussen – Lead Gaye Harding-Kirkiri - Alternate
Libraries		Lisa Whyte –Lead Gaye Harding-Kirkiri - Alternate
Recreation services	Pools, multi-sport facilities	Gaye Harding-Kirkiri – Lead Lisa Whyte - Alternate
Parks	Reserve management plans, park usage, leasing on parks, liaison with parks staff on land owner approval	David Cooper –Lead Julia Parfitt –Alternate Janet Fitzgerald – Lead Lovisa Rasmussen - Alternate
Built and natural environment	Heritage, infrastructure (including stormwater, wastewater, water), environmental programmes, conservation and biodiversity, biosecurity, waste minimisation	Janet Fitzgerald – Lead Julia Parfitt - Alternate
Economic Development	Economic development plans, developing ATEED relationship, broadband	Gary Holmes – Lead Gaye Harding-Kirkiri -Alternate
Street environment and town centres	Gateways and mainstreet upgrades, Urban design champion	David Cooper and Gary Holmes – Leads Janet Fitzgerald -Alternate
Transport		David Cooper – Lead Gary Holmes – Alternate Janet Fitzgerald – Lead Greg Sayers - Alternate
Regulatory, bylaws and compliance	Bylaw policy feedback	Gaye Harding-Kirkiri -Lead Julia Parfitt -Alternate
Resource consent applications	Input into notification decisions for resource consent applications	Gary Holmes – Lead Janet Fitzgerald - Alternate
Communications and engagement	Media, stakeholder and community engagement including iwi relationships, Hibiscus and Bays Youth Voice and YAP	Julia Parfitt – Lead Lovisa Rasmussen -Alternate
Finance	Budget overview, financial prudence and reporting, local board funding policy	Lisa Whyte – Lead Julia Parfitt - Alternate
Civil defence/ emergency management		David Cooper –Lead Greg Sayers -Alternate
Urban Design Champion		Gary Holmes – Lead Janet Fitzgerald - Alternate

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

16 March 2016

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 Welcome 5

2 Apologies 5

3 Declaration of Interest 5

4 Confirmation of Minutes 5

5 Leave of Absence 5

6 Acknowledgements 5

7 Petitions 5

8 Deputations 5

8.1 Community Gardens 5

8.2 Hibiscus Coast Branch of Forest and Bird Society 5

9 Public Forum 6

9.1 Gum Trees Titan Place/Hibiscus Coast Highway, Silverdale 6

10 Extraordinary Business 6

11 Notices of Motion 7

12 Disposal recommendation report 9

13 Landowner approval for restoration of D’Oyly Reserve, Stanmore Bay, for offset purposes 19

14 Draft Business Improvement District Policy (2016) – local board feedback 31

15 Community Led Small Build Programme 173

16 Approve Funding for a Survey of Whangaparaoa Businesses 179

17 Feedback on the Draft Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Plan 181

18 Local government elections - order of names on voting documents 251

19 Local Government New Zealand Conference and AGM 2016 263

20 Governance Forward Work Calendar 271

21 Ward Councillors Update 277

22 Local Board Members Reports 279

23 Record of Workshop Meetings 281

24 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

25 Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public 287

C1 Acquisition of land for public walkway - Long Bay 287

1 Welcome

2 Apologies

An apology from Member GR Holmes has been received.

3 Declaration of Interest

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

4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Wednesday, 17 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 Hibiscus and Bays Local Board. This means that details relating to deputations can be included in the published agenda. Total speaking time per deputation is ten minutes or as resolved by the meeting.

8.1 Community Gardens

Mr Kirk Lee has requested a deputation to discuss the concept of community gardens.

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) Thank Mr Lee for his presentation.

8.2 Hibiscus Coast Branch of Forest and Bird Society

Ms Anne Graham has requested a deputation to make a presentation on the Hibiscus Coast branch of Forest and Bird Society.

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) thank Ms Graham for her presentation

9 Public Forum

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

9.1 Gum Trees Titan Place/Hibiscus Coast Highway, Silverdale

Mrs Lorraine Sampson will be in attendance to discuss the gum trees on Titan Place/Hibiscus Coast Highway, Silverdale

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) Thank Mrs Sampson for her presentation.

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.

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

16 March 2016

Disposal recommendation report

File No.: CP2016/00056

Purpose

1. This report seeks the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board’s endorsement for Panuku Development Auckland (Panuku) to recommend the divestment of two council owned properties located at 601 Beach Road, Rothesay Bay and 19 Anzac Road, Browns Bay.

Executive Summary

2. The first property presented in this report is a small landlocked site located at 601 Beach Road, Rothesay Bay that houses public toilet facilities. Easements provide legal access to this property. The adjacent property is being redeveloped and the owners wish to have the easements removed to maximise its commercial redevelopment, and will provide new public toilet facilities as part of its commercial development. Part of 601 Beach Road is required for a service lane. The balance of the property will no longer be required for public toilets once the new facilities are provided in the new commercial development. The rationalisation process for this site commenced in May 2015. Consultation with council and its council controlled organsiations (CCOs), Iwi authorities and the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board has now taken place. No alternative service uses have been identified for this property through the rationalisation process and the feedback received has been supportive of the proposed divestment of this site. Due to this, Panuku recommends disposal of the balance of this site not required for a service lane.

3. The second property presented in this report, 19 Anzac Road, Browns Bay, is 952m²car park, which is the purpose for which it was acquired. Auckland Transport declared this property surplus to its requirements in 2015. The rationalisation process for this site commenced in August 2015. Consultation with council and its CCOs, Iwi authorities and the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board has now taken place. No alternative service uses have been identified for this property through the rationalisation process. Due to this, Panuku recommends disposal of the balance of this site not required for a service lane.

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) endorse the proposed disposal of 601 Beach Road, Rothesay Bay

b) endorse the proposed disposal of 19 Anzac Road, Browns Bay.

Comments

4. Panuku and the Auckland Council Corporate Finance and Property team 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.

5. Once a property has been identified as potentially surplus, Panuku 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.

Property information – 601 Beach Road, Rothesay Bay

6. 601 Beach Road, Rothesay Bay is a 334m² site that has a 2014 capital valuation of $110,000. It was acquired by the East Coast Bays Borough Council in 1964 for public bathroom facilities and has continued to be used for this purpose. Easements provide legal access to this otherwise landlocked parcel of land.

7. An adjacent property is being redeveloped and the owners, 589 Beach Road Limited, have enquired with council about removing the easements to maximise the development. The proposed removal of the easements will render the subject property inaccessible. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board agreed in June 2013 to the closure of public toilet facilities at 601 Beach Road on the condition new public toilets are included in the new commercial development on the adjacent property. An agreement for the surrender of the easement has been signed by 589 Beach Road Limited and Auckland Council. The relocation of the public toilet facilities to the adjacent property will result in 601 Beach Road, Rothesay Bay no longer being required for the purpose for which it was acquired and held for.

8. However part of 601 Beach Road, Rothesay Bay is required for a service lane and approval has already been given under delegated authority to declare approximately 110m² to be road (service lane).

9. The rationalisation process commenced in May 2015 for the balance of land at 601 Beach Road not required for the service lane (being approximately 224m²). An expression of interest was received from Watercare Services Limited during the internal consultation process, stating that a wastewater pipeline runs through the land and an easement in favour of Watercare is required to ensure access to pipes. No alternative service uses were identified during the internal consultation stage of the rationalisation process.

10. The Heritage team was invited prior to the internal consultation process to raise any archaeological issues. The Closed Landfills and Contaminated Land Response team were also asked to assess this site prior to the internal consultation commencing to ensure any possible contamination issues were identified. No issues were raised. The internal consultation process also provided the Maori Strategy and Relations team the opportunity to flag any issue that is of particular relevance to Maori. No issues were raised.

11. The results of the rationalisation process to date indicate that the balance of 601 Beach Road, Rothesay Bay not needed for road is not required for current or future service requirements. As such, Panuku Development Auckland recommends that this site be divested. Due to the size, shape and landlocked nature of this property, it could only be disposed of to an adjoining landowner.

12. 601 Beach Road, Rothesay Bay is held for a public work as set out in the Public Works Act 1981. However, it would be impracticable for the land to be offered back to the former owners in accordance with the offer back obligations set out in section 40, Public Works Act as the former owner is a registered company that no longer exists, having been struck off the register in August 1990.

Property information – 19 Anzac Road, Browns Bay

13. 19 Anzac Road, Browns Bay is a 952m² site that has a 2014 capital valuation of $950,000. 19 Anzac Road was originally a 1,037m² site that was acquired by the East Coast Bays City Council in 1977 for car parking purposes. In 2015, Council provided consent (at the request of Auckland Transport) for 85m² to be declared road pursuant to section 114 of the Public Works Act 1981. A gazette notice declaring an 85m² to be road was subsequently registered against the previous title and a new title was issued for the balance of the land. The balance of 19 Anzac Road forms the subject site, and has been the subject of the rationalisation process.

14. 19 Anzac Road, Browns Bay is formed and utilised as a car park. However it was not designated as a car park under the North Shore District Plan. It is also not subject to a proposed car parking designation in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. In 2015, Auckland Transport’s Board declared this site surplus to Auckland Transport’s service requirements.

15. The rationalisation process for 19 Anzac Road, Browns Bay commenced in August 2015. No alternative service uses were identified during the internal consultation stage of the rationalisation process. The Heritage team was invited prior to the internal consultation process to raise any archaeological issues. The Closed Landfills and Contaminated Land Response team were also asked to assess this site prior to the internal consultation commencing to ensure any possible contamination issues were identified. No issues were raised. The internal consultation process also provided the Maori Strategy and Relations team the opportunity to flag any issue that is of particular relevance to Maori. No issues were raised.

16. The results of the rationalisation process to date indicate that 19 Anzac Road, Browns Bay is not required for current or future service requirements. As such, Panuku Development Auckland recommends that this site be divested.

17. Given this property is currently formed as a carpark, disposal options to ensure that the amenity value of the car park is not lost to the Browns Bay community will be investigated if this property is approved for disposal. Foodstuffs have approached Panuku expressing an interest in purchasing this property and continuing to use it as a car park for its adjacent New World store. This option would minimise the loss of amenity value to the community and can be explored further should the property be approved for disposal by the governing body.

18. This site is subject to the offer back obligations set out in section 40 of the Public Works Act 1981 if it is no longer required for the public work for which it was acquired and held, and is not required for any other public work. However, an exemption is likely to apply due to the significant change in the character of the property as a result of the public work (being the car park) for which it was acquired and held. This will need to be confirmed under appropriate delegation if the property is approved for disposal.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

19. Panuku attended a workshop with the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board about both of these properties in October 2015.

20. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board provided informal feedback that it is supportive of the proposed divestment of 601 Beach Road, Rothesay Bay.

21. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board raised concerns regarding the loss of the amenity value to the community if 19 Anzac Road, Browns Bay is disposed of. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board also requested Auckland Transport review its’ decision about no longer requiring this site.

22. Panuku raised these concerns with Auckland Transport, which confirmed that it no longer requires 19 Anzac Road, Browns Bay. To mitigate the loss of amenity value of the car park to the Browns Bay community, Panuku will explore disposal options that involve the property remaining a car park should this property be approved for disposal.

23. This report provides the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board with an opportunity to formalise its view regarding both of the subject properties.

Māori impact statement

601 Beach Road, Rothesay Bay

24. 14 iwi authorities were contacted regarding the potential sale of 601 Beach Road, Rothesay Bay on 3 June 2015. The following feedback was received; noting that some feedback received is commercially sensitive and cannot be included in this report.

a) Ngāti Wai

No feedback received for this site.

b) Ngāti Manuhiri

No feedback received for this site.

c) Te Runanga o Ngāti Whatua

No site specific feedback received for this site, noting that as per earlier conversations with Te Runanga representatives, it is understood that any cultural significance considerations will be raised at hapū level and that all Ngāti Whatua hapū have been contacted about properties in their rohe.

d) Ngāti Whatua o Kaipara

Ngāti Whatua o Kaipara has confirmed their focus on interests in the north west of Tāmaki Makaurau, with a particular focus on Helensville. They may have commercial interest in this site should it become available for sale.

e) Ngāti Whatua o Orakei

No feedback received for this site.

f) Te Kawerau a Maki

No feedback received for this site.

g) Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki

Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki has drawn attention to their recent settlement and signaled an increased interest in council owned property that may come available for sale in their rohe.

h) Te Ākitai - Waiohua

Te Ākitai has expressed potential commercial interest in this site.

i) Ngāti Te Ata - Waiohua

No site specific feedback received for this site; however Ngāti Te Ata has expressed general cultural interest across Tāmaki Makaurau, has potential commercial interest in any council owned land that comes available for sale in their rohe and notes specific association with the south western area of Auckland, focusing around Manukau and the western coastline.

j) Ngāti Paoa

Ngāti Paoa has reinforced their desire to be kept in the loop for property disposals.

k) Ngaati Whanaunga

No feedback received for this site.

l) Ngāti Maru

No feedback received for this site.

m) Ngāti Tamatera

No feedback received for this site.

n) Patukirikiri

No feedback received for this site.

19 Anzac Road, Browns Bay

25. 14 iwi authorities were contacted regarding the potential sale of 19 Anzac Road, Browns Bay between 18 and 21 September 2015. The following feedback was received; noting that some feedback received is commercially sensitive and cannot be included in this report.

o) Ngāti Wai

No feedback received for this site

p) Ngāti Manuhiri

No feedback received for this site

q) Te Runanga o Ngāti Whatua

r) Ngāti Whatua o Kaipara

Ngāti Whatua o Kaipara has confirmed their focus on interests in the north west of Tāmaki Makaurau, with a particular focus on Helensville. They may have potential commercial interest in this site.

s) Ngāti Whatua o ōrākei

Ngāti Whatua ōrākei has expressed potential commercial interest in this site.

t) Te Kawerau a Maki

Te Kawerau a Maki has expressed potential commercial interest in this site.

u) Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki

Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki has drawn attention to their recent settlement and signaled an increased interest in council owned property that may come available for sale in their rohe.

v) Te ākitai - Waiohua

Te ākitai has expressed potential commercial interest in this site.

w) Ngāti Te Ata - Waiohua

x) Ngāti Paoa

Ngāti Paoa has reinforced their desire to be kept in the loop for property disposals.

y) Ngaati Whanaunga

No feedback received for this site.

z) Ngāti Maru

Ngāti Maru stated the site is of spiritual and cultural importance to Ngāti Maru and expressed a strong desire to explore the purchase of this site should it become available for sale.

aa) Ngāti Tamatera

No feedback received for this site.

bb) Patukirikiri

No feedback received for this site.

Implementation

26. Not applicable.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Images of 601 Beach Road, Rothesay Bay	15
b View	Images of 19 Anzac Road, Browns Bay	17

Signatories

Authors

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

Authorisers

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

Lesley Jenkins – Relationship Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

16 March 2016

Landowner approval for restoration of D’Oyly Reserve, Stanmore Bay, for offset purposes

File No.: CP2016/03987

Purpose

1. To seek in-principle support and landowner approval from the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board for daylighting of the historical stream running through D’Oyly Reserve, Stanmore Bay, for the purposes of stream offset requirements (and associated amenity enhancement).

Executive Summary

2. Efficient development of 8 Link Crescent (family centre site) and 20 Link Crescent (housing development site), Stanmore Bay, will result in an unavoidable loss of streams and wetlands. Through the consent process, these more than minor unavoidable effects on freshwater will require to be offset through enhancement of streams and wetlands elsewhere, preferably as close as possible to the impacted properties.

3. The currently piped stream in D’Oyly Reserve presents an ideal opportunity for meeting these offset requirements. The 250m of reserve just upstream of the Stormwater dam wall would cater for all stream and wetland offset requirements as a result of development at 8 and 20 Link Crescent.

4. The remainder of D’Oyly Reserve may also provide offset opportunities for additional offset requirements due to future stream or wetland loss. It is inherently difficult to find suitable offset mitigation sites within the short timeframes allowed within consenting processes (often resulting in suboptimal outcomes). Restoration of streams in advance of offset requirements provides an opportunity for more efficient consenting processes and better ecological outcomes.

5. This project will contribute to the local board’s outcome of “a protected and enhanced environment” – the offset proposal would result in a net gain in ecological function and stormwater treatment.

6. The costs associated with the ecological offset mitigation requirements as a result of the proposed subdivision at 20 Link Crescent will be met by Panuku and Stormwater. Depending on the extent of additional amenity identified through the consultation with the wider community, Stormwater and Panuku will be looking for contributions from the wider council family.

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) In-principle support the project

b) Delegate to the Manager Parks North authority to grant landowner approval for the proposed restoration of the stream at D’Oyly Reserve subject to a complete parks assessment, public consultation, and detailed design.

Comments

7. D’Oyly Reserve currently comprises mown parkland on top of what was historically a stream environment. The reserve has negligible ecological value and no formalised recreational opportunities (with limited passive and active amenity). The reserve is primarily used for its lawn areas, although this use is restricted due to boggy conditions in winter. In addition to low grade slopes through the reserve which inhibit effective drainage, the stormwater pipe running beneath D’Oyly Reserve has a relatively small capacity, and surcharges from this pipe end up flowing through the reserve within an overland flow path, contributing to wet conditions.

8. It is proposed to return the piped stream to the surface by bringing the water within the pipe, which is fed by a relatively large upstream catchment, into a reinstated natural stream bed. The stream channel would be designed to have sufficient capacity to convey natural flows, and suitable riparian margins would be established to create an ecologically sound and attractive stream environment. Both passive and active amenity opportunities (potentially including cycleways, lawn play areas, park ‘furniture’, outdoor classrooms, view points, and walkways) would be integrated into the design, taking into account local board, parks, and community needs (including local schools). Opportunities for improving water quality would be integrated into the design through wetland creation, which would serve a dual purpose (to offset wetland loss and ‘polish’ stormwater flows).

9. Once the restoration works are consented (based on high level conceptual design), Panuku Development Auckland and the Stormwater Department (in collaboration) would undertake further consultation to ensure the final design satisfies all required outcomes. This would include consultation with the local board, parks advisors, stormwater specialists, Environmental Services, iwi, local schools, and any other parties that require being included. Initial discussions with iwi, parks, stormwater and environmental services have been positive. The stormwater flood mitigation function of the reserve would be retained.

10. The scope of work would at minimum comprise the downstream 250m of D’Oyly Reserve up to the existing stormwater dam wall (this area would cater for offset requirements as a result of stream and wetland loss at 8 and 20 Link Crescent). However, design and consent work will also consider the remainder of D’Oyly Reserve, so that these areas may also be improved (subject to discussions with Watercare regarding their wastewater pipelines running through the reserve).

11. The project is an opportunity for improvement of a council and community asset (D’Oyly Reserve), which would otherwise not take place due to significant costs. The proposed changes would create a public space more in line with the current land use of the reserve, which comprises active open space.

12. The project aligns with national and regional policy, including the National Policy Statement for Freshwater management (2014), Auckland Plan, Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, Auckland Biodiversity Strategy, and the draft Stormwater Unit Strategic Direction.

13. The project is a great opportunity for exploring public–private partnering, enabling sensible growth in the region by working together across council and with external stakeholders.

14. The costs associated with the ecological offset mitigation requirements as a result of the proposed subdivision at 20 Link Crescent will be met by Panuku and Stormwater. Depending on the extent of additional amenity identified through the consultation with the wider community, stormwater and Panuku will be looking for contributions from the wider council family.

15. Stormwater and Panuku would appreciate the opportunity to attend an inspection of the site with the local board members to explain the preliminary concepts further and obtain early feedback on design.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

16. This report seeks that the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a. In-principle support the project, and

b. Delegate to the Manager Parks North authority to grant landowner approval for the proposed restoration of the stream at D’Oyly Reserve subject to a complete parks assessment, public consultation, and detailed design.

Maori impact statement

17. The importance of effective communication and engagement with Māori on the subject of land is understood. In particular natural environment protection and water quality are of significant importance to Mana Whenua in their role as kaitiaki. Panuku Development (Panuku), previously Auckland Council Properties Limited (ACPL) accordingly developed a robust form of engagement with mana whenua groups across the region and contacts these groups for feedback and input whenever there is change considered for a Panuku managed property.

18. There are thirteen mana whenua hapū with registered interests in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area. Consultation with these groups on the proposed development at 20 Link Crescent, Whangaparaoa commenced through Panuku’s predecessor in March 2014. Contact was made with mandated representatives from the iwi authorities for these groups to gain feedback around the proposed residential and open space development on the site. Consultation included feedback around potential location for the planned family centre.

19. Representatives from Ngati Maru, Ngati Manuhiri and Te Kawerau a Maki became involved in providing input in the project at that time. Mana whenua commentary and queries on water source, water management and ecological values of the land at 20 Link Crescent, Whangaparaoa has been worked into planning for the site. The off-site mitigation plan for D’Oyly Reserve has been a result of collaborative work with these three groups.

20. An update on consultation since March 2014, and an outline of the D’Oyly Reserve off-site mitigation plan was provided to all thirteen mana whenua hapu in December 2015. Ngai Tai ki Tamaki signalled their interest in becoming involved in further planning for these sites at that time. The initial discussion with the Ngati Manuhiri representative in December highlighted again the importance of water quality, a desire to provide input as to the design and selection of plants, ability for Maori organisations to provide competitive bids for the supply of the plants and planting and the opportunity that the works could provide educational merits.

21. Site visits and further discussion with all interested groups is planned in February 2016. Collaborative work will continue through the design and implementation of the project plan. Interested groups include at minimum the local board, parks, environmental services, stormwater and iwi. Further consultation will include workshops, focus group meetings, and the establishment of a steering group (which will include the above parties).

22. Panuku and the stormwater team (in collaboration with the other infrastructure and environment staff as required) will manage the community engagement with the Stanmore Bay Primary School, adjoining residents and interested parties and will provide regular updates to the local board.

Implementation

23. Panuku Development Auckland and the Stormwater Department, in collaboration, will regularly report on the implementation of this project through the quarterly performance report update, with progress reported to the steering group every two months. Any significant changes to this project will be brought back to the local board for approval.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Concept Plans	23

Signatories

Authors	Wolfgang Kanz – Senior Stormwater Specialist
Authorisers	Craig McIlroy – General Manager Stormwater

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

16 March 2016

Draft Business Improvement District Policy (2016) – local board feedback

File No.: CP2016/02166

Purpose

1. To invite local boards to provide formal feedback on the draft Business Improvement District (BID) Policy (2016).

Executive Summary

2. In the council’s May 2015 Budget Committee approved a review of the BID policy to be undertaken in collaboration with business improvement districts and local boards. The committee also approved a new service delivery model for Auckland Council’s BID programme team. Both need to be operational by 1 July 2016, as per resolution number BUD/2015/62.

3. The primary objective for reviewing the 2011 policy is to clarify and confirm the roles, responsibilities and accountability required for each of the partner groups that have a key role in delivering the Auckland BID Programme. The review is required, as there will be significant changes to the roles of the different partner groups, as part of the move to the new service delivery model. BID Policy (2016) project scope does not include a review of the principles of having a BID programme.

4. BID programmes are based on Auckland Council collecting a targeted rate for core funding – collected using powers under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. They are represented by business associations, which are independent incorporated societies sitting outside Auckland Council. Local boards have the primary relationship with business associations operating BID programmes in their area.

5. The council’s Regional Strategy and Policy Committee in December 2015 approved the draft policy for consultation (resolution number REG/2015/103).

6. The BID Policy (2016) includes two separate but linked parts:

· Part 1 – Policy – sets the rules “the what to do”

· Part 2 - Policy Operating Standards – “the how to do”

7. Business associations operating existing BID programmes, local boards and stakeholders have had opportunities to input into the development of BID Policy (2016).

8. Local boards are now being invited to provide formal feedback on a revised draft policy (attachment A the policy and attachment B the operating standards).

9. Feedback from local boards will help shape the further development of BID Policy (2016). It would be, however, particularly useful to get local board views on a number of matters outlined below:

i. Are local boards’ roles and responsibilities clear in respect of BID programmes?

ii. Do you agree that BID programmes below $100k target rate income per annum should (normally) have audited financial accounts every two financial years to reduce costs for smaller BID programmes?

iii. Do you consider that the processes outlined to handle problems, issues and serious concerns are fair to all parties and provide enough clarity?

10. Officers are working to ensure that the policy aligns with Auckland Council’s Māori Responsiveness Framework and are in contact with the Independent Maori Statutory Board to discuss relevant opportunities to leverage the Auckland BID Programme.

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) Provides feedback on the draft Business Improvement District Policy (2016).

Comments

BID programmes

11. BID programmes are based on Auckland Council collecting a targeted rate to provide core funding to business associations using powers under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. The business associations, which are independent incorporated societies sitting outside Auckland Council, deliver the BID programmes.

12. BID programmes are established to develop local business prosperity and local economic development. They are defined by a partnership agreement between each business association and Auckland Council, in which both parties agree to operate within the BID Policy.

13. Local boards have the primary relationship with business associations operating BID programmes in their area including:

i. As collaboration partners – local boards and business associations have a vested interest in a particular place and share similar goals. Working collaboratively will achieve greater outcomes.

ii. As governors – local boards have significant decision-making responsibly for BID programmes, including recommending to the governing body to strike a BID programme target rate and around BID programme establishments, expansions amalgamations and disputes.

BID Policy (2016)

14. The Council’s Budget Committee in May 2015 approved a review of the BID policy to be undertaken in collaboration with business improvement districts and local boards. The committee also approved a new service delivery model for the Auckland Council BID programme team. Both need to be operational by 1 July 2016, as per resolution number BUD/2015/62.

15. The primary objective for reviewing the 2011 policy is to clarify and confirm the roles, responsibilities and accountability required for each of the partner groups that have a key role in delivering the Auckland BID Programme. The review is required, as there will be significant changes to the roles of the different partner groups, as part of the move to the new service delivery model. BID Policy (2016) project scope does not include a review of the principles of having a BID programme.

16. The BID Policy (2016) establishes the rules and responsibilities of the Auckland BID Programme. It will replace the Auckland Region Business Improvement District Policy (2011), from the date of adoption by Auckland Council.

17. The BID Policy (2016) includes two separate but linked parts:

· Part 1 – Policy – sets the rules “the what to do”

· Part 2 - Policy Operating Standards – “the how to do”.

18. The Council’s Regional Strategy and Policy Committee in December 2015 approved the draft policy for consultation (resolution number REG/2015/103). Business associations operating BID programmes were invited to provide feedback on the draft policy by 18 December 2015.

Consultation to date

19. The consultation process commenced in September 2015 and partners and stakeholders have had a number of opportunities to provide feedback.

20. Business associations (operating BID programmes) have been invited to attend a number of workshops in September and November 2015 to discuss the key themes for policy change and the draft policy. Sixteen separate written submissions on the draft policy were received by business associations by the 18 December 2015 deadline.

21. Key sector and industry groups that are represented in BID programme areas and subject matter experts have been asked for feedback on the draft policy. Feedback has been received from Independent Election Services and the Property Institute.

22. Other stakeholders have indicated that they will provide feedback in the next few weeks. Feedback from stakeholders will be incorporated into the revised draft policy.

Differences between BID Policy 2011 and 2016 and feedback received

23. There are a number of key themes for policy change that have helped shape the development of the draft BID Policy (2016). The themes have been discussed as part of the consultation process with local boards, business associations operating BID programmes and key stakeholders. The table below provides details of the key themes for change between the 2011 and 2016 policies, feedback received and the draft policy response to this feedback.

Key themes for change, feedback received and draft policy response

Key themes for change	Differences between 2011 and 2016	Feedback received and response
Clarify and confirm partner roles	Clearer definitions of the roles of each of the key Auckland BID Programme partners	Feedback: · Business associations concerned about the stated local board delegations Draft policy response: Added wording to clarify the overall intent of these delegations - there should be a focus on creating a collaborative and aspirational relationship between a local board and a business association operating a BID programme · Feedback from local boards and local board services team that some of the draft responsibilities of local board representatives on BID programme boards were not appropriate Draft policy response: Draft roles amended to reflect feedback received.
Accountability - keep full financial audits or proportional relating to size of BID (target rate)	Audits for all BID programmes must report on areas of financial control	Feedback: Business associations were overall in favour of keeping audits. Mixed feedback from local boards - a majority keen to keep audits but others requesting a financial review or proportional requirement to BID programme size. Draft policy response: keep audits but: · BID programmes with target rate income of $100,000 per annum or greater - audits every financial year · BID programmes with a target rate income under $100,000 per annum – audits every two financial years - subject to no serious concerns from previous audit.
Resolution of issues	Clearer definition of issues, concerns and the processes to resolve	Feedback: Concern from a number of business associations that the policy steps too soon into intervention by Auckland Council Draft policy response: Relevant sections in both parts of the policy have been re-written to provide a staged response with a significant number of steps before Auckland Council would consider intervention in the management of the BID programme.
Rating mechanisms -Increasing baseline for new BID programmes	The minimum required for a new BID programme establishment is increased from $50,000 to $120,000 (target rate only)	Feedback: BID programmes were overall in favour of increasing the baseline. Mixed feedback from local boards - some agreed with increasing the minimum but others thought that it would disadvantage smaller and/or less prosperous business areas. Draft policy response: Ideal minimum changed to $120,000 but still with the option to explore new BID programme establishment for proposed target rates less than this on a case-by-case basis (subject to the BID programme proponents meeting establishment criteria outlined in Policy Operating Standards).

Local board feedback on BID Policy (2016)

24. Local boards have provided some feedback at the 19 workshops during September and October 2015 on the key themes of accountability, new BID programme establishment and programme leverage.

25. Local boards are now being asked to provide formal feedback on a revised draft policy (attachment A the policy and attachment B the operating standards).

26. Feedback from local boards will help shape the further development of BID Policy (2016). It would be, however, particularly useful to get local board views on a number of matters outlined below:

i. Are local boards’ roles and responsibilities clear in respect of BID programmes?

ii. Do you agree that BID programmes below $100k target rate income per annum should (normally) have audited financial accounts every two financial years to reduce costs for smaller BID programmes?

iii. Do you consider that the processes outlined to handle problems, issues and serious concerns are fair to all parties and provide enough clarity?

Next steps

27. Feedback from local boards, external stakeholders and any further feedback from business associations (operating BID programmes) will be reviewed by officers and this will help inform the further development of the policy. Officers will then hold a second joint workshop with Regional Strategy and Policy Committee members and local board chairpersons and/or ED portfolio holders in mid-April, before seeking approval of the final draft version of the policy at the 5 May 2016 committee meeting.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

28. The consultation process commenced in September 2015 and local boards have had a number of opportunities to provide feedback including:

· A memo was sent to local board members and councillors on 16 September 2015 outlining the purpose and proposed process for developing the policy.

· Following the memo, officers provided a briefing to the Local Board Chair’s Forum on 28 September 2015.

· During September and October 2015, officers attended 19 local board workshops to seek feedback on the proposed key themes for policy change.

· The draft BID Policy (2016) was workshopped with members of the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee, local board chairs and local board economic development portfolio holders on 5 November 2015. This workshop provided a progress update and outlined the feedback received from both BID programmes and local boards to date.

· A second memo was sent to local board members on 1 December 2015, providing an update on the policy development process, attaching the draft BID Policy (2016) and a summary of local board and business association feedback to date.

Māori impact statement

29. Officers are working with Te Waka Angamua to ensure that the BID Policy (2016) aligns with the Auckland Council’s Māori Responsiveness Framework.

30. Officers are in contact with the Independent Māori Statutory Board to discuss the policy and opportunities to leverage the Auckland BID Programme.

31. Paragraph 1.9 of the BID Policy 2016 (part 1) outlines the potential to leverage the Auckland BID Programme under the new operational model, working initially within Auckland Council to identify potential opportunities. For example, this could include working closely with key stakeholders and business associations to investigate and pilot opportunities to provide assistance to Māori businesses or facilitate Māori economic development.

Implementation

32. The BID (Policy) 2016 and the new BID Programme Team service delivery model are intended to become operational on 1 July 2016.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Draft Business Improvement District (BID) Policy 2016 - Part 1	37
b View	Draft Business Improvement District (BID) Policy 2016 - Part 2	79

Signatories

Authors

Stephen Cavanagh - Local Economic Development Adviser

Authorisers

Alastair Cameron - Principal Advisor CCO Governance and External Partnerships

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

16 March 2016

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

16 March 2016

Community Led Small Build Programme

File No.: CP2016/02288

Purpose

1. To provide an update on the implementation of the Community- Led Small Build programme (‘the programme’) and its implications for local boards..

2. For Community Led Small Build projects the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board will have a decision making role in relation to funding of projects or where projects are to be located on land or in a facility where the local board is acting on council’s behalf as land owner or where the local board has delegated decision making.

Executive Summary

3. The programme has been developed following feedback from local boards and community groups on the barriers that communities encounter when trying to progress small build projects for themselves.

4. This initiative aims to support community groups who want to deliver assets for their wider community, examples include changing sheds, connecting paths, public art or refurbished kitchens in community halls. The intention is to support projects that are community priorities and community led, as such at least 80% of the funding or resources need to come from the community with no more than 20% from rate payer sources, for example, local boards Locally Driven Incentives (LDI) Capex or business improvement districts.

5. Projects that do not require funding from local boards will also be eligible. In these cases the local board views will be a factor in deciding whether the project is supported through the programme.

6. For all new applications in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area the local board will be asked for their views on whether the project is consistent with the priorities and preferences of the wider community and on the capability of the community group to deliver. A delegation is requested from the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board to ensure that new applications can be progressed quickly.

7. If the project is planned to be located on land or in a facility where the local board is acting on council’s behalf as the land owner or has delegated decision making on, local board consent will be sought through the standard processes and delegation protocols.

8. When allocating resources council has to balance community led initiatives with their responsibility to all rate payers. For this reason the programme is focused on simple, smaller projects with the majority of funding coming from the community. The criteria are:

· straight forward and standalone projects

· project cost of $250k or less (including valuing in-kind contributions but not including consent fees)

· community contribution (cash or in-kind) of 80% or greater

· the project is agreed between the community group and council staff prior to work commencing (includes technical and health and safety considerations)

· the project creates an asset, usually on land owned or managed by council, that is accessible to the wider community.

9. The support provided by council will include a single point of contact in the new Community Facilities department, a toolkit, consent fees generally covered by council and ongoing maintenance of assets vesting with council. Strategic Brokers in the new Community Empowerment team will also play a key role in working with community groups to build capacity.

10. Implementation of the programme is underway starting with a trial of two community led projects, a bike track in Grey Lynn and a bunkhouse in Whangaparaoa.

11. The programme will be rolled out in full once the initial stages of the pilot projects are evaluated in early 2016. The programme will be evaluated after the first year. The community groups involved and local boards will be asked to provide their feedback as part of that evaluation.

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) receive the update on the Community Led Small Build programme

b) delegates to [X] to provide the local board’s views on new applications for the programme in the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board area.

Comments

12. The programme is aimed at supporting communities who want to deliver assets of value to their wider community. The types of projects that may receive support include paths, public art, refurbished kitchens in a community hall or changing sheds. The programme is not designed to support ongoing operational activities. For example if the proposed project is to build a new community garden this programme could support the building of the garden beds and paths, but not the ongoing use of the garden.

13. The programme will predominantly support initiatives on land owned or managed by council however there may be exceptions for projects on land owned by others. Accessibility by the wider community will be a key factor in considering these exceptions.

14. Council has to balance enabling community initiatives with ensuring use of council resources is providing value to rate payers across Auckland. Projects supported through this programme will not be assessed using council’s usual prioritisation frameworks, such as asset management plans, and so need to be simple, smaller projects with the majority of funding coming from the community. As outlined in the executive summary these are key considerations in setting the following criteria for the programme:

· straight forward and standalone projects

· project cost of $250k or less (including valuing in-kind contributions but not including consent fees)

· community contribution (cash or in-kind) of 80% or greater

· the project is agreed between the community group and council staff prior to work commencing (includes technical and health and safety considerations)

· the project creates an asset that is accessible to the wider community (fees can be charged to cover costs and the asset can be secured when not in use)

15. Projects that require notification during the resource consents process will not be considered straightforward unless the notification requirements are limited and all affected landowners provide their support. The requirement for the project to be standalone refers to it not being a part of a larger project, as this could add complexity to the consenting process and is likely to take total costs beyond the $250k threshold.

16. Community groups may receive funding for their project from local board discretionary funds, other council funds (such as the Waste Minimisation Innovation Fund) or a Business Improvement District, however in total this cannot exceed 20% of the project cost.

17. The support provided by council will include:

· A single point of contact in council (a project co-ordinator)

· A toolkit including procurement guidance, health and safety checklists and community engagement guidance.

· Consent fees covered by council

· Ongoing maintenance of assets vesting with council

18. Projects will go through a simplified project management process with 4 phases – Apply and Assess, Planning, Delivery and Asset Handover/Evaluation. Gateway assessments during these phases will cover issues such as health and safety, technical requirements and consistency with regional policy and plans.

19. Implementation of the programme is underway starting with a trial of two community led projects, a bike track in Grey Lynn and a bunkhouse in Whangaparaoa. The proposed Grey Lynn Pump Track is a sealed all weather bike track at the northern end of Grey Lynn Park. The Waitemata Local Board support the project and may provide funding.

20. The proposed bunkhouse is overflow accommodation for the Peter Snell Youth Village. The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board support the project but are not providing funding and the project is on land not owned or managed by council. The Peter Snell Youth Village bunkhouse is being used in the pilot to test a project that is not on council land. Accessibility is an important factor for projects not on council land, a fee to cover costs can be charged and assets can be secured when not in use. The Peter Snell Youth Village provides facilities to schools, youth clubs and holiday programmes and provides an opportunity to test the accessibility criteria.

21. The Community Facilities Department, established through the Services Reshape, will be responsible for delivery of the Community Led Small Build programme going forward. A Community Led Projects Co-ordinator will be appointed to lead this programme and facilitate the appropriate level of support across council for each project.

22. Early in 2016, once the initial stages of the two pilot projects have been assessed, the programme will be rolled out more broadly across all local board areas. The programme will be trialled for a year to assess its effectiveness in assisting community groups to deliver assets of value. Those community groups involved and local boards will be asked to provide their feedback as part of that evaluation.

23. Local boards will play an important role in community led small build projects including:

Developing the idea with the community group, ensuring that the views of the wider community are considered

· Potentially providing up to 20% funding

· Providing input into the assessment of new applications

· Promoting the initiative, encouraging support and volunteers across the wider community

· Launch activities and supporting ongoing use of the asset

24. Local board input is important to ensure that the right community initiatives are supported. In particular the Waiheke Local Board will be asked to comment on whether a proposed project is consistent with the priorities and preferences of the surrounding community as reflected in the Waiheke Local Board Plan. The capacity of the community group to deliver the project is also a factor that local board input may be asked for.

25. A delegation is requested from the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board for one or more local board members to provide input on new applications. The delegation is aimed at speeding up the progress for community groups with new applications by eliminating delay due to meeting schedules.

26. If Hibiscus and Bays Local Board decide to support a community-led small build initiative with funding this needs to be managed through a separate process and formally approved by the local board. However, to reduce the demands on the community group the accountability report (on final delivery of project) could be used both for the local board funding requirements and the programme.

27. Local boards will be provided with regular updates on projects that are receiving support under the programme including an update on which projects are at application stage, planning stage, delivery stage and asset handover/evaluation.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

28. This programme has been developed based on feedback from community groups and local boards that council needs to ‘get out of the way’ for communities who want to deliver small, straightforward initiatives for themselves.

29. An initial proposed approach was presented to the local board chairpersons on 27 July 2015. Local board chairpersons were generally supportive of the approach although questioned whether the $250,000 limit on project cost and 20% funding limit from council were too low. This feedback will be considered when the programme is evaluated after the first year. The applications for support in the first year will provide an indication of whether the current programme design and criteria is effective in supporting community priorities.

Māori impact statement

30. Community groups wanting to improve outcomes for Māori will be able to access this programme. The Community-Led Projects Co-ordinator can organise access to expertise within council to support the community group to achieve their goal.

31. Where any aspects of a proposed project are anticipated to have a significant impact on sites of importance to mana whenua, appropriate consultation will follow, led by the Resource Consents team.

Implementation

32. This programme is aligned with the community empowerment model being implemented by council. Strategic brokers will play an important role in promoting use of the programme and building the capacity and capability of community groups to deliver small build initiatives.

33. The community group leading a project under the programme is responsible for the delivery of the project; however to different degrees they will be reliant on input from council staff. Simple projects will predominantly be delivered by the community group with a low level of reliance on council process. More comprehensive projects will need more project management, technical input and will need to go through the consenting process.

34. Council will endeavour to minimise delay to a Community-Led Small Build project over and above the necessary time required for consents, health and safety, legal and procurement processes.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Karen Titulaer - Senior Project Manager

Authorisers

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

16 March 2016

Approve Funding for a Survey of Whangaparaoa Businesses

File No.: CP2016/02310

Purpose

1. To approve funding for a survey of businesses in the Whangaparaoa area.

Executive Summary

2. Auckland Council Business Improvement District Programme staff have been in discussion with business leaders regarding the future establishment of a Business Improvement District (BID) in Whangaparaoa.

3. Currently there is no business organisation which can take on the responsibilities of a BID.

4. With the leadership of The Plaza management and other businesses in the area, the community has formed a group called “Whangaparaoa 2030” to reach out to the community and map a future direction for Whangaparaoa.

5. With this new initiative to connect with the community, this is an appropriate time to conduct a survey of businesses in Whangaparaoa to provide an evidence base for further initiatives.

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) Approve funding of $23,000 to conduct a survey of businesses in Whangaparaoa, from the 2015/2016 Locally Driven Initiatives budget line “Local Planning and Development – BIDs for Silverdale and Whangaparaoa.”

Comments

6. Council BID staff have met with representatives of the business community over the past year to discuss options for business growth in the Whangaparaoa business district. The BID establishment process would require considerable growth and new capabilities to effectively manage the required process.

7. Currently there is no business association in Whangaparaoa but the business area is increasingly in competition with other centres like Silverdale and Albany. There are concerns that Whangaparaoa may be losing potential businesses and tenants to these other areas.

8. As there is no business association in place, it is not feasible to begin a BID establishment process until an organisation is capable of taking on the responsibilities of a BID.

9. Under these conditions, Whangaparaoa businesses need to begin collaborating to address issues such as competition, promotion, access, and parking.

10. With assistance from Coast Youth Community Trust, community leaders recently came together to form “Whangaparaoa 2030”, an informal, community-driven effort to bring businesses and communities together to begin a discussion of the future of Whangaparaoa and promote regular dialogue between communities, potentially leading to a shared vision.

11. In February and March 2016 Whangaparaoa 2030 is undertaking an informal public process – a “road show” of five public events – to discuss the history of the area, the plusses and minuses of living and doing business there, and to gather the views of the community.

12. To support efforts at organising a formal business association that may result from this process, up-to-date data on business mix, employment, competitive position, and attitudes would provide a solid evidence base for future, more formal, initiatives.

13. A survey will provide insights into the current business climate, identify priority issues and possible approaches for addressing them, and assess the level of interest in forming a collaborative business association.

14. The survey will include all identifiable businesses in the Whangaparaoa area, from Red Beach to Gulf Harbour.

15. Surveying is scheduled to take place in March and April with a final report due in May.

16. In order to proceed, council wishes to retain professional services to conduct the survey. The cost estimate is $23,000, Budget line “Local Planning and Development – BIDs for Silverdale and Whangaparaoa.”

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

17. The local board has unallocated funds in Budget line “Local Planning and Development – BIDs for Silverdale and Whangaparaoa” which could be used for this survey.

18. At their meeting of 17 August 2014, Hibiscus and Bays Local Board provided $25,000 funding for a similar survey to better understand the needs and views of Silverdale area businesses. (Resolution Number HB/2015/185)

Māori impact statement

19. Maori businesses will be impacted as property owners and businesses by this survey to the same effect as other survey participants.

Implementation

20. The council Business Improvement District Programme team will manage a contract to undertake the survey. The survey will be conducted through several methods to maximize responses: face-to-face with business people, paper copy by post, on-line, and through email.

21. Whangaparaoa 2030 will help to disseminate the findings of the survey throughout the business community as part of their outreach programmes.

22. A report will be prepared that summarises all the findings of the survey, including individuals’ comments and statistical analysis.

23. Council staff and the survey firm will report to the local board at a regular meeting once the findings are final. After that, the survey report will be available to the public.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Steven Branca - BID Partnership Advisor

Authorisers

Gillian Plume - Team Leader BID Partnership

Alastair Cameron - Principal Advisor CCO Governance and External Partnerships

Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

16 March 2016

Feedback on the Draft Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Plan

File No.: CP2016/02523

Purpose

1. To seek local board feedback on the draft Civil Defence and Emergency Management (CDEM) Group Plan 2016 -2021, noting that the draft CDEM Group Plan advocates for each local board to develop local emergency management plans.

Executive Summary

2. Auckland Council is required under the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Act (2002) to develop and review the direction for civil defence and emergency activities within Auckland through a five yearly review of the Civil Defence and Emergency Management (CDEM) Group Plan (the Group Plan). The current CDEM Group Plan for Auckland is due to expire in June 2016.

3. A draft Group Plan 2016-2021 has been developed for consultation (a copy is appended as Attachment A). The draft Group Plan is primarily centred on community empowerment and resilience across all environments (social, economic, environmental and infrastructure).

4. This report asks the local board to provide feedback on the draft Group Plan, with particular reference to the proposal for local boards to champion development of local emergency management plans, and the role of elected members in a civil defence emergency.

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) Provides feedback on the draft Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Plan 2016-2021, with particular reference to local priorities for emergency management.

Comments

5. The Auckland CDEM Group is a statutory committee of Auckland Council as required under section 12 of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act (2002). The CDEM Group has overall responsibility for the provision of CDEM within Auckland. It comprises five elected members of the Auckland Council and a number of co-opted observers from CDEM agencies invited by the committee to attend.

6. The CDEM Group has delegated authority to develop, approve, implement, and monitor the CDEM Group Plan. The purpose of the Group Plan is to enable the effective, efficient and coordinated delivery of CDEM across Auckland while building a resilient Auckland with our communities. All CDEM groups are required every five years to consult on the development of group plans under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act (2002). The current Group Plan for Auckland expires at the end of 2016.

7. The draft Group Plan has been developed as a framework for action which will form the basis for more detailed business planning and development of civil defence and emergency management work programmes. The key framework areas for consultation are:

· Knowledge through education

· Volunteer participation

· Emergency Management planning

· Business and organisational resilience

· Strong partnerships

· Response capability and capacity

· Information and communications technologies

· Build Back better

· A safe city

· Research

· Building resilient communities

8. Local boards are well placed to help with leadership, championing resilience and local engagement in their respective communities. The draft Group Plan proposes that this role be formalised through the development of local CDEM plans. It is anticipated that the development of local CDEM plans will provide further opportunity for local boards to determine their role in a civil defence emergency.

9. Actions described in further detail on page 37 of the attached draft Group Plan respond to feedback received from local board workshops that local boards wanted a more formalised, simple mechanism to support their communities in planning and responding to emergencies.

10. Public consultation timelines on the draft Group Plan is from 15 February to 18 April 2016 with significant consultation as part of the Have Your Say annual plan events. The final Group Plan is due to be formally adopted by the CDEM Committee in August 2016.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

11. Local board portfolio holders have been briefed on issues relevant to the draft Group Plan and, on their recommendation, workshops were held with 20 of the local boards in October 2015. The results of these workshops helped formulate relevant sections of the draft Group Plan.

12. Local board views on the draft Group Plan are being sought in this report. Subject to consultation, the draft Group Plan indicates a wider role for local boards in emergency management.

Māori impact statement

13. Māori will have the opportunity to submit on the draft Group Plan during the statutory consultation phase.

14. In addition, the CDEM department are developing a Māori Responsiveness Plan to support a more proactive approach to engaging iwi and mataawaka in emergency management planning.

Implementation

15. The draft Group Plan is to be adopted by the CDEM Committee in August 2016. The Group Plan is also provided to the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management for review. The flow chart appended as Attachment B to this report provides further information on the process for developing and implementing the draft Group Plan.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Draft Auckland Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Plan 2016-2021	185
b View	Process for developing the draft Group Plan	249

Signatories

Authors

Janice Miller - Manager Logistics

Authorisers

John Dragicevich - Director Civil Defence and Emergency Management

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

16 March 2016

Local government elections - order of names on voting documents

File No.: CP2016/03703

Purpose

1. To provide feedback to the governing body on how names should be arranged on the voting documents for the Auckland Council 2016 election.

Executive Summary

2. The Local Electoral Regulations 2001 provide a local authority the opportunity to decide by resolution whether the names on voting documents are arranged in:

· alphabetical order of surname;

· pseudo-random order; or

· random order.

3. Pseudo-random order means an arrangement whereby names are listed in a random order and the same random order is used on every voting document.

4. Random order means an arrangement whereby names are listed in a random order and a different random order is used on every voting document.

5. In 2013 the council resolved for names to be arranged in alphabetical order of surname. A key consideration was the extra cost of using one of the random order options. The electoral officer has advised that it is now possible to use a true random arrangement with minimal additional cost.

6. Staff recommend that the current approach of alphabetical printing is retained for the 2016 council elections, as the benefits to the voter outweigh any perception of a name order bias problem that analysis of the 2013 results show does not exist.

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) recommends to the governing body that candidate names on voting documents should be arranged in alphabetical order of surname

Comments

Background

7. Clause 31 of The Local Electoral Regulations 2001:

(1) The names under which each candidate is seeking election may be arranged on the voting document in alphabetical order of surname, pseudo-random order, or random order.

(2) Before the electoral officer gives further public notice under section 65(1) of the Act, a local authority may determine, by a resolution, which order, as set out in subclause (1), the candidates' names are to be arranged on the voting document.

(3) If there is no applicable resolution, the candidates' names must be arranged in alphabetical order of surname.

(4) If a local authority has determined that pseudo-random order is to be used, the electoral officer must state, in the notice given under section 65(1) of the Act, the date, time, and place at which the order of the candidates' names will be arranged and any person is entitled to attend.

(5) In this regulation,—

pseudo-random order means an arrangement where—

(a) the order of the names of the candidates is determined randomly; and

(b) all voting documents use that order

random order means an arrangement where the order of the names of the candidates is determined randomly or nearly randomly for each voting document by, for example, the process used to print each voting document.

2013 elections

8. In 2013 the council resolved to use the alphabetical order. A key consideration was that there would be an additional cost of $100,000 if council chose the random order. The electoral officer has advised that due to changes in printing technology, it is now possible to use the random order with minimal additional cost.

9. All the metropolitan councils apart from Auckland Council used random order printing for their 2013 local authority elections.

10. Of the District Health Boards that were elected in conjunction with the 2013 council elections, the Counties Manukau District Health Board chose the random order. Auckland and Waitemata District Health Boards chose alphabetical.

11. Of the Licensing Trusts that were elected in conjunction with the 2013 council elections, all chose alphabetical except for the Wiri Licensing Trust which chose pseudo-random order.

Options for 2016

Pseudo-random order and random order printing

12. The advantage of random order printing is it removes the perception of name order bias, but the pseudo-random order of names simply substitutes a different order for an alphabetical order. Any perceived first-name bias will transfer to the name at the top of the pseudo randomised list. The only effective alternative to alphabetical order is random order.

13. A disadvantage to both the random printing options is it may be confusing for the voter as it is not possible for the supporting documents such as the directory of candidate profile statements to follow the order of a random voting paper.

Alphabetical order

14. The advantage of the alphabetical order printing is that it is familiar; easier to use and to understand. When there are a large number of candidates competing for a position it is easier for a voter to find the candidate the voter wishes to support if names are listed alphabetically.

15. It is also easier for a voter if the order of names on the voting documents follows the order of names in the directory of candidate profile statements accompanying the voting document. The directory is listed in alphabetical order. It is not possible to print it in such a way that each copy aligns with the random order of names on the accompanying voting documents.

16. The disadvantage of alphabetical printing is that there is some documented evidence, mainly from overseas, of voter bias to those at the top of a voting list.

17. An analysis of the council’s 2013 election results is contained in Attachment A. It shows that any bias to those at the top of the voting lists is very small. The analysis looked at:

· impact on vote share. (Did the candidate at the top of the list receive more votes than

· impact on election outcome (did being at the top of list result in the candidate being elected more often than might be expected?).

18. The analysis showed that, for local boards, being listed first increased a candidate’s vote share by approximately 1 percentage point above that which would be expected statistically if voting was random. There was no detectable impact of being listed first on the share of votes received in ward elections.

19. Therefore for the 2013 council election results, there was no detectable impact of being listed first on whether a candidate was elected or not. In fact there were slightly fewer candidates at the top of lists elected to positions (29) than might be expected statistically if voting was random (31). Similarly, there was no meaningful impact of having a surname earlier in the alphabet on election outcomes.

20. Given there is no compelling evidence of first name bias for the council’s own 2013 results, staff recommend that the current approach of alphabetical printing is retained for the 2016 council elections, as the noted benefits to the voter outweigh any perception of a name order bias problem that analysis of the 2013 results show does not exist.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

21. Feedback from local boards will be reported to the governing body when the governing body is asked to determine the matter by resolution.

Maori impact statement

22. The order of names on voting documents does not specifically impact on the Māori community. It is noted that candidates are able to provide their profile statements both in English and Māori.

Implementation

23. There are no implementation issues as a result of this report.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Order of candidate names on voting documents	255

Signatories

Authors

Warwick McNaughton - Principal Advisor - Democracy Services

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - Manager Democracy Services

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Hibiscus and Bays Local Board

16 March 2016

Local Government New Zealand Conference and AGM 2016

File No.: CP2016/03935

Purpose

1. To inform local boards about the Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) Annual General Meeting (AGM) and conference in Dunedin from Sunday 24 July 2016 to Tuesday 26 July 2016 and to invite local boards to nominate a representative to attend as relevant.

Executive Summary

2. The Local Government New Zealand annual conference and AGM takes place at The Dunedin Centre from Sunday 24 to Tuesday 26 July 2016.

3. The AGM takes place on the first day of the conference. Auckland Council is entitled to four official delegates at the AGM, one of whom is the presiding (or voting) delegate. The Governing Body will consider this at their meeting on 31 March 2016. The four official delegates are likely to be the Mayor as a member of the LGNZ National Council (or his nominee), the Deputy Mayor as the Mayor’s alternate for this position, Cr Webster as Chair LGNZ Zone One and a member of LGNZ National Council, and the Chief Executive.

4. In addition to the official delegates, local board members are invited to attend. Local boards should consider the relevance of the conference programme when deciding on attendance, with the expectation that no board will approve more than one member to attend the conference.

Recommendation/s

That the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board:

a) nominates a representative to attend the Local Government New Zealand 2016 Annual General Meeting and Conference from Sunday 24 July 2016 to Tuesday 26 July 2016 on the basis that the conference programme is relevant to the local board’s work programme

b) confirms that conference attendance including travel and accommodation will be paid for in accordance with the current Auckland Council Elected Member Expense Policy.

Comments

5. The 2016 LGNZ Conference and AGM are being held in Dunedin. The conference commences with the AGM at 1pm on Sunday 24 July 2016 and concludes at 12.45 pm on Tuesday 26 July 2016.

6. The theme of this year’s conference is “Creating places where people love to live, work and play”. The programme includes:

• Greg Doone, Director at PwC will provide a future vision on New Zealand's communities, taking a look at demographic, social, technological, economic and environmental trends.

• Troy Pickard, President of the Australian Local Government Association and Mayor of Joondalup, Perth will cover a broad perspective on key global issues for future generations in Australia and beyond.

• Vaughan Payne, CEO, Waikato Regional Council; Brian Hanna, Mayor, Waitomo District Council; Damon Odey, Mayor, Timaru District Council; Dame Margaret Bazley, Commissioner, Environment Canterbury and Jim Palmer, Chair of the Canterbury Chief Executives Forum will describe their stories of collaboration and how their approaches are aiding "place-making" for their regions and providing a platform for regional economic development.

• Jason Krupp, Research Fellow, The New Zealand Initiative will focus on the example of Manchester City Council and how it combined with its neighbouring authorities to strengthen its leadership, governance and capacity to partner with central government. This session will involve video interviews with leaders of Manchester City Council.

• Peter Kageyama, an Author and international thought leader will offer a fresh and innovative perspective around what engagement is going to look like in the future and how we can better engage with our communities, and tell our stories to build a sense of place.

• Andrew Little, Leader of the Opposition Leader of the Opposition, will discuss the importance of regional New Zealand and local government to the wider economy, and the challenges we will face as the future of work changes.

• Lawrence Yule, President of LGNZ and Jonathan Salter, Partner at Simpson Grierson will provide a fresh approach on resource management

• Lieutenant General Tim Keating, Chief of Defence Force will offer a personal perspective of what he believes makes for a successful leader.

• Jeb Brugmann, Founder of ICLEI, Local Governments for Sustainability and Managing Partner of The Next Practice will take an over-arching look at resilience and how we can build strong towns, cities and regions of the future.

• Sir Mark Solomon, Kaiwhakahaere of Ngai Tahu will discuss the value achieved when councils build strong local partnerships within their towns, cities and regions. In particular, Sir Mark will discuss his view on the significance of relationships between iwi and local government.

7. The programme also includes six Master Class sessions:

• Customer-centric services and innovative engagement - how community leaders can be intentional about creating a more emotionally engaging place

• Special economic zones – what are they and can they help regional New Zealand?

• Collaborative processes and decision-making

• Resilient towns, cities and regions – creating places for the future

• Risk management and infrastructure.

8. Local boards should consider the relevance of the programme when deciding on conference attendance, with the expectation that no local board will approve more than one member to attend the conference.

Annual General Meeting

9. The AGM takes place on the first day of the conference. Auckland Council is entitled to have four delegates to the AGM, one of whom is the presiding (or voting) delegate. The four official delegates are likely to be the Mayor (or his nominee), the Deputy Mayor, Councillor Penny Webster (as Chair of Zone 1) and the Chief Executive (or his nominee).

10. The Mayor is a member of the LGNZ National Council, the Deputy Mayor is the Mayor’s alternate for this position, Cr Webster is the Chair of LGNZ Zone One and a member of LGNZ National Council. The Governing Body will consider an item on AGM attendance at their meeting on 31 March 2016.

11. LGNZ request that local board members who wish to attend the AGM, register their intention prior to the AGM.

Costs

12. The Local Board Services Department budget will cover the costs of one member per local board to attend the conference.

13. Registration fees are $1410.00 incl GST before 1 June 2016 and $1510.00 incl GST after that. Full conference registration includes:

· Attendance at conference business sessions (Sunday-Tuesday)

· Satchel and contents

· Daily catering

· Simpson Grierson welcome cocktail function

· Fulton Hogan conference dinner and EXCELLENCE Awards function

· Closing lunch and refreshments.

14. The council hosted tours on Sunday 24 July 2016 are not included in the conference price. Local board members are welcome to attend these at their own cost.

15. Additional costs are approximately $155 per night accommodation, plus travel. Local Board Services will be co-ordinating and booking all registrations and accommodation and investigating cost effective travel.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

16. This is a report to the 21 local boards.

Māori impact statement

17. The Local Government NZ conference will better inform local boards and thereby support their decision making for their communities including Maori.

Implementation

18. There are no implementation issues associated with the recommendations in this report.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Conference programme	267

Signatories

Authors

Polly Kenrick - Business Process Manager

Authorisers

Anna Bray - Policy and Planning Manager - Local Boards

Karen Lyons - Manager Local Board Services

Chairperson	Julia Parfitt, JP
Deputy Chairperson	Greg Sayers
Members	David Cooper
	Janet Fitzgerald, JP
	Gaye Harding-Kirikiri
	Gary Holmes
	Lovisa Rasmussen
	Lisa Whyte

Authors	Vivienne Sullivan - Local Board Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Lesley Jenkins - Relationship Manager